Rules In the Old West
Don't take your guns to town, boy.

"The legend was that the pig eaten for breakfast gave the heathen warriors shielding against the attack of any foe."-Otis Butterfly, "In the Garden of the Rit-See Poo"

It was true. Even though the Midwestern Poultry and Pork Grange subsidy did not agree to cover the entire Afghan region at first; release of over 200,000 grain fed pigs, parachuted from very high altitude overflighted cargo planes, went with the precision of clockwork.
A traditionally stringent Muslim prohibition against eating pork fell quickly with the first snowflakes of winter as hunger and dispair tore souls to seek Reality. It was a taste aquired with the use of oil products needed to fully digest the strictly wheat-based emergency food diet.

In retort, the lower Manhattan fashion industry was flooded with bad imitation Afghan turban hats. Rejection was unanimous; bringing to market demands for high-tech wireless Internet-integrated headset hats.
Folks used these to get connected and organized for the mutual reasons found common in their interaction. Reason then became purpose. Songs were written and sung of the New Coming of Humankind. A Unity of Region (AUR) inspired concentrations of culture that grew considerable clear and mutual understanding between diverse peoples planetwide.
New Cyber-Spatical Alliances (NCSA) grew into effective surveillance and security services.
Things became very quiet.
The quiet became deafening.
The deaf became quieting.

-Or-

My other web log.

Today's Thinkith

I will attempt to consider today point-to-point of my view as an American in the western United States. If I step on toes, so be it.

   1. It seems the key to success in the area is who and how we choose alliances. The Old Money (Shrub-et-al New World Order) seems to want to endeavor a UN-backed plan that may bring back the King of the Afghans. This seems reasonable enough, but the question regards the "further down the line" aspects of a favorable outcome. I can remember this being done to install the Shah of Iran.
   This is, however, a viable cover story for getting the whole of the many varied fighting parties into one manageable opposition. The stickler here is the Pakistani-Indian conflict in Kashmir, which blew up again earlier today.

   2. So far as thinking anew, this is smoke. It would be wise to cover your ass, when entering a conflict you know nothing about, with such bull-roar. I expect the sifting of information is a major consideration when everyone involved is venting their particular interests and none seem to jibe with one's own. Given an actual Plan, US has the capacity to dominate in just a very few days. Problem is, that Plan seems to have to pass muster with far too many elements.

   3. As I sit here writing this, I look out over the city to mountains that approach 11,000 foot peaks; the Sierra Nevada range. The Hindu Kush range is similar except for a lack of vegetation. War in such situations is difficult in the traditional sense, but only if combatants are interested in land logistics. If killing the enemy is the prime consideration, however, the side with the technological advantage will prevail. (Ever hear of "fly by wire" missiles? Or mote aircraft sensors?) Basing operations out of Russian-influenced Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan, and attacking Kabul from there effectively drives the enemy into Xinjung Uygur provinces of China over those same mountains -or- into Pakistan (where they came from).

   4. Winter will be murderous to the refugees without a major UN effort. This may take many forms, some not good. Segregation of men from their families seems unduly mean but may be necessary to prevent further terror cells from forming within humanitarian environments. A "work for food" program could provide rudimentary infrastructure to replace that which has been destroyed and give idle minds something other than war and revenge to think about.

   5. Backing Israel is now politically a losing proposition. The Kineset (?) government is far too unstable a form. Is there any way to insure that American involvement is acting to ends that are "appropriate" to both and the rest of the planet? No?
    The "cease fire," that sprung from September 11th, is already in shambles. The Palestinians are taking the worst of it, as usual, but remain the dumbest; therefore most tending toward terrorism tactics.
   This is an internal problem to the Israelis, not one that US should be involved in or directly supporting (via foreign aid or loans or whatever). Israel seems both insistant and able to handle this 'on their own.' So they should. By the way, I don't like the British either...and I am more English than any other. I could write an encyclopedia on the why of this whole subject...international BUTT-IN-isms suck. However, due to history and economic realities here, US will continue as always.

   6. The Palestinian-Israeli situation is key to the entire region. It is The Fuse from which Muslim radicals take righteousness. Remove the Western backing of Israel and "push will come to shove," the result being either a living peace or a horror of holocaust. Perhaps what is evolving now will give peace a better chance. Sharon does not seem to want to.

   7. Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca, has said now that they "will not allow any aircraft based on their soil to strike other Islamic states." Quote end quote. Huh? This is a frigging KINGDOM with all the money, and none of the sense, of a modern industrial nation. Ditto Kuwait, UAE, Jordan, etc, etc, etc. Although allowing some stability not seen where despots have been disposed (like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Ethopia), this is half step removed from communism as a totally useless governmental form. Forget the why of it and seek the how to transition.

-BUT-

"If we allow our commitment to American interests to blind us to the interests of the world community, then we will have done an injustice to ourselves and to the principles of America itself." - Deepak Chopra (see below also)

It is apparent now that The Shrub is finding a political necessity in a "not building nations" approach to the coming conflict. Wrong! Without a semi-permanent presence, the belligerents will not end their fighting, as is fact in the Balkans.

We know the history of the region. We should take it seriously; both in formulating long-term views of any action, or short-term "solution." This is critical both politically and militarily. For now, the only thing to do is to wait and see what shakes out of the situation. No demonstrations in opposition to what is being done will change it; until, at least, results are made apparent. All in all, I keep thinking that, "No doubt, the Whirled is unfolding as it should." That alone seems to insulate my emotions, if nothing else.

Finally, I am able to find some significant thought from Deepak Chopra, a person from that region of the planet that reflects a real overview of a Loving Reality in times like these. Not so for the Dalai Llama. Maybe I am looking on the wrong thread. It has occurred to me, however, that, if Oprah Winfrey were to marry Deepak Chopra, she would then be called Oprah Chopra.

Today's Thinkith
I will attempt to consider today point-to-point from my viewpoint as an American in the western United States.

   1. It seems the key to success in the area is who and how we choose alliances. The Old Money (Shrub-et-al New World Order) seems to want to endeavor a UN-backed plan that may bring back the King of the Afghans. This seems reasonable enough, but the question regards the "further down the line" aspects of a favorable outcome. I can remember this being done to install the Shah of Iran.
   This is, however, a viable cover story for getting the whole of the many varied fighting parties into one manageable opposition. The stickler here is the Pakistani-Indian conflict in Kashmir, which blew up again earlier today.

   2. So far as thinking anew, this is smoke. It would be wise to cover your ass, when entering a conflict you know nothing about, with such bull-roar. I expect the sifting of information is a major consideration when everyone involved is venting their particular interests and none seem to jibe with one's own. Given an actual Plan, US has the capacity to dominate in just a very few days. Problem is, that Plan seems to have to pass muster with far too many elements.

   3. As I sit here writing this, I look out over the city to mountains that approach 11,000 foot peaks?the Sierra Nevada range. The Hindu Kush range is similar except for a lack of vegetation. War in such situations is difficult in the traditional sense, but only if combatants are interested in land logistics. If killing the enemy is the prime consideration, however, the side with the technological advantage will prevail. (Ever hear of "fly by wire" missiles?) Basing operations out of Russian-influenced Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan, and attacking Kabul from there effectively drives the enemy into Xinjung Uygur provinces of China over those same mountains -or- into Pakistan (where they came from).

   4. Winter will be murderous to the refugees without a major UN effort. This may take many forms, not all that are good. Segregation of men from their families seems unduly mean but may be necessary to prevent further terror cells from forming within humanitarian environments. A "work for food" program could provide rudimentary infrastructure to replace that which has been destroyed and give idle minds something other than war and revenge to think about.

   5. Backing Israel is now politically a losing proposition. The Kineset (?) government is far too unstable a form. Is there any way to insure that American involvement is acting to ends that are "appropriate" to both and the rest of the planet? No?
    The "cease fire," that sprung from September 11th, is already in shambles. The Palestinians are taking the worst of it, as usual, but remain the dumbest; therefore most tending toward terrorism tactics.
   This is an internal problem to the Israelis, not one that US should be involved in or directly supporting (via foreign aid or loans or whatever). Israel seems both insistant and able to handle this 'on their own.' So they should. By the way, I don't like the British either...and I am more English than any other. I could write an encyclopedia on the why of this whole subject...international BUTT-IN-isms suck. However, due to history and economic realities here, US will continue as always.

   6. The Palestinian-Israeli situation is key to the entire region. It is The Fuse from which Muslim radicals take righteousness. Remove the Western backing of Israel and "push will come to shove," the result being either a living peace or a horror of holocaust. Perhaps what is evolving now will give peace a better chance. Sharon does not seem to want to.

   7. Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca, has said now that they "will not allow any aircraft based on their soil to strike other Islamic states." Quote end quote. Huh? This is a frigging KINGDOM with all the money, and none of the sense, of a modern industrial nation. Ditto Kuwait, UAE, Jordan, etc, etc, etc. Although allowing some stability not seen where despots have been disposed (like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Ethopia), this is half step removed from communism as a totally useless governmental form. Forget the why of it and seek the how to transition.

-BUT-

"If we allow our commitment to American interests to blind us to the interests of the world community, then we will have done an injustice to ourselves and to the principles of America itself." - Deepak Chopra (see below also)

It is apparent now that The Shrub is finding a political necessity in a "not building nations" approach to the coming conflict. Wrong! Without a semi-permanent presence, the belligerents will not end their fighting, as is fact in the Balkans.

We know the history of the region. We should take it seriously; both in formulating long-term views of any action, or short-term "solution." This is critical both politically and militarily. For now, the only thing to do is to wait and see what shakes out of the situation. No demonstrations in opposition to what is being done will change it; until, at least, results are made apparent. All in all, I keep thinking that, "No doubt, the Whirled is unfolding as it should." That alone seems to insulate my emotions, if nothing else.

Finally, I am able to find some significant thought from Deepak Chopra, a person from that region of the planet that reflects a real overview of a Loving Reality in times like these. Not so for the Dalai Llama. Maybe I am looking on the wrong thread. It has occurred to me, however, that, if Oprah Winfrey were to marry Deepak Chopra, she would then be called Oprah Chopra.

Please find and check out the "Lewis" link on my site about the author of that article.

 

Question: Is it possible to interject a positive element in a negative way? Or vice versa?

 

Be well.

Tim

http://www.geocities.com/nvtimkelly

I have made a search regarding the number of Muslims that may possibly take action against US. There are several citations claiming that one-fifth of the world's population of 6 billion plus, or approximately 1.2 billion human beings, are practicing the Muslim faith but no exact figures from any studies was found. Differentiating the enemy will be difficult, short-term or in the long run.

As the root reason for its existence continues today, and is the conversion of all others (not Muslim), theoretically all are potential threats, regardless of what appeals they present. It is clear that no digression from the tenants of the faith are tolerated; and, more significantly, no progressive arm is apparent or tolerated. The very argument that differentiates the terrorist cliques from the "true" Muslim is indistinguishable in my online reading. What follows is a brief summation:

Muhammad was born in 570AD or 571AD and died in 632AD at age 66 or 67. (The Muslim calendar is not the Gregorian and has only ten months). He was raised by relatives after the early loss of his parents. He was a successful trader and married well, allowing his study of fellow humankind to begin and develop. His message was one of revulsion in the moral and ethical situation around him. He challenged the status quo. Many of his contemporary followers were killed because of their espousal of his teachings. The entire Muslim history, from conception, is one of war; in ever-growing conquests for the conversion of infidels to Islam and repulsion of these conquests.

Election of the Khalifah (nee...Pope-like interpreter of the faith) is the primary differentiation between the two major sects of Shiites and Sunnites. There are many sects; each with Imams that dictate the law and its various interpretations. Similar to the variety of Protestant faiths in Christianity, each seems to have some autonomy. However, each also seems bound by traditions and law that formulate the many rules for individual conduct within the faith. This organizational structure is obscure and not mentioned in the many online sites visited.

In 1453AD, Ottomans conquered Constantinople and renamed it Istanbul. In 1922AD, the British defeated them. Jihad was ordained in 622AD, as was a treaty with the Jews, which are said to later have betrayed it. Muslims, it seems also, may hold a grudge. The Qur'an (Koran) use of "Jihad" is individual; the personal struggle to purify one's own nature, also used to describe an intellectual struggle with unbelievers, and is to indicate literal warfare. Since 1980, genocide against Muslims in Bosnia, Burma, Chechnya and Kashmir is claimed.

To Muslims, the name of Jesus Christ is The Prophet Isa. He is seen to have had miraculous powers but was NOT crucified. He was "taken up to Allah." But, "cruci- FICTION" is seen as "a playing card that causes the Christian missionary aggression and harassment enslaving the Muslim world."