“The government of the people, by the people, for the people, will not disappear from the earth.”
Unfortunately, these days those words and goals are yet to be implemented and probably never will be. There are too many interests involved in the establishment of such an ideal government. Too much ego, prejudice and conflicting economic, social and many other interests are involved in the basic ingredients to coalesce such a government. Perhaps it should be so in the name of democracy and freedom of choice; perhaps the people do not deserve such an ideal government.
The biggest problem is generating the desired balance between all those ideals and desires. The two extreme possibilities are a government with too much power and a weak and divided government that is unable to make crucial decisions. A government or organization with enough resources can do almost anything. Not only that, they can even publicly justify their actions in the name of preserving and protecting democracy. They will support your actions, which may be illegal, immoral or even criminal in the name of justice, for the people and the nation. Balancing between a completely open society where everything is transparent, visible and known to everyone and a closed society where certain actions and information are known to few is a very difficult task. “People don’t have to know everything” may be justified in certain cases. Surveys have already shown that people’s moods can be easily manipulated and changed direction over time, events and advertising.
Governments may, if they wish, eliminate certain groups or individuals who, in their opinion, are opposed and hostile to their policies. The elimination of a terrorist or a political opponent is as easy to achieve as it is easy to hide from the public. The death or disappearance of these people is explained in categories such as natural causes, accidents, mental hospitalization or death during emergency surgery.
All agencies, official and unofficial, such as the CIA, MI5/6, KGB and Mossad, were and will be doing “it” in the name of national security. The popular public reason may be: “To protect, preserve, or even enforce Democracy.” In certain cases, those actions may be truly justified; the problem is where to put the limit. Many people have disappeared around the world in the name of national security.
The national security reason for not disclosing certain information or imprisoning an unwanted subject is used too often by many countries and organizations.
Governments operate primarily at three levels. While level one is the clean, white level of activity, reserved for heads of state and highly exposed political figures, level two is the gray area. This is an area of unethical activity that stinks but is still legal. Killing, eliminating, removing and faking are all part of level three. Normally “we the people” are exposed at level one and occasionally at level two, but rarely at level three.
At level three, I can mention, for example, Gerald Bull, the Canadian engineer who developed the Babylon long-range artillery or “supergun” for the Iraqi government. Bull was assassinated in Brussels, Belgium, in March 1990.
It is very interesting to note the evolution of the language regarding the use of politically correct terminologies. Wordwashing is quite fascinating. Terms like “terrorists” or “freedom fighters”, “guerrillas”, “political assassinations” or “remove from power” depend on which side is being asked or talked about.
The United States is a superpower with a global presence and intervention. In general, they are a stabilizing factor. Many Americans don’t understand the importance of their support for certain countries, and at the same time, many supported countries simply hate their presence.
To better understand the above, try to imagine a world without US involvement. Suppose the US is not a superpower or has evolved from an empire to a regular republic primarily concerned with its internal affairs.
What would the world be like without US intervention?
Oil is one of the main energy resources of most modern countries. Oil was one of the main reasons for the wars and the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. It was not a territorial dispute; It was about oil. The Americans are one of the largest consumers of oil, so it is obvious why the United States was interested in helping Kuwait.
However, this is not the full picture. The participation of the United States in the whole world is not only for oil and monetary interests. Most people believe that there are other reasons. In the era of a globalized economy, world stability is essential and according to Chaos theory, even a small problem in the Middle East, for example, can cause a chain reaction that affects the US in many areas. Most people believe that US global intervention is also because they care. They care about establishing and maintaining democracies and allowing freedom for everyone everywhere possible. Obviously there are other reasons and interests; So what are they?
China is becoming a major player on the world stage. They are the second largest consumers of oil. The oil route to China is secured and cleared by the US Navy. China’s long-term goal could be to catch up with the US, and they can do that.
Without the US, Taiwan would cease to exist as a democracy and could be annexed by mainland China. Without the US, Japan would have to gain nuclear capabilities if it wanted to remain independent. They have had a continuous dispute with China since 1937, and the Chinese will never forget the Japanese invasion. The United States indirectly helped Iran by removing Saddam Hussein, who had been fighting Iran over a border dispute for eight years. Saddam Hussein was interested in making Iraq an influential power in the Persian Gulf region. He invaded Iran not only because of the long history of border disputes, but also to increase Iraq’s oil reserves. Europe wants and needs oil, but is not willing to pay the full price to get it. They hate the American presence and will not recognize that without the United States they would not get the oil they need.
Europe’s attitude towards Israel is extremely hypocritical. They have a short memory; however, what unites Europe against Israel or the Jews is anti-Semitism.
Since March 2003, when Recep Tayyip Erdogan became the Prime Minister of Turkey, his policy towards Israel has changed. Erdogan was unhappy with Israel’s reaction to Hezbollah’s kidnapping of soldiers in 2006; he was critical when Israel conducted the Gaza War; he asked to inspect Israel’s nuclear facilities under IAEA inspection; and has criticized Israel for its many defensive actions.
The tension between the countries has intensified after the flotilla attack on Gaza.
The question is what his motives are and if he has a hidden agenda that could explain his excessive attention to Israel. His reactions have won Turkey’s influence and sympathy among its Arab neighbors. In particular, he may have obtained certain advantages among his national political parties. His special collaborative attention and meetings with Syria and Iran should concern the West and particularly Israel.
The Kurdistan Workers’ Party or PKK, founded in 1978, is a Kurdish organization fighting against Turkey. Their goal is to establish an independent Kurdish state.
Germany claims that the Turkish military has used chemical weapons against members of the PKK.
Lebanon is a puppet country controlled by Syria and Iran. Hezbollah or “The Party of God” is a Shia Islamic organization involved in Lebanese politics, supported by Syria and Iran. In reality, they are viewed by most of the world as a terrorist organization.
Its forces are trained and organized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Its main objective is to eliminate the colonial entity in Lebanon and establish an Islamic regime.
To achieve that, the Iranians with their supporters are all united in their hatred of Israel and their desire to eliminate the Zionist entity from the region.
A top secret CIA document released in April 2004 lists possible suspects in the murder of Elie Hobeika, a former Lebanese forces commander.
Possible culprits include fellow Christians, other members of the Lebanese elite, Palestinians and Israelis.
According to a Western news agency, a previously unknown anti-Syrian group, “Lebanese for a free and independent Lebanon.” responsibility has been claimed. The claim may be associated with right-wing Maronite Christians, who bore a grudge against Hobeika because he betrayed the Lebanese forces and the Israelis by switching his allegiance to the Syrians in the mid-1980s. Hobeika was also active in Christian infighting during the war. Lebanon civil war.
Hobeika is despised by Palestinians because he allegedly led the massacre of an estimated 1,000 Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in 1992.
In 1983, an Israeli commission accused Hobeika of carrying out the massacre and held then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon indirectly responsible for the attack.
Many Lebanese are suspicious of Israeli involvement because Hobeika had said he would testify against Sharon if the Belgians proceeded with a trial charging Sharon with genocide and crimes against humanity for his role in Sabra and Shatilla.
A Belgian court will decide next month whether a judicial inquiry into Sharon’s role can proceed.
President Lahud claims that Hobeika was killed to prevent him from testifying, according to press reports, a sentiment shared by other government officials.
There is no direct evidence of Israeli involvement in the assassination, but highlighting an Israeli connection could help the Lebanese avoid the internal friction that would arise if a Lebanese group were blamed.
Anyone who thinks that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about territory is dead wrong.
The Israelis are willing to return certain territories and make peace in exchange for a piece of paper… Unfortunately, according to history, such signed agreements have a very short shelf life. In the volatile Middle East region, Israel will face many difficulties without the support of the United States. In the 1980s, Soviet military forces in Afghanistan faced a different kind of war than they had experienced in the past. The resistance forces fighting against them were the mujahideen.
The Makhtab Al-Khidamat (MAK) was founded by Osama Bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, which led to the establishment of Al-Qaeda in 1988. At the end of the Soviet occupation they wanted to extend and justify their operations, so they tried to include other causes Islamic. It is quite obvious that Al-Qaeda benefited from US funding and training given to the Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviet invasion.
There are many Al-Qaeda cells that are operational around the world. Without united cooperation, they will continue their terrorist operations, including their attempt to obtain nuclear-related weapons.
