Bigthink - Category Features and Ideas Feed

Re: Re: What is the best way forward in Iraq?

Bigthink — Wed, 07 May 2008 03:01:08 +0100

: Chomsky's assumption that both Israelis and Palestinians are human and, therefore, deserving of human rights has inspired my work for decades, as has his unwavering support for the underdog.

Where do the interests of the U.S. and Israel converge?

Bigthink — Tue, 06 May 2008 13:52:18 +0100

: The partnership between the two nations is both a historic and critical one in the region. What are the foundations for the alliance?

FEATURE: The Israel Lobby

Bigthink — Tue, 06 May 2008 03:49:00 +0100

Stephen Walt and Nicholas Lemann square off.

Does Israel have a right to exist?

Bigthink — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:31:47 +0100

: Introducing our Israeli-Palestinian themed week, we thought we would jump to the heart of the issue at hand. Does Israel have a right to exist?

Re: Does NAFTA work?

Bigthink — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:33:19 +0100

: Senator Mitchell was the Majority Leader when it was passed.

Re: What's to be done about Iran?

Bigthink — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:25:42 +0100

: Quite simple. Learn from Jimmy Carter and ENGAGE.

Why Cuba?

Bigthink — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 05:21:53 +0100

: I think the U.S kind of has it the other way around, Cuba really does not need to be a democracy their doing perfectly fine with communism. I really think Iran and Iraq are the countries that are in need for democracy not Cuba. Look at us we are doing so badly in our real estate markets and their not going to recover. I think the U.S should leave Cuba alone its redicullus with this "Oh we are going to try to make Cuba a democracy." What about Iran or Iraq? Leave Cuba alone they are not harming us are they? Im not Cuban but I do support Communism. Thats why I think the U.S should leave them alone.

gone to the dogs, balance need

Bigthink — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:50:09 +0100

: after watching pets, not only dogs, cats and birds being produced in factory environment, is change possible. do we show our lack of compassion/understanding. our treatment of the defenceless could be extended to our understanding of international actions. are we bully's! pets starve, people starve. busy promoting democracy, while starvation in pens(countries) abound. would starting with controlling rampant pet production wake up a balanced view of need.

Democracy and human rights, which comes first?

Bigthink — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 20:00:55 +0100

: American foreign policy seems to be very much geared towards promoting democracies through elections. But experience shows that this can backfire, ie Gaza Strip, where Hamas rightfully can claim to have been elected by democratic election. Hitler also has risen to power through democratic election. Isn't it more important to focus first on human rights and institutions that promote and guarantees those rights before calling for democratic elections? For me democracy is a formal process to decide who will get the power. It doesn't say anything about the way in which this power will be used.

Will an 'October Surprise" like a US attack on Iran ensure McCain's election?

Bigthink — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:30:03 +0100

: Given Americans' lack of critical thinking in supporting an illegal war of aggression that successfully tricked citizens into re-electing Bush Jr. on 2004, do readers here think that a sneak attack on Iran in September or October will trickAmericans into electing McCain?

How to really tackle world peace

Bigthink — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:28:54 +0100

: The only way to create a peaceful world is for nations globally to interact with eachother and work together. there are many ways of doing this. for example events such as the olympics promote a good atmosphere that enhances relations. to achieve world peace though we must go alot further. the sort of thing that is necissary is a remake of the league of nations. i believe it would stand alot better chance of success today than it did after a major world war as doubts would not be so high and people are not so hostile against eachother. it is becoming increasingly accepted that people are all equal, and although i am not naive enough to believe this is the case all over the world, i believe that now would be as good a time as any in the near future to try as things are beginning to settle down in the middle east (although they are obviously not resolved). we also need the new league to have better organisation than it did the last time round with only a majority vote of say more than 75% needed to take an action instead of everyone needing to vote the same way. also i believe relations are now strong enough in europe and america that the league would have enough backing to succeed, (unlike last time).

From Oslo to Annapolis, a path without peace

Bigthink — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:20:15 +0100

: According to Shlomo Ben-Ami’s confession (debating Norman Finkelstein on Democracy Now!) Israel got moving without delay against the spirit of Oslo - I’d say also the letter (e.g. art. I of the Declaration: “It is understood that the interim arrangements are an integral part of the whole peace process and that the negotiations on the permanent status will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.” Art. IV: “The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, whose integrity will be preserved during the interim period.” Art. XXXI n. 7 of the Interim Agreement: “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”) What make us feel that the Annapolis show & Road Map enclosed (denied since its birth in 14 points by Israel), fifteen years after the Oslo Accords that were officially repudiated by Ariel Sharon and, practically, by everybody, should have a better chance?

Re: Are we going to see more coercive moves from Russia and Venezuela?

Bigthink — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:34:24 +0100

: There's a difference between coercion and trying to get a fair price, Bryce says.

Re: How have international trade agreements complicated the water issue?

Bigthink — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:16:02 +0100

Governments cede control of their water because of acts like NAFTA and the WTO, says Barlow.

Transcript:

Well, it is interesting…it is because of trade agreements that I got into this issue in the first place. Water was placed in NAFTA and actually the trade agreement that came before NAFTA, which is the first trade agreement, free trade agreement, in the world, the Canada-US free trade agreement signed in 1989 and then morphed into NAFTA, then that became the model for the WTO (The World Trade Organization) and water is in NAFTA and the WTO as a good and what that means is that once you start exporting your water for commercial purposes, you basically lose control of it. It is not your water anymore and you have to continue to export it and it is also in NAFTA as an investment. So, I will give you a very specific example and it is…as an investment where a corporation can sue the government of another NAFTA country if that country changes its rules. So, I will give you an example. In Northern Alberta there is something called the Tar Sands and the Tar Sands is a huge area, the size of New Brunswick. It is huge…maybe twice the size of Florida that has this sticky, thick, heavy oil in this thing called bitumen. It is like tar. Just think of tar and sand. To get at this and we are producing oil from this because we are running out of conventional oil all over North America and this is for export to the United States and Canada. To get at that oil, we have to use massive amounts of water and these corporations and they steamblast this bitumen and this heavy oil and then the oil warms up and comes to the surface and then they are able to take it off, but it is destroying the water table in Northern Alberta including the Athabasca watershed basin and the Peace River and so on. It is a really big issue there. People are now talking about oil or water. So, you can’t have both, but many of the corporations that are operating this are American. So, if the Alberta government were to say, well, we are going to say, we are going to restrict the amount of water you can use because you are destroying this water or you have to use gray water or you are just going to have to find ways to conserve or we are going to cut you off. Canadian companies operating there would have to abide by it. American corporations under NAFTA could sue for compensation, financial compensation because the government changed the rules of engagement. So, these corporations get huge rights under NAFTA and under the World Trade Organization agreements to basically constrain what governments can not just in water, but in many, many other areas. They also are trying to get at the World Trade Organization water included in the general agreement on trade and services, so that if a city like Atlanta is a good example, brought in privatization, brought in Suez the big water company from France, and then changes its mind because it turns out it is a mistake, if they had water as a service in the WTO, you wouldn't be able to do that. You just can't undo a privatization once it has happened. So, it really is…these trade agreements support private over public in all sorts of ways and they force governments to look to a private answer when a public answer might be preferable. So, between the World Bank and the World Trade Organization forcing privatization of water services, it is a real struggle for us, just to continue to fight for the basic right to water. Again, we are not saying people shouldn't pay for water after a certain level of use, but not to a transnational corporation when that water is just going to go to pay overseas investors and outrageous salaries of the CEOs. Any money we collect for water or water services, should go back to infrastructure building and so on. Here in the United States there are probably a trillion dollars worth of infrastructure building needed. People won't like to talk about waste water and sewage and stuff. Their eyes kind of glaze over and they think it is boring, but actually the system in the United States is very old. The pipes are leaky. They are rotting. They are allowing the discharge of really unsafe stuff into water ways and the Federal Government used to fund quite a bit for infrastructure funding in this country. It does not anymore. So, I am involved in the United States with Food And Water Watch. I am chair of the board and we are calling for a clean water trust fund at the Federal level, where we would, the Federal Government would have a trust fund built up over the years that could pay for this infrastructure repair as you don’t always to go cleaning up dirty water at the end; if you protect it at the source, you don’t have to spend nearly as much in the end. This could be a cost saving device as well.

Recorded On: 3/17/08

A Reply to Zbigniew Brzezinski and my Innovative Iraqi Strategy to Stay

Bigthink — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:00:04 +0100

A Reply to Zbigniew Brzezinski-How to End the War and My Innovative Iraqi Strategy

Reader wants to understand more, please read the March 30, 08 Washington Post. Page B 03 article.

In the Big Z’s article:

The points about the negative of the war is well noted by most of the Americans after five years of Iraqi war, if not this Administration. However Big Z ‘s resolution and retreat from Iraq is not best interest of America in the expense of several Trillions dollars and more than 4000 lifes (in the coming days!) of soldiers plus over 30000 to 40000 wounded vets.

My points is that there is best interest to stay:

1. A potion of our army can stay in Kurdistan the northern part of Iraq, the only place welcomes American army to stay in Iraq. In order to discourage the Shiite-domninated Iraqi government to depend too much on Iran and have American army to stop the violence erupts after a large potion US army to retreat back to US. OR, we can redeploy a portion of the Army now stay in Korea to Kurdistan and let all national- guarded Army come home. The history is different form the retreat of British colonial army, during that time British do not find a welcome place to stay in mid-east. We can now, and that is the Kurdistan. For the purpose to weaken the influence about Iran in the region, we need army to stay in Iraq!

2. We can tell the Iraqi Government, a potion of spending in Iraq may change to debt after we redeploy the army to Kurdistan.

3. To guarantee the future oil route to US AND OUR ALLIES like Japan and Korea, we need to stay in Iraq. This can prevent the Iran hijacks the Iraqi government’s oil route and threatens the interest of America and its allies.

4. To merit the sacrifice of the Soldiers, we need a more clever way to stay in Iraq, Kurdistan! And to close to monitor the Democracy to progress, we need to stay in Iraq!

Islamic Extremism. Fact or fiction?

Bigthink — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:12:46 +0100

Islamic extremism is being talked about quite regularly on the news and other media outlets. The idea of the United States pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan has led to proponents of the war saying that Islamic Extremism will take the fight to the United States within the country's borders. How real is that? Do you really think the war would be brought here if we don't stick it out and keep fighting? Would Islamic extremists quit their fighting and live with us in peace?

I have my opinion, but am curious to hear others.

Thanks,

Adam

Bystanders

Bigthink — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:47:54 +0100

: Iranian Foreign Minister remarked that 50 years ago the nazionalization of Iranian oil was termed by the UN Security Council as a threat to international peace and stability. While some say that the Pentagon and/or IAF is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran’s military infrastructure we sit and wait. The world is being cast into a hell of a situation in the Middle East and it’s very clear who is the victim and who the executioner. We are the bystanders. The ones who are going to say 'they lied, we didn't know.'

Religion-State Relations

Bigthink — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:07:32 +0100

: Speakers: Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law, Emory University Law School

Noah Feldman, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; Adjunct Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia University Law School

Presider: Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign Relations

Three experts discuss the interaction between religion and state around the world.

Intelligence Analysis: Continuity and Change

Bigthink — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:44:40 +0100

: Dr. Thomas Fingar discusses controversial national intelligence estimates on Iran and Iraq, changes in intelligence analysis, and new tools available to analysts.

Is a bipolar world better?

Bigthink — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:11:28 +0100

: Would a world with 2 major superpowers like the Cold War, between the US and USSR, be a stabilizing force in the world as opposed to American hegemony?