Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Either you are with us or against us

What is the new mission of the NATO? Who is the enemy now?

Zaki Laidi publish a French book “The World according to (President) Obama” in 8 chapters.  Among the chapter we have the following:

The heritage of Obama from the US tendencies in glorifying the market mechanism and concept of war.

The great return of realism in foreign policies and renouncement on “messianic democracy”

Exit of the ideology of September 11, 2001 and its impasse

Definitive exit from Iraq;

Leaving Afghanistan but not giving the image of fleeing this quagmire;

Without Europe?

The conclusion deals with the refusal of the US Administration of a multipolar organization and its preference for minilateralism.

This article on the North Atlantic Organization (NATO) was inspired by chapter 7 on how the US view the role of Europe in the near future in the world scene.

Two key concepts clarify the behavior of the NATO and how we may predict its evolving mission.  First, the US never felt the need to consult with any European State on any foreign activities and policies since before the WWI, and more so after WWII. Europe was to come to term that it is needed just for non-military services, supporting US decisions and activities outside its borders, based on the assumption that Europe will ultimately fall back in line with the general decisions of the US.  What is needed from the European States is coming to the rescue in matters of civil activities in invaded countries or countries planned to be preempted: Europe has more experience, knowledge, and presence since the colonial periods.

Second, Germany is never in the mood of considering Russia as an enemy.  Russia is the first trade partner to Germany since the 16th century, and more so after the fall of Berlin Wall.  Russia suffered great losses, militarily and economically, everytime it allied against Germany.  The same is true when Germany considered Russia an enemy.  After WWII, the German electorate failed any candidate who proclaimed to be allied or supporting militarily any war outside Germany borders.

After WWII in 1945, the US troops settled in Europe, mainly in Germany.  Europe was in terrible shape and the citizens suffered 5 more years of food shortage.  The US flow of investment (Marshal Plan) and money pouring in to maintaining the troops were very welcomed.  As in Japan, the US had no intention of vacating Europe:  The myth of the Soviet threat was disseminated, as if Russia, which lost over 20 million in the war and suffered more than all States combined, was in the mood of further expansion at the detriment of Europe.

The motto of Bush Jr “Either you are with us or against us” was not new, but Bush said it officially. For four decades, the US was behind all military coups in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, just to preempt any communist advances in the developing new States.

The NATO was created to “challenge” any foolishness emerging from Russia:  The US was not threatened, but fresh memories of the nasty war could be appreciated by the western European States to accepting the presence of US troops.  Things went fine till early 60’s.  The French president De Gaulle got pretty aghast with the heavy handed posturing of the US Administrations, especially after the Cuba crisis:   The US felt Europe irrelevant to share its decisions with its leaders.  De Gaulle decided to get out of NATO: France  started to manufacture its own military hardware (jet fighters and nuclear weapons…) and increased its trade and diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.

As the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the US was taken aback and a new mission for NATO was to be conceived in order for US troops to remain in Europe.  Coincidentally, the Balkan new emerging ethnics wanted independence or their own recognized State; was it coincidence?  I doubt it strongly.  The US didn’t meddle, even after tens of thousand were massacred in the former Yugoslav State.  The European States and European Union could not intervene militarily and for cause: The EU was expanding and military interventions would hamper further unification.  Finally, President Clinton decided to bomb Belgrade (Capital of Yugoslavia) as part of NATO:  the NATO found a new mission for stabilizing Europe of the violent emerging ethnic uprising.

Currently, Europe is stable but the US is trying hard to creating newer missions for the NATO.  Bush Jr. brought up the specter of Russia of Poutine because Russia didn’t join the US in invading Iraq.  Bush Jr. wanted to display ballistic missiles along the borders of Russia, just like that.  This plan was not convincing to the Europeans but Bush Jr could salvage some time to rethinking a more valid reason for NATO to stay.

For the time being, a new enemy was targeted: Iran.  The falsehood pieces of intelligence have been spread for a decade now:  Extremist Islamic Iran is about to produce an atomic bomb next week.  Iran is still importing nuclear fuel from Russia to start its nuclear energy plants.  Iran will continue to be ready to disclosing its atomic military capability, next week, until the US negotiate a satisfactory strategy with Iran! The NATO main purpose is targeting prospected Iranian nuclear missiles!

Currently, NATO discovered an urgent mission: Bombing Libya of Kadhafi, using drones, as it is doing in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  NATO is running out of excuses to remaining in Europe, as the US has no more excuses to staying in Japan.  China military and economic power is to be negotiated diplomatically, and NATO troops in Europe is too far away.

Note: The new trend for analyzing political trends of President of States is counting the frequency of key words in their official speeches.  This method may clarify the shift of emphasis in foreign policies between Bush Jr. and Barack Obama.

For example, Turkey occurred 25 times in Bush Jr.  official speeches, while reduced to 7 mentions in Obama’s.  Lebanon is no longer in Obama speeches and the words Palestine or Palestinians have increased drastically.  Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are still top on the list of frequencies.  India has increased dramatically in Obama speeches and Pakistan should increase fast after the assassination of Osama bin Laden.  Syria was not priority in Obama’s but should witness great increase very shortly.  Russia regressed to 9th place during Obama tenure.


Do you feel sexy after a satisfying bowel movement? (Jan. 31, 2010)

A friend asked me one of his frequently mindless questions: “How do you feel?”  I said “I am feeling shit sexy.”

My friend was appalled by my incomprehensible reply and said: “I was under the impression that you are totally broke to indulge in luxury costly lust.”

I like to invent new expressions and terminologies in English: I was not born and raised in an authentic English-speaking country.  I was saved from memorizing and regurgitating boring idioms: I am not up-to-date on the latest slang.  I have got to do with the classics; more so that I was never in linguistics, anthropology, or ethnology fields of study.

Usually, I say what I mean.

After my glamorous bowel movement I felt this sexy pain, a sensation that I had emptied a huge load and diffused pressures off my mind.

I had lunch and then had a long walk, and then I read and wrote.  After 3 hours of the bowel movement, I still felt this lovely pain in my bowel; I had siesta and still felt this sexy pain. Maybe it is a matter of aging, but when I recall tasks that I achieved during a day, a satisfying bowel movement takes the lead as the most memorable task.

How many of you, young and kicking, ever kept track of your memorable bowel movements? 

I guess you cannot recall:  They were part of your daily routine, like pissing.  Is it possible that as we age we revert to childish habits?  Like feeling this urge of passing around the potty to show everyone our achievement of the day?

I am pretty sure that if Barack Obama had a satisfying bowel movement before finding out that he was elected President, he could be honest if he claimed that the news were the best achievement of the day: People are forgetful.

But if Obama received the news of being the next President, and feeling scared shit of the haunting job ahead of him, followed by a normal extended bowel movement, and deep down his guts, he would know what was the greatest achievement of the day.

It was during one of these sensational feelings that Barack Obama was elected President.

You might heave a sigh of dejection but it is not just a coincidence: The odds are pretty high for strong correlation between anxiety and bowel movement activities. Yes, if you do the probability math you might realize that the odds are actually pretty high for coincidence of shitting sensations and catastrophic events close to home.

For example, I don’t like certified crazy Bush Junior, that President who never set foot on “foreign soils” before he was elected also “President”, though he enjoyed the same moments of sensation after it dawned on him that the Twin Towers attack is serious business.

I can confirm that Bush Jr. lucubration “Either you are with us or against us” was produced as he was engaging in a profuse bowel movement aggression.  As I can confirm that the odds were a certainty that Martin Luther King and Malcolm X would be assassinated.

What is this?

When I am ecstatic I cannot think; when I am morose I cannot think. I have to induce that I think when I am in a lukewarm temperament. Thus, “Not Thinking” and extreme mood zones are highly correlated.

In moderate mood swings, you might be thinking; when you are thinking you might also not be thinking much; either what you are thinking do not make sense or your thinking can be revolutionary verging to lunacy. This is a firm deductive result.

Just to tell you that physical exigency is a fundamental factor to your mental output. I sometimes wonder at critics psychoanalysis authors by their books.  If critics are honest then they should comprehend a book was mostly “excreted” during lukewarm mood periods; thus, psychoanalysis is not valid in these cases: the author should be observed in “a not thinking” instances.

Critics believe that authors basically lie down on comfortable coach, talk to themselves and record their babbling; critics get in the skin of a relaxed author who is figuring out how audiences have sworn the oath of confidentiality, as the expert mental shrinks.

I don’t usually go off on tangents but it feels good.

Note: You may read




June 2023

Blog Stats

  • 1,522,400 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 770 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: