"In geo-politics, there are no real friends or enemies, only friendly enemies or hostile friends" - Unknown -
The very dynamic theory of politics not between people or peoples of a region, but of the regions themselves. They can be as relatively simple as the 50 States of the USA and the Federal Government of that same entity to the highly complicated, such as the oil-producing Gulf States or the former USSR's constituent countries. Geo-Political relationships can also range from the fully justified to what would appear to be morally repugnant, but the actions themselves are purely neutral; the results of the actions are what should be subject to judgement calls.
The very dynamic theory of politics not between people or peoples of a region, but of the regions themselves. They can be as relatively simple as the 50 States of the USA and the Federal Government of that same entity to the highly complicated, such as the oil-producing Gulf States or the former USSR's constituent countries. Geo-Political relationships can also range from the fully justified to what would appear to be morally repugnant, but the actions themselves are purely neutral; the results of the actions are what should be subject to judgement calls.
Geo-Politics is in a constant state of flux depending on a lot of factors, from who holds the power to who has the resources to support an action. Some noted examples:
The USA allying with the USSR in WW II ( Germany was at the time a far bigger menace. Needless to say, the USSR's ideology would be eternally at conflict with ours.)
The Cold War that followed WW II was classic Geo-Politics at its best. Due to MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) ideology, there was no safe way the US and USSR could directly confront each other. So came the period of Tinpot Dictators supported by both sides and at least two major proxy wars ( Korea & Vietnam). The support to these oft times vicious and repressive regimes was concerned with controlling as much of the world as possible versus tending to the individuals needs in those countries.
With the fall of the Shah and the ascendancy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran posed a serious threat to Gulf stability. Though at no time would Saddam have been considered a friend, his military could serve to defuse the potential Iranian flashpoint. As such he was aided in his war with Iran (1981-1988). The two countries laid waste to each other, leaving the rest of the gulf in relative peace.
One of the most important geo-political happening in the present day is once again the Gulf states. By no means should the Shiekhs' of theose countries be called our friends; Islamic Shari'a law is in conflict with much of what the US Republic holds dear, and there are factions within those countries that would like to see the USA destoyed. But as long as they are in power though, they represent a stable supplier of a needed world economic commodity (Oil). As long as this is a needed commodity, do not expect too much change from that region. Iran also is once more a potential flashpoint in the region, nuclear ambitions aside.
Israel is not necessarily our friend either, though at least society-wise Christianity sprang from Judaism and politics-wise a Parliament ( Knesset) is closer to our Congress then Shari'a law. Even though that is the case, Israel still has its own agenda ( A safe haven for those of Hebraic descent), and at times they do not always work in the best interest of the USA. They have been overly heavy-handed at times, even if they also have made attempts to settle the mater using detente.
A full discourse on this topic would take up one book if not several; this is perhaps a basic definition of the term to perhaps invoke more independent research from the reader.
The USA allying with the USSR in WW II ( Germany was at the time a far bigger menace. Needless to say, the USSR's ideology would be eternally at conflict with ours.)
The Cold War that followed WW II was classic Geo-Politics at its best. Due to MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) ideology, there was no safe way the US and USSR could directly confront each other. So came the period of Tinpot Dictators supported by both sides and at least two major proxy wars ( Korea & Vietnam). The support to these oft times vicious and repressive regimes was concerned with controlling as much of the world as possible versus tending to the individuals needs in those countries.
With the fall of the Shah and the ascendancy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran posed a serious threat to Gulf stability. Though at no time would Saddam have been considered a friend, his military could serve to defuse the potential Iranian flashpoint. As such he was aided in his war with Iran (1981-1988). The two countries laid waste to each other, leaving the rest of the gulf in relative peace.
One of the most important geo-political happening in the present day is once again the Gulf states. By no means should the Shiekhs' of theose countries be called our friends; Islamic Shari'a law is in conflict with much of what the US Republic holds dear, and there are factions within those countries that would like to see the USA destoyed. But as long as they are in power though, they represent a stable supplier of a needed world economic commodity (Oil). As long as this is a needed commodity, do not expect too much change from that region. Iran also is once more a potential flashpoint in the region, nuclear ambitions aside.
Israel is not necessarily our friend either, though at least society-wise Christianity sprang from Judaism and politics-wise a Parliament ( Knesset) is closer to our Congress then Shari'a law. Even though that is the case, Israel still has its own agenda ( A safe haven for those of Hebraic descent), and at times they do not always work in the best interest of the USA. They have been overly heavy-handed at times, even if they also have made attempts to settle the mater using detente.
A full discourse on this topic would take up one book if not several; this is perhaps a basic definition of the term to perhaps invoke more independent research from the reader.
by Ironbrand January 27, 2007
The fabled ( or maybe not so fabled) land where the Donkeys reign (Democrats) This is as scary a place as Liberaland for many of the same reasons. Where as Liberaland is the thought process, Donkistan is the theoretical place of its existence. The leaders of Donkistan are dedicated to voiding the Second Amendment and allowing government to grow until their idea of nirvana is reached: 110% Taxation
Another bill to restrict the rights of law abiding firearms possessors......this crap is straight out of Donkistan!
In Donkistan, the government must protect you from yourself because in their eyes, you are incapable of doing so.
In Donkistan, the government must protect you from yourself because in their eyes, you are incapable of doing so.
by Ironbrand August 09, 2006
Dipping The Wench - A pirate term for what the shipmates want to do after being stuck at sea for so long.
by Ironbrand June 25, 2006
An Omnicider is one who has the urge to kill all around them, indiscrimate to the havoc and ruin they cause. This is a fitting term for the Suicide Bombers that seem to be prevalent these days, since that is their ultimate goal: To effect an act of Omnicide
by Ironbrand April 18, 2006
Another fabled place much like Donkistan, but seeming to have more common sense. (Of course if you are silent while your opponent is not...) Residents of Elephstan are dedicated to the voiding of the First Amendment regarding the separation of CHurch and State and letting large businesses run amok without fear of recrimination. Eternally at odds with Donkistan.
Nice! Another bill to allow prayer in thr schools and to remove pollution restrictions on a large Chemical Company. Where in Elephstan to they think up this garbage?
by Ironbrand August 09, 2006
In the political realm, an aspect of a candidate that will cost them votes no matter how they spin the situation. This is factually based on the Election of 1960 where John F. Kennedys's religion cost him votes. A woman running for president would have such a factor attached.
John F. Kennedy was a practicing Catholic and the first such Catholic running for president. Due to this fact of his religion, it cost him votes in the election. A number of Nixon votes were for the most part Anti-Kennedy, not Pro-Nixon. Since that time, such an unavoidable factor against a candidate was referred to as a Kennedy Factor.
by Ironbrand January 21, 2007
by Ironbrand August 06, 2006