I am a cigar smoker, for me there is something wonderful about having a good cigar with a friend while we solve all the world's problems. In today's U.S. there is a large group that wants to create a nanny state where our choices are dictated to us. This has led to not the loss of the evening cigar, but an increase in the consumption of premium cigars and cigar clubs. Even as adults, tell us that we can not do something we will then want to do it even more. Rant ended.
What is a good cigar, how do I enjoy one, and what is to much to pay for a cigar? These are just some of the questions that people have about cigars and I want to answer these questions and more, with the goal of bringing more people into the world of premium cigars.
First is that I only smoke premium cigars, these are hand rolled all natural tobacco. There are no additives in them and they do cost quite a bit more than what most people would think they would want to spend. A good cigar can be found for five to six dollars, but they can retail for more than $30 per cigar. For some hard to find cigars, they can go as high as $100 or more at auction. I can not afford these cigars, and like wine just because something is more expensive does not mean that it tastes best. Remember that one should smoke what he/she enjoys and not what someone tells you to.
I smoke different cigars and I am always on the look out for new cigars to enjoy. But there is always a staple cigar in my humidor that no matter what I can pull it out and know that I will enjoy it. For me that cigar is the Padron 1964 anniversary edition maduro. This cigar is expensive retailing for about $14 a cigar, so I do not smoke them too often.
The Padron 1964 maduro has a perfect draw and constant even burn. The cigar has chocolate and coffee tastes that intermingle with a natural sweetness that makes this smoke nirvana like when smoking one. If I am in just a bad mood, my wife gives me one of these cigars and makes me go smoke one. Cause when I am done I am always in a good mood afterwards.
Premium cigars are a wonderful past time that brings us together and creates lasting friendships. Please post what your favorite cigar is and why. I will be posting more cigar reviews in the future.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
War with Iran
In the news there has been a lot of speculation about whether U.S. and or Israel is going to launch an attack against Iran. Iran was supposedly pursuing nuclear weapons under the cover of increasing their nuclear power reactors. I agree with the book "Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." The authors argue that the Iraq war was wage because of a policy of Middle East transformation that would create a pro-western and pro-Israel states in the three largest anti-Israel countries: Syria, Iran and Iraq. Iraq was the first of these three countries to be attacked for a number of reasons. The next country that was going to be attacked was Iran. The rhetoric that is coming out of the Bush administration is what is left of this once grand plan of Middle East Transformation.
In 2003 war with Iran was part of the grand plan, what wasn't was the violent insurgency that was waged by the Iraqi citizens. This insurgency put an instant stop to all of the Bush administration's plans for regime change in Iran. As the war in Iraq continued without abatement, there has been no attack on Iran, but there has been an increase in the rhetoric from the administration against Iran. This rhetoric and some unilateral sanctions against Iran is all that the U.S. and will be able to do. I am saying now for all to see, the U.S. will not attack Iran.
I say this first because of the increase in the disapproval of the current war in Iraq,the loss of military equipment and the manpower stain that the U.S. army is feeling. The U.S. military can not wage war on another front. Especially with a country that has such a large well armed, trained and equipped conventional force. A force that can easily melt into the population and wage an insurgency against the invaders like the Iraqis have.
The U.S. does not have the credibility that it did after 9/11 or even on the eve of the Iraq war. The pro-war administration and the humiliating reversal of all the administration's evidence has led to a backlash in support for the U.S. and its interests. Without the support of the world body another war would only increase the hostility toward the U.S. and its policies. This can translate into a losses in trade, intelligence sharing, and policy support.
If the U.S. was to attack Iran oil would surge to new records. Any kind of fuel would see huge increases in prices, increases that neither the U.S. citizens can afford, nor the U.S. economy. The rise in global oil prices would lead to a massive recession in the global economy. Globalization has led to nation-states becoming so integrated with each other that a recession in one will lead to a change reaction that can be impossible to stop, especially if the cause is a recession in the world's largest economy. The Asian crisis is a good example of what can happen when economies become overheated and the markets try to correct themselves.
The rest of the world knows this, and are united against the U.S. and Israel and the policy of forced regime change. A policy that did not work in Iraq but seems to be held as a viable option for many of the current members in the administration.
With the release of part of the NIE to the public we all can see that the warnings coming from the Bush administration about Iran were made up and based on shaky evidence. The wording has changed a bit but still the administration wants to paint the Iranians as a dangerous nation-state that can threaten the U.S.. But really they have a right to be a little belligerent against the U.S. with 168,000 U.S soldiers next door to them and the constant saber rattling from the administration that they are next.
Let us not forget that in 2001 the previous Iranian government that was more pro-western had made requests for peace talks. The administration snub the requests and then in 2005 had to deal with the popularly elected anti-western Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who ran and won on a campaign of nationalistic rhetoric, that was fueled by the U.S.'s foreign policy that was and is seen as anti-Muslim. The U.S. is seen by many in the Middle East and Central Asia as an invader conjuring up memories of a not to distant past of colonial rule.
The nuclear power plants that are being build and technologies updated were originally given to Shah of Iran by the U.S. after the success of the CIA coupe. This was done under the Nixon administration and headed up by Donald Rumsfled and Dick Cheney. It is amazing how many of the supposed threats to this this country were started by these two men (Chemical weapons is Iraq were given to Saddam by these two men, and they brought Iraqi scientists to the U.S. and gave them training in the development of these weapons).
The threat from Iran is as made up as the threat from Iraq was. This time though the current administration does not have the ability to start any war with this sovereign nation. Instead of constant bickering with the Iranians we should be reaching out to them so that we can work together to stabilize Iraq and the region. A cessation of saber rattling will lead to a drop in oil prices that are being pushed up in the future's market because of the fears in a conflict with Iran. Because of the Ne0Con ideology that this administration has this will not happen because of their belief that one doe not talk to an enemy. Let us all hope that the time of the NeoCons has come to an end with this administration.
In 2003 war with Iran was part of the grand plan, what wasn't was the violent insurgency that was waged by the Iraqi citizens. This insurgency put an instant stop to all of the Bush administration's plans for regime change in Iran. As the war in Iraq continued without abatement, there has been no attack on Iran, but there has been an increase in the rhetoric from the administration against Iran. This rhetoric and some unilateral sanctions against Iran is all that the U.S. and will be able to do. I am saying now for all to see, the U.S. will not attack Iran.
I say this first because of the increase in the disapproval of the current war in Iraq,the loss of military equipment and the manpower stain that the U.S. army is feeling. The U.S. military can not wage war on another front. Especially with a country that has such a large well armed, trained and equipped conventional force. A force that can easily melt into the population and wage an insurgency against the invaders like the Iraqis have.
The U.S. does not have the credibility that it did after 9/11 or even on the eve of the Iraq war. The pro-war administration and the humiliating reversal of all the administration's evidence has led to a backlash in support for the U.S. and its interests. Without the support of the world body another war would only increase the hostility toward the U.S. and its policies. This can translate into a losses in trade, intelligence sharing, and policy support.
If the U.S. was to attack Iran oil would surge to new records. Any kind of fuel would see huge increases in prices, increases that neither the U.S. citizens can afford, nor the U.S. economy. The rise in global oil prices would lead to a massive recession in the global economy. Globalization has led to nation-states becoming so integrated with each other that a recession in one will lead to a change reaction that can be impossible to stop, especially if the cause is a recession in the world's largest economy. The Asian crisis is a good example of what can happen when economies become overheated and the markets try to correct themselves.
The rest of the world knows this, and are united against the U.S. and Israel and the policy of forced regime change. A policy that did not work in Iraq but seems to be held as a viable option for many of the current members in the administration.
With the release of part of the NIE to the public we all can see that the warnings coming from the Bush administration about Iran were made up and based on shaky evidence. The wording has changed a bit but still the administration wants to paint the Iranians as a dangerous nation-state that can threaten the U.S.. But really they have a right to be a little belligerent against the U.S. with 168,000 U.S soldiers next door to them and the constant saber rattling from the administration that they are next.
Let us not forget that in 2001 the previous Iranian government that was more pro-western had made requests for peace talks. The administration snub the requests and then in 2005 had to deal with the popularly elected anti-western Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who ran and won on a campaign of nationalistic rhetoric, that was fueled by the U.S.'s foreign policy that was and is seen as anti-Muslim. The U.S. is seen by many in the Middle East and Central Asia as an invader conjuring up memories of a not to distant past of colonial rule.
The nuclear power plants that are being build and technologies updated were originally given to Shah of Iran by the U.S. after the success of the CIA coupe. This was done under the Nixon administration and headed up by Donald Rumsfled and Dick Cheney. It is amazing how many of the supposed threats to this this country were started by these two men (Chemical weapons is Iraq were given to Saddam by these two men, and they brought Iraqi scientists to the U.S. and gave them training in the development of these weapons).
The threat from Iran is as made up as the threat from Iraq was. This time though the current administration does not have the ability to start any war with this sovereign nation. Instead of constant bickering with the Iranians we should be reaching out to them so that we can work together to stabilize Iraq and the region. A cessation of saber rattling will lead to a drop in oil prices that are being pushed up in the future's market because of the fears in a conflict with Iran. Because of the Ne0Con ideology that this administration has this will not happen because of their belief that one doe not talk to an enemy. Let us all hope that the time of the NeoCons has come to an end with this administration.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Counter Insurgency
The new tactics that are being used in Iraq by General Petraeus are said to be counter insurgency. Part of these new tactics is the "surge" that occurred in Baghdad, this summer and fall. The U.S. military added 30,000 troops to the total in Iraq making the total U.S. troop count about 168,000. What is counter insurgency, what is an insurgency, is it different from terrorism, and if so than can counter insurgency tactics defeat terrorism?
The first thing is to define what an insurgency is, what terrorism is, and what is guerrilla warfare. These terms are often used interchangeably by much of the media and many of our current leaders. Using the definitions that Bard E. O'Nell put forth in the introduction of the book "War of the Flea."
"Insurgency-or internal war-is now viewed as a general overarching concept that refers to a conflict between a government and an out group or opponent in which the latter uses both political resources and violence to change, reformulate, or uphold the legitimacy of one or more of four key aspects of politics. Those aspects are (1) the integrity of the borders and composition of the nation state, (2) the political system, (3) the authorities in power, and (4) the policies that determine who gets what in the society. "
Terrorism is "the threat or use of physical coercion against non-combatants to create fear in order to achieve political objectives."
Guerrilla warfare "consists of hit-and-run attacks against police and military and the physical infrastructure that supports them. Insurgents may opt for one or both forms of warfare and in some cases, might even choose to carry out conventional attacks with regular troop formations."
So according to these definitions then terrorism can be used by insurgents and than a well developed and executed counter insurgency plan can defeat both insurgents and terrorists. A well developed counter insurgency plan must be developed from the bottom up. With such a conflict as an insurgency there is great complexity. An insurgency is of the people and will reflect all aspects of that society, and in turn a counter insurgency plan must adapt to the society that gave birth to the insurgency.
As a strategy is created it must start from the bottom with small units working to create security, stability and simple markets. A community based approach. Working from the bottom, there needs to be observation at the aggregate level to see if their is any change. Positive change or negative change must be observed and explained, so that there is an understanding of what is occurring and why. A flexible policy is needed to adapt to changes and be able to handle multiple solutions at the same time.
Whatever strategy is developed it must include and enforce all human rights. These are not just the basic human rights, of life, liberty, and a quick fair trial. There must be a recognition of other human rights such as access to clean water, meeting basic nutrition levels, access to medical care and medicine. The people need to have their rights to credit, security, and a presumption of innocence, enforced.
All this is done with the goal of creating legitimacy for the state and removing legitimacy from the insurgents. The state must be recognized as the legitimate power. The new counter insurgency manual for the military, focuses on increasing legitimacy of the state as the solution to an insurgency. Without legitimacy the state will fall and be replaced by the insurgents. This occurs because the citizens give their support to the insurgents.
In an insurgency and subsequent counter insurgency the true power lies in the people and their support. For the current doctrine the solution is to use police and the military to create a secure environment and than let private forces develop in the security. As can be seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine the current focus is not working.
The people are the power, and the focus needs to be on them. Security is only one of the many rights that we as humans have, and a counter insurgent plan will focus primarily on human rights. This approach removes any legitimacy that the insurgents might have, or have gained. This path also entrenches into the state the protection of human rights and the state's representation of their citizens collective voice.
The U.S. military will not win in either Iraq or Afghanistan because of the security only approach that has been adopted. The U.S. and the current states that are in place in both countries are not seen as legitimate. This loss can not be regained.
The flow of oil from the area is so important to the U.S. and the global economy will be in the region for many more years, at the cost of tens of thousands more lives, both U.S. and the local nationals. Trillions will be spent on just waging the war, with more for the treatment of the wounded and long term care of the veterans.
Right now this war is finally starting to impact the citizens of the U.S. with decrease in the economy's output, high fuel costs and a weakened dollar. With rumors of the reinstatement of the draft, this war may effect the citizens in the next couple of years in a way not thought to be possible.
The first thing is to define what an insurgency is, what terrorism is, and what is guerrilla warfare. These terms are often used interchangeably by much of the media and many of our current leaders. Using the definitions that Bard E. O'Nell put forth in the introduction of the book "War of the Flea."
"Insurgency-or internal war-is now viewed as a general overarching concept that refers to a conflict between a government and an out group or opponent in which the latter uses both political resources and violence to change, reformulate, or uphold the legitimacy of one or more of four key aspects of politics. Those aspects are (1) the integrity of the borders and composition of the nation state, (2) the political system, (3) the authorities in power, and (4) the policies that determine who gets what in the society. "
Terrorism is "the threat or use of physical coercion against non-combatants to create fear in order to achieve political objectives."
Guerrilla warfare "consists of hit-and-run attacks against police and military and the physical infrastructure that supports them. Insurgents may opt for one or both forms of warfare and in some cases, might even choose to carry out conventional attacks with regular troop formations."
So according to these definitions then terrorism can be used by insurgents and than a well developed and executed counter insurgency plan can defeat both insurgents and terrorists. A well developed counter insurgency plan must be developed from the bottom up. With such a conflict as an insurgency there is great complexity. An insurgency is of the people and will reflect all aspects of that society, and in turn a counter insurgency plan must adapt to the society that gave birth to the insurgency.
As a strategy is created it must start from the bottom with small units working to create security, stability and simple markets. A community based approach. Working from the bottom, there needs to be observation at the aggregate level to see if their is any change. Positive change or negative change must be observed and explained, so that there is an understanding of what is occurring and why. A flexible policy is needed to adapt to changes and be able to handle multiple solutions at the same time.
Whatever strategy is developed it must include and enforce all human rights. These are not just the basic human rights, of life, liberty, and a quick fair trial. There must be a recognition of other human rights such as access to clean water, meeting basic nutrition levels, access to medical care and medicine. The people need to have their rights to credit, security, and a presumption of innocence, enforced.
All this is done with the goal of creating legitimacy for the state and removing legitimacy from the insurgents. The state must be recognized as the legitimate power. The new counter insurgency manual for the military, focuses on increasing legitimacy of the state as the solution to an insurgency. Without legitimacy the state will fall and be replaced by the insurgents. This occurs because the citizens give their support to the insurgents.
In an insurgency and subsequent counter insurgency the true power lies in the people and their support. For the current doctrine the solution is to use police and the military to create a secure environment and than let private forces develop in the security. As can be seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine the current focus is not working.
The people are the power, and the focus needs to be on them. Security is only one of the many rights that we as humans have, and a counter insurgent plan will focus primarily on human rights. This approach removes any legitimacy that the insurgents might have, or have gained. This path also entrenches into the state the protection of human rights and the state's representation of their citizens collective voice.
The U.S. military will not win in either Iraq or Afghanistan because of the security only approach that has been adopted. The U.S. and the current states that are in place in both countries are not seen as legitimate. This loss can not be regained.
The flow of oil from the area is so important to the U.S. and the global economy will be in the region for many more years, at the cost of tens of thousands more lives, both U.S. and the local nationals. Trillions will be spent on just waging the war, with more for the treatment of the wounded and long term care of the veterans.
Right now this war is finally starting to impact the citizens of the U.S. with decrease in the economy's output, high fuel costs and a weakened dollar. With rumors of the reinstatement of the draft, this war may effect the citizens in the next couple of years in a way not thought to be possible.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Starting
This is my first posting on a blog. My goals for this blog is to publish my analysis on a range of topics, to increase public thought and opinions. All are welcome to comment no matter what ideological stance. Hopefully there will be a wide range of readers who will come together to discuss our world and what is happening in it. I look forward to writing and reading this blog. Enjoy.
Erik.
Erik.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)