News Discussion

 THE UNITED NATIONS

How many people can name the Secretary General of the United Nations without looking it up?

That's the problem with it. The United Nations is based on the right idea. It is more successful than the League of Nations that came before it. But to most people it is a bland and faceless bureaucracy. The first image that comes to mind is the building. Image from Google Earth.

Most nations show respect for the United Nations but only when it's convenient. There are no real consequences for ignoring a United Nations Resolution.

How about a makeover for this global institution? What it really needs is some charisma. Remember Pope John Paul. The Catholic Church was a bureaucracy and relatively few people could name the Pope. But then John Paul became a global celebrity.

Why shouldn't the United Nations be cool, with it's Secretary General an A-list global celebrity? The world will want to follow the United Nations just because of how cool and charismatic it's leader is.

UNITED NATIONS SYMBOLISM

There is something that I wonder about the United Nations building. It was built at around the same time as the U.S. Dollar became the defacto global reserve currency, as we saw in the posting "The New World Order Of BRICS" August 2023. Notice that the building is just about exactly the same proportions and color as the U.S. Dollar.

I don't want to go as far as saying this was done on purpose but symbolism can be a powerful force and this could be a factor in promoting the U.S. Dollar.

THE STRATEGY AGAINST ISRAEL

Could it be that the attack by Hamas into Israel was just the preliminary? Why would proud warriors record and Livestream their slaughter of children and the elderly. Could it be to get Israel so angry that it can't think straight?

The Israeli Government is determined to send it's forces into Gaza, to destroy Hamas. Maybe that was the point. The battles that Israel has won have almost all been in the open field or the air. If Israel could be drawn into some nasty urban combat not only would it's forces be in less-familiar territory but many of it's technical advantages would be negated.

When the enemy is in close quarters air superiority is essentially useless because of the risk of killing one's own soldiers. A military with technical superiority should keep the battle in the open field. Destroying the buildings by airstrikes before sending ground forces in does not diminish their usefulness for cover at all. 

Behind every piece of concrete there might be a sniper. There will be mines and booby traps everywhere. Hamas could emerge from a tunnel anywhere and at any time.

Meanwhile world opinion is growing enraged against Israel. Gaza is essentially being sacrificed to destroy Israel and a vital part of the plan is to get Israel to send the best of it's forces into Gaza. Israeli forces would have the technical advantages in the open field so the strategy is to draw them into urban combat in hostile territory.

I don't think for a minute that Hamas planned all this by itself. Remember Stalingrad.

DRUGS IN WARS 

One aspect of modern warfare that does not get enough attention is drugs. Captagon is the drug that is most discussed today. There are drugs that can make warriors feel invincible, completely free of fear, and barbarically brutal. Taking these drugs also produces hyper-alertness and enables going a few days without food or sleep. The fiercest battle just seems like a game.