Friday, Nov. 7, 2008: Sihanoukville, Cambodia

Well, here goes.

I am going to elaborate a little on this UN study. While the UN in New York was trying to assess what would be certain security needs and how to meet them, a UNA/USA Chapter in Lee/Çollier Counties in Florida came up with an outline of their own. It identified a certain number of so-called "rogue"states and what that state is likely to do vis-a-vis the use or traficking of WMD's. WMD's would be nuclear, chemical, biological or some combination of these elements weapons. We stated that China would be the dominating world power for the 1st Ten Year Cycle from 1994-2004. The 2nd Ten Year Cycle is from 2004-2014. We are now 4 years into the second cycle and China still remains the dominating world power. As far as I know, they have never specifically pledged to co-operate and be a team player on WMD Security matters; this is another of way of saying that the Gov't in Beijing cannot and is not responsible for things that may go on in other parts of China. All of these poisoning scares are an example of this. Other world powers, on the other hand, have pledged that they can have security guidelines that will ensure adequate protections against these rogue elements being able to function in their societies. The countries that agreed to co-operate were USA, Canada, All of Europe, Japan and now possibilly India. Most of the so-called Third World was seen as the breeding ground for exploitation and traffiking in these WMD materials. The "rogue"nations, then, were Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, I think we put down Peru, but Venezuella has filled in instead and, now Zimbabwe. This is really just a very broad outline of a kind of security matrix. China's was defined as a "non"co-operating" nation and no reasons other than what has been discussed as been put forward that I know of. Thus, now we are in the 2nd Ten Year Cycle, the extremely hazardous period. We decided to call the second Ten Year Cycle this way because of lack of sufficient co-operation in a number of places. of course, it goes without saying that Russia's current behavior might put it in a "problematic nation" position. While we considered that Russia was extremely responsible during the Cold War, that does not carry over into the current time.

Just some beginnings for now; these are my thoughts for today