Writings on History, Science, Reason and the Philosophy of Life. All of the writing is my own original work although I employ an online AI editor for grammatical purpose.
Please feel free to comment.
All gases have weight. Weight is the force of gravity acting on an object and is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by the strength of the gravitational field at the specific point in space.
If you created an imaginary open pathway (or vacuum tunnel) a gas on Earth would be pulled towards the center of the Earth and would travel as such. However such an open pathway only exists in theory. In reality there is material in the way of the gas that is usually more dense than the gas. The material exerts a normal force upwards which pushes the gas backward until it reaches a stable balanced position that we call floating.
We also call this force the buoyancy force and it counteracts the downward pull of the gases weight.
Less dense gases are pushed upward by the buoyancy force provided by the more dense gases below them. These lighter gases will eventually settle in an equilibrium position where the weight pulling down is equal to the buoyancy force pushing up.
Balloons filled with the light gas Helium demonstrate this phenomenon clearly by rising to a level in the atmosphere where the density of gas around then is more rarefied and therefore comparable with the density of the Helium gas itself.
Trump’s full Afghanistan withdrawal plan and indeed Biden’s theoretical plan are not available in the public domain. Security concerns necessitate the lack of full disclosure.
Having said that though if Biden’s plan was consistent with the actual events that occurred on the ground then his incompetence represents a new level of national emergency. Good grief…how many rakes can a man step on?
These plans will likely become available to historians later when the documents are declassified in the future. But right now its all a case of best guess.
Having said that the Doha Agreement signed by the United States and representatives of the Taliban in February 2020 can be looked at by accessing the link below. It is an agreement not a detailed plan. Read it yourself.
The agreement consists of four interrelated parts that require buy in from both parties. It also sets the stage for negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government. The Deal does stipulate that if the Taliban meet their requirements then the US will withdraw all troops by a date that corresponds to May 31st, 2021. The process of withdrawal was slated to begin in stages contingent on the Taliban meeting their obligations. This was always a big if.
In any case Biden broke with the Agreement by missing the May 31st, 2021 deadline. thereby nullifying the Agreement. The rest of the withdrawal plan subsequent to this date was his own doing.
By loss of the Suez Canal I am assuming you are referring to the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 in which case the crisis represents a point of decline for the Empire but not the definitive driver for the Empire’s demise. The latter predates the events of 1956. The granting of Independence to India in 1947 was likely the trendsetter in that respect or indeed World War Two before that.
What the crisis does signify though is the historical starting point where Great Britain’s political clout was clearly playing second fiddle to that of the United States. It was no longer the principal Western power globally.
To understand this distinction one has to look at the nature of the Suez Canal Crisis.
Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Canal on July 26th, 1956 in response to the American decision not to finance the building of Egypt’s Aswan High Dam. The Americans were concerned about Nasser’s close relationship with the USSR and other Warsaw Pact Allies.
At the time the Canal was jointly controlled by British and French holding companies. Diplomatic efforts to avert a crisis had been underway some time before the closing with the canal’s gateway, as a conduit for Petroleum transportation in particular framing the immediate necessity.
However when it became clear that Nasser was unlikely to compromise on his intent (although the Egyptian leader did offer financial compensation for the corporate entity that owned the canal) an alliance was created between Britain, France and Israel.
Why the Suez Canal matters Source: Daily News Egypt
Nasser had effectively declared war against Israel earlier on by his blockage of the Straits of Tiran at the moth of he gulf of Aqaba. He also had for some time spearheaded Egyptian commando raids into Israel proper.
U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles did offer an alternative to likely Anglo-French occupation that involved the establishment of a Suez Canal Users’ Association (SCUA) consisting of 18 countries that would be entrusted with the Administration of the Canal. This notion as well as other efforts at US mediation failed.
On the 19th of October, 1956 several months after the closing Israeli forces moved advanced on the canal in what became known as the Sinai Campaign. They drove back the Egyptians. The United Nations intervened demanding a ceasefire. British and French troops then occupied the canal (following landings at Port Said and Port Faud) on the 5th and 6th of November under the pretext of enforcing the UN ceasefire.
The Eisenhower Administration was angered by the Anglo-French action, in that it opened up the distinct possibility of Soviet intervention in the region. The Americans threatened both countries with economic repercussions and forced through a resolution in the UN demanding immediate withdrawal.
Suez Canal Crisis Map: source: Weapons and warfare
Washington turned the screws on its two allies and the British and French backed down. They did not have the economic clout to match the United States and the Americans knew it. Anthony Eden, the British Minister lost face as a result of the incident and resigned in January 1957.
Anthony Eden. British PM at the time of the Suez Canal Crisis. Source: history.com
From the British perspective it was clear that effective power had definitively crossed the Atlantic and resided now with the Americans. The US would go ahead and initiate the Eisenhower Doctrine which promised aid to any countries in the Middle East that were threatened by aggression. It has served as the basis for US foreign policy in the region ever since.
Source:
A Conflict Analysis of the Suez Canal Invasion of 1956 on JSTOR
William M. Wright, Michael C. Shupe, Niall M. Fraser, Keith W. Hipel, A Conflict Analysis of the Suez Canal Invasion of 1956, Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Fall 1980), pp. 27-40
The collapse of the old order, the aftershock of a war lost and the natural economic instability that defines a society in transition are breeding grounds for radicalisms. Their appeal is in offering simple fixes to seemingly insurmountable problems while speaking directly to the masses trapped in a chaotic milieu.
This is all heightened when the center collapses or proves weak and unimaginative in governing.
Weimar Germany was the perfect national incubator for this deadly cocktail just as Revolutionary France was in the turmoil following the demise of the Ancien Regime.
Russia c. 1917–1920 witnessed this phenomena as well as the various mutations on the Far Left and the Right wrestled for power. The Bolsheviks of course would ultimately prevail.
It was part of an international movement to put pressure on the Nationalist government in South Africa to rescind its support for institutionalized racial segregation. Tutu was a well known theologian, writer and speaker who was a strong critic of the government’s Apartheid policies.
He was an integral part of the Anti-Apartheid United Democratic Front (UDF) that was formed in 1983.
Tutu would later become the Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg (1985–1986) and the Archbishop of Cape Town (1986–1996). He had worldwide notoriety and was viewed in some quarters (although by no means all) as South Africa’s version of Martin Luther King Jr.
Ironically in the year that he won the prize there were two other South Africans nominated - the ANC’s Nelson Mandela and Inkatha leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi. Tutu was seen as the least controversial of the three
No. Created out of nothing implies a cause ie. the creator or a creation process. Uncaused refers to something that has always existed. It essentially transcends time or renders time meaningless. God itself in a theistic sense is uncaused for almost all belief systems.
The classic example in the 20th century was the Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945). Both the Chinese Nationalists and Communists battled the invading Japanese while fighting each other at the same time. Contrary to popular mythology the efficacy of the truce between the two Chinese groups was indeed greatly exaggerated.
Another example was the fighting between the two Palestinian terrorist groups Fatah and the PFLP. Both were at war with Israel while maintaining a state of belligerence toward one another.
Rival Islamist groups often fight each other while having a common enemy in the Great Satan that is the US. Personalities and questions around doctrinal purity often feature here.
Hanoi dominated Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia were also hostile to each other in the 1970s regardless of the fact that they were opposed to the United States.
In the Old Soviet Union Trotskyites and Stalinists loathed one another often engaging in hostility elsewhere despite having an overlapping enemy in the Western capitalist democracies.
Going back to the 19th century, there was no love lost between far left anarchists and their more orthodox Marxist rivals. Each furnished a strong animosity towards the bourgeoisie governments in Europe.
