GPS - Basic Definition
GPS (Global Positioning Systems) have been around for quite some time now. Its first use was with the military, but they have more recently been associated with civilian navigation devices. The latter is the topic of this discussion.There are three components necessary for the success of a Global Positioning System. Those components are made up of 24 satellites, GPS Receivers, and ground stations. Each component must work in harmony or there will be inaccurate readings. A brief description of each and their functionality follows. GPS Receivers act just as their name indicates. They receive information from the chosen satellites using radio waves to calculate their exact location. Once this information has been received, feedback is provided to the user. Ground stations have a two-fold operation. The first is to ensure the health of the satellite. The second is to respond to

Unsecured Business Loans: Make Your Business Reach the Zenith of Success
A very popular proverb goes like “Money makes money.” So, if one wants to make money through a business, the first step is definitely to invest money. Whether a business is small or big, the basic requirements are the same. You need to have a strong financial base to meet those umpteen business needs, such as purchasing raw materials and equipments, setting up the workplace, paying wages to the employees, maintenance, overhead charges and so on. Often, it happens that the savings, retained earnings or sale of business assets are insufficient for an entrepreneur to start a business or are insufficient to maintain the required cash flow for an existing business.In such situations, most of the businessmen opt for business loans. A business loan helps to lay the platform to build a solid foundation for your business. If you own a small business or plan to set up a small business, then Federation or Confederation?
However, by allowing the Shias to continue to pursue a federalist policy, and concentrating on the Shiite sectarians, the US runs the risk of the Sunni insurgency spiraling out of control. While it concentrates first on closing down Baghdad, the US forces are extremely overstretched in the rest of the country. There are already strong indications, that the surge is failing and a process of “Baghdadisation” is now spreading nationwide.

By adopting even a disguised sectarian support for a federalist government, the US is sending a message to the insurgency and even to the Shiite militias, that there is simply nothing to loose. On both extremist sides a policy of total independence will be counterpoised to federalism. Indeed, in some ways it is more appealing and could begin to get popular support.

Complete separation and the creation of independent, homogenous Sunni, Shia and Kurdish states could appear to offer a permanent solution to sectarianism. Formal “police-able” border could be established to substantialy reduce sectarian deaths. Shiites would be rid of the age-old ghost of Sunni domination and Sunnis would be free of the menace of revenge. Since Sunnis would have nothing to loose and more to gain from leaving a federal Iraq, being independent would at least bring “negative” benefits. In many ways both sides would gain. Ironically, the biggest losers could be the Kurds who would be unlikely to hang on to their independence, as Turkey would probably invade, in order, to quash the separatist appeal among its own Kurds. However, what might head-off such an outside intervention could be the creation of a new dual state of the federal union of Kurdish and Shia Iraq.

Furthermore, independence would only work if neighboring powers were prepared to intervene economically and not militarily. This would be especially the case for an independent Sunni state. Saudi Arabia would need to intervene economically in much the same way West Germany did, in order to reunify and stabilize East Germany - except in the case of Sunni Iraq, without there being a political union. Of course, much would depend on the strength of Al Qaeda, but this to be viable.

Perhaps the best solution for Iraq would be not a federation, but a “Confederation of Independent States,” in which the independent states negotiate a treaty on economic, political or military matters of mutual interest. It could possibly draw upon the common historical links and the common trade routes, by naming itself the “Mesopotamian Confederation”, the “Fertile Crescent Confederation” or the “Rafidan Confederation” according to the Arabic translation of Mesopotamia, that refers to the country of the Tigris and Euphrates.

The great problem is that getting to independence is the same as the potential consequences of federalization – it means wading waist high through blood and corpses. There would be genocidal ethnic cleansing as a mad grab for land, cities and towns took place. Worst of all would be the question of Baghdad, which would become another Sarajevo or 70’s-style Beirut.

A Confederation of Independent States, on the other hand, could have Baghdad as its

s simply nothing to loose. On both extremist sides a policy of total independence will be counterpoised to federalism. Indeed, in some ways it is more appealing and could begin to get popular support.

Complete separation and the creation of independent, homogenous Sunni, Shia and Kurdish states could appear to offer a permanent solution to sectarianism. Formal “police-able” border could be established to substantialy reduce sectarian deaths. Shiites would be rid of the age-old ghost of Sunni domination and Sunnis would be free of the menace of revenge. Since Sunnis would have nothing to loose and more to gain from leaving a federal Iraq, being independent would at least bring “negative” benefits. In many ways both sides would gain. Ironically, the biggest losers could be the Kurds who would be unlikely to hang on to their independence, as Turkey would probably invade, in order, to quash the separatist appeal among its own Kurds. However, what might head-off such an outside intervention could be the creation of a new dual state of the federal union of Kurdish and Shia Iraq.

Furthermore, independence would only work if neighboring powers were prepared to intervene economically and not militarily. This would be especially the case for an independent Sunni state. Saudi Arabia would need to intervene economically in much the same way West Germany did, in order to reunify and stabilize East Germany - except in the case of Sunni Iraq, without there being a political union. Of course, much would depend on the strength of Al Qaeda, but this to be viable.

Perhaps the best solution for Iraq would be not a federation, but a “Confederation of Independent States,” in which the independent states negotiate a treaty on economic, political or military matters of mutual interest. It could possibly draw upon the common historical links and the common trade routes, by naming itself the “Mesopotamian Confederation”, the “Fertile Crescent Confederation” or the “Rafidan Confederation” according to the Arabic translation of Mesopotamia, that refers to the country of the Tigris and Euphrates.

The great problem is that getting to independence is the same as the potential consequences of federalization – it means wading waist high through blood and corpses. There would be genocidal ethnic cleansing as a mad grab for land, cities and towns took place. Worst of all would be the question of Baghdad, which would become another Sarajevo or 70’s-style Beirut.

A Confederation of Independent States, on the other hand, could have Baghdad as its

Iraq, being independent would at least bring “negative” benefits. In many ways both sides would gain. Ironically, the biggest losers could be the Kurds who would be unlikely to hang on to their independence, as Turkey would probably invade, in order, to quash the separatist appeal among its own Kurds. However, what might head-off such an outside intervention could be the creation of a new dual state of the federal union of Kurdish and Shia Iraq.

Furthermore, independence would only work if neighboring powers were prepared to intervene economically and not militarily. This would be especially the case for an independent Sunni state. Saudi Arabia would need to intervene economically in much the same way West Germany did, in order to reunify and stabilize East Germany - except in the case of Sunni Iraq, without there being a political union. Of course, much would depend on the strength of Al Qaeda, but this to be viable.

Perhaps the best solution for Iraq would be not a federation, but a “Confederation of Independent States,” in which the independent states negotiate a treaty on economic, political or military matters of mutual interest. It could possibly draw upon the common historical links and the common trade routes, by naming itself the “Mesopotamian Confederation”, the “Fertile Crescent Confederation” or the “Rafidan Confederation” according to the Arabic translation of Mesopotamia, that refers to the country of the Tigris and Euphrates.

The great problem is that getting to independence is the same as the potential consequences of federalization – it means wading waist high through blood and corpses. There would be genocidal ethnic cleansing as a mad grab for land, cities and towns took place. Worst of all would be the question of Baghdad, which would become another Sarajevo or 70’s-style Beirut.

A Confederation of Independent States, on the other hand, could have Baghdad as its

audi Arabia would need to intervene economically in much the same way West Germany did, in order to reunify and stabilize East Germany - except in the case of Sunni Iraq, without there being a political union. Of course, much would depend on the strength of Al Qaeda, but this to be viable.

Perhaps the best solution for Iraq would be not a federation, but a “Confederation of Independent States,” in which the independent states negotiate a treaty on economic, political or military matters of mutual interest. It could possibly draw upon the common historical links and the common trade routes, by naming itself the “Mesopotamian Confederation”, the “Fertile Crescent Confederation” or the “Rafidan Confederation” according to the Arabic translation of Mesopotamia, that refers to the country of the Tigris and Euphrates.

The great problem is that getting to independence is the same as the potential consequences of federalization – it means wading waist high through blood and corpses. There would be genocidal ethnic cleansing as a mad grab for land, cities and towns took place. Worst of all would be the question of Baghdad, which would become another Sarajevo or 70’s-style Beirut.

A Confederation of Independent States, on the other hand, could have Baghdad as its

ration”, the “Fertile Crescent Confederation” or the “Rafidan Confederation” according to the Arabic translation of Mesopotamia, that refers to the country of the Tigris and Euphrates.

The great problem is that getting to independence is the same as the potential consequences of federalization – it means wading waist high through blood and corpses. There would be genocidal ethnic cleansing as a mad grab for land, cities and towns took place. Worst of all would be the question of Baghdad, which would become another Sarajevo or 70’s-style Beirut.

A Confederation of Independent States, on the other hand, could have Baghdad as its confederate capital, while each independent state would choose a new capital. The route to independence would have to be phased transition, with a UN negotiated settlement of boundaries and international aid for resettlement and development.

Indeed, just as much as negative developments influence the whole Middle East, the concept of confederation is something which could be something positive to into the region as a whole with its great wealth and potential. A sort of Common Market, Free Trade Zone or the Middle East Union, similar to European Union, could act as a economic boost and also a strategic buffer against US intervention and exploitation, as well as helping to undercut the dangerous growth of competing local imperialist powers.

The Right to Self Determination

At the end of the day such “castles in the sky”, as we propose, depend on what the Iraqi peoples themselves want and how they get their voices heard. Whether Shia, Sunni or Kurd they are all united around three basic needs and aspirations – security, revenue and freedom. In other words, an end to violence, the possibility of economic growth and freedom from the threat of persecution and discrimination. In the end they will choose to go with the system, which appears to offer the likeliest possibility of achieving this. They may even have to test some out before moving to a more permanent solution. But under such exceptional circumstances, the route to self-determination must surely itself have to take on asymmetrical forms.

Iraq is not the place where set political formulas can be purchased from some great governmental DIY store. Federalist systems, which work in Switzerland, Canada, the USA or Australia, are not going to slot neatly into place in Iraq. Unfortunately, sectarian civil wars do not generally lend themselves easily to democratic solutions. All the good citizens of the country standing up in plebiscite and saying “yeah” or “nay” will not decide things. The state does not exist, the government is suspended in mid-air and its armed forces are precariously balanced between reluctant engagement and mutiny. As we have seen elections and referendums count for little when real events are shaped by bombs, bullets and assassinations. Moods and political attitudes are more than ever susceptible to sharp turns and sudden changes.

At the moment, the only place that self-determination can be realized is on the streets. People will vote with their feet and with their guns at a certain stage. This is the only way their voices will be heard and po