Showing posts with label Foreign Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foreign Policy. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Being in the Old Guard
Watching Henry Kissinger on C-Span and Alan Greenspan frequently in the media, I keep wondering why they are forever recycled. Are there no other experts that know about foreign policy and finance? In fact, considering some of their covert destructive actions and faulty policy decisions, some may say that these gentleman are not experts, at least honorable ones. I honor age and appreciate wisdom. But I also wonder if some views that are being propagated are not always advantageous and if there are other ways to look at issues of foreign policy and finance that will advance the cause of peace and prosperity not only in America but throughout the world.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Being in Afghanistan IV
May God bless America and Afghanistan. May God bless President Obama and President Karzai. May God bless the people of America and Afghanistan.
President Obama delivered a great speech tonight. While I am against war, I am not naive enough to think that there will never be another war.
May God bless us, one and all.
President Obama delivered a great speech tonight. While I am against war, I am not naive enough to think that there will never be another war.
May God bless us, one and all.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Being Terrorist Nations
Ninety one people were killed in a blast in Peshawar, Pakistan today during Secretary Clinton's visit. Really, what are we doing in that part of the world, whether in Pakistan or Afghanistan, where such ruthlessness and destruction are perpetrated constantly against its own people and when billions of dollars don't make a difference? The 6.6 billion dollars that was meant to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan was instead siphoned-off. It is believed that Pervez Musharraf's dual role as the chief of staff and president enabled him to act dishonorably with the billions that was meant for the military. It never reached the armed forces.
"We don't have a mechanism for tracking the money after we have given it to them," Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Wright said. So, not only are we are assured that our presence in this part of the world will curb the violence, we cannot even be assured that the billions of dollars given to fight terrorism will be used for such. This is the problem with trying to govern people in terrorist nations or anywhere whatever the rationale. It seems an impossibility.
What are we doing in these nations where the terrorists can perpetrate such an open attack, what do we really hope to accomplished by our support, and what is the real possibility of accomplishing anything that will better secure the US? I don't see troops or aide assisting in curbing these attacks in Pakistan, nor do I see victory on any level in Afghanistan, including our counter-insurgency plans in that region. If the terrorists wanted to make a point to America with this bombing killing mainly women and children in an open market, I'd say point well taken. Let them fight their own battles and we will best secure our borders from the inside. What are your thoughts?
"We don't have a mechanism for tracking the money after we have given it to them," Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Wright said. So, not only are we are assured that our presence in this part of the world will curb the violence, we cannot even be assured that the billions of dollars given to fight terrorism will be used for such. This is the problem with trying to govern people in terrorist nations or anywhere whatever the rationale. It seems an impossibility.
What are we doing in these nations where the terrorists can perpetrate such an open attack, what do we really hope to accomplished by our support, and what is the real possibility of accomplishing anything that will better secure the US? I don't see troops or aide assisting in curbing these attacks in Pakistan, nor do I see victory on any level in Afghanistan, including our counter-insurgency plans in that region. If the terrorists wanted to make a point to America with this bombing killing mainly women and children in an open market, I'd say point well taken. Let them fight their own battles and we will best secure our borders from the inside. What are your thoughts?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Being George Will V
This week former V.P. Cheney accussed President Obama of "dithering" on policy in Afghanistan, while forgetting that the administration that he was a part of dithered for eight years. But George Will, conservative news columinist which I have written of more than a few times here, said it best today on ABC's "This Week."
"A bit of dithering might have been in order before we went into Iraq in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. For a representative of the Bush administration to accuse someone of taking too much time is missing the point. We have much more to fear in this town from hasty than from slow government action."
"A bit of dithering might have been in order before we went into Iraq in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. For a representative of the Bush administration to accuse someone of taking too much time is missing the point. We have much more to fear in this town from hasty than from slow government action."
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Being in Afghanistan II
It is an increasing dilemma with our presence in Afghanistan. But I still don't see a justifiable reason for staying. It looks like we are being seen as occupiers as the government in Afghanistan is corrupt and we have alloted some $189 billion according to the Congressional Research Service.
General McChrystal seems to want to ratchet up the war with more troops. But he is not the president of the United States. Even though he is the general on the ground, he needs to get in line. I don't think it was by accident that his report requesting for more troops was leaked.
In an earlier post, Being in Afghanistan, I asked some question to which I still have not received answers. So, I will ask them again:
"It's probably best to make a calculated withdrawal," he said. "If I were the president, I'm not sure what I'd do. I'd probably shut it down, rather than lose a lot of soldiers and treasure."
General McChrystal seems to want to ratchet up the war with more troops. But he is not the president of the United States. Even though he is the general on the ground, he needs to get in line. I don't think it was by accident that his report requesting for more troops was leaked.
In an earlier post, Being in Afghanistan, I asked some question to which I still have not received answers. So, I will ask them again:
Can someone please tell me why we are in Afghanistan? If the answer is essentially the former president's response of taking a "just" war to them so they won't bring their "holy" war to us, can someone please tell me like I'm a two-year old what is the plan and exit strategy? Doesn't war just seem unjust and unholy?Charlie Wilson, the congressman that launched his own private war in essence by supporting the Afghans militarily after the Soviets occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Mr. Wilson spoke of Afghanistan in a recent interview:
"It's probably best to make a calculated withdrawal," he said. "If I were the president, I'm not sure what I'd do. I'd probably shut it down, rather than lose a lot of soldiers and treasure."
Friday, September 25, 2009
Being Mahmoud Ahmadinejad IV
President Obama, along with President Nicholas Sarkozy of France and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of England, announced today that Iran has a secret nuclear facility in Qom, that "happens" to be near a historic holy site by the way, and has been secretly developing nuclear capacities, perhaps for destruction and not energy, nor for medicinal purposes. In a recent Newsweek article President Ahmadinejad said that he wanted to buy enriched uranium for "humanitarian" reasons from the United States.
"We simply don't have the capacity to enrich at 20 percent for medicinal purposes, of the sort that we have in mind, at this stage," Ahmadinejad said. "It's only at 3.5 percent." Hmm? I don't think he knew that the United States have known for many years about its secret facility. But, hey, what nation would give such a secret away? After all, it's a secret. Yes, I know and agree that every nation has to abide by international law, although we thumbed our noses in the face of the United Nations for the past eight years with John Bolton, the Ambassador to the UN, making harrowing disrespectful comments about the community of nations with noble ambitions that's on the soil of the United States.
Chancellor Merkel of Germany was not present during the announcement this morning but sent a word of affirmation with the other leaders. It is also believed that President Medvedev of Russia is in agreement with these world leaders. The challenge now seems to get China aboard for UN sanctions. Such sanctions have worked for North Korea, although, of course, it continues with its nuclear development. But we wink and nod when necessary. America does so with civil rights issues with China in exchange for our debt society. England does so with its relationship with Libya as 400% of its oil deriving from that country. (Yeah, we know that the release of the Lockerbie bomber had nothing to do with oil, right?) Germany with its large trade agreements with Iran. Each country does things that benefits its own interest.
There seems to be broad support from our allies and others as well, including Russia and possibly China. It is believed that if Russia agrees China will follow suit. But as I listened to President Obama, President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown give their statements, I could not help but to wonder have they also insisted that other countries such as Israel not enriched uranium for destruction. Has Israel bought enriched uranium from us? Maybe this is simply what President Ahmadinejad wants. Silly man! I could not help but to wonder if such a stance has been taken with Israel and such scrutiny of facilities its facility investigated. Perhaps its President's Ahmadinejad's rhetoric or "serial deception" as Prime Minister Brown puts it that gets in the way.
It has been long believed that Israel has nuclear capacities for destruction. There are many justifiable reasons for this its allies might contend being in an area surrounded by enemies. But is this a secrecy not allowed by the community of nations? Is it the protection of America that allows a lesser stance and scrutiny? If so, how is this viewed in the world at large? The take of the west on this matter may be one thing, but the outlook on the world at large wholly another. Iran has a long rich proud history, which unfortunately includes the United States' invasion and installation of a leader, and it does not wish to be dictated to when it comes to their safety, especially if there is not a level playing field and one of the most powerful military nations is aligned with its enemy, real or assumed.
Does any of this make sense or am I just terribly naive on such matters?
"We simply don't have the capacity to enrich at 20 percent for medicinal purposes, of the sort that we have in mind, at this stage," Ahmadinejad said. "It's only at 3.5 percent." Hmm? I don't think he knew that the United States have known for many years about its secret facility. But, hey, what nation would give such a secret away? After all, it's a secret. Yes, I know and agree that every nation has to abide by international law, although we thumbed our noses in the face of the United Nations for the past eight years with John Bolton, the Ambassador to the UN, making harrowing disrespectful comments about the community of nations with noble ambitions that's on the soil of the United States.
Chancellor Merkel of Germany was not present during the announcement this morning but sent a word of affirmation with the other leaders. It is also believed that President Medvedev of Russia is in agreement with these world leaders. The challenge now seems to get China aboard for UN sanctions. Such sanctions have worked for North Korea, although, of course, it continues with its nuclear development. But we wink and nod when necessary. America does so with civil rights issues with China in exchange for our debt society. England does so with its relationship with Libya as 400% of its oil deriving from that country. (Yeah, we know that the release of the Lockerbie bomber had nothing to do with oil, right?) Germany with its large trade agreements with Iran. Each country does things that benefits its own interest.
There seems to be broad support from our allies and others as well, including Russia and possibly China. It is believed that if Russia agrees China will follow suit. But as I listened to President Obama, President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown give their statements, I could not help but to wonder have they also insisted that other countries such as Israel not enriched uranium for destruction. Has Israel bought enriched uranium from us? Maybe this is simply what President Ahmadinejad wants. Silly man! I could not help but to wonder if such a stance has been taken with Israel and such scrutiny of facilities its facility investigated. Perhaps its President's Ahmadinejad's rhetoric or "serial deception" as Prime Minister Brown puts it that gets in the way.
It has been long believed that Israel has nuclear capacities for destruction. There are many justifiable reasons for this its allies might contend being in an area surrounded by enemies. But is this a secrecy not allowed by the community of nations? Is it the protection of America that allows a lesser stance and scrutiny? If so, how is this viewed in the world at large? The take of the west on this matter may be one thing, but the outlook on the world at large wholly another. Iran has a long rich proud history, which unfortunately includes the United States' invasion and installation of a leader, and it does not wish to be dictated to when it comes to their safety, especially if there is not a level playing field and one of the most powerful military nations is aligned with its enemy, real or assumed.
Does any of this make sense or am I just terribly naive on such matters?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Being Mahmoud Ahmadinejad III
President Obama was asked in his press conference last night about engaging Iran and I thought his answer was very thoughtful and respectful:
President Obama:
"I said during the campaign that Iran is a country that has extraordinary people, extraordinary history and traditions, but that its actions over many years now have been unhelpful when it comes to promoting peace and prosperity both in the region and around the world...My expectation is, in the coming months, we will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table face-to-face with diplomatic overtures that will allow us to move our policy in the new direction...So there are going to be a set of objectives that we have in these conversations, but I think that there's the possibility at least of a relationship of mutual respect and progress."
Speaking to a rally in Freedom square today, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to welcome engagement with the U.S.
President Ahamdinejad:
"The Iranian nation is ready for talks (with the U.S.) but in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect...The new U.S. government has announced that it wants to bring changes and follow the path of dialogue. It is very clear that changes have to be fundamental and not tactical. It is clear that the Iranian nation welcomes true changes."
This a good start towards normalized relations based on mutual respect.
Words matter.
President Obama:
"I said during the campaign that Iran is a country that has extraordinary people, extraordinary history and traditions, but that its actions over many years now have been unhelpful when it comes to promoting peace and prosperity both in the region and around the world...My expectation is, in the coming months, we will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table face-to-face with diplomatic overtures that will allow us to move our policy in the new direction...So there are going to be a set of objectives that we have in these conversations, but I think that there's the possibility at least of a relationship of mutual respect and progress."
Speaking to a rally in Freedom square today, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to welcome engagement with the U.S.
President Ahamdinejad:
"The Iranian nation is ready for talks (with the U.S.) but in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect...The new U.S. government has announced that it wants to bring changes and follow the path of dialogue. It is very clear that changes have to be fundamental and not tactical. It is clear that the Iranian nation welcomes true changes."
This a good start towards normalized relations based on mutual respect.
Words matter.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Being Zbigniew Brzezinski
Dr. Sbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor, responds brilliantly to the death and destruction in Gaza. He speaks of America's responsibility in the failed peace process, our bias, and the likelihood of a breakdown of support of Israel by nations who would otherwise be supportive.
America is in need of this kind of impartiality, compassion, and level-handedness again. "There has to be a sense of proportion. If there isn't one has to think of the consequence." Dr. Brzezinski's sense of diplomacy seems so far better than the policies of the last eight years. We call upon President-elect Obama and cabinet to follow this kind of foreign policy.
America is in need of this kind of impartiality, compassion, and level-handedness again. "There has to be a sense of proportion. If there isn't one has to think of the consequence." Dr. Brzezinski's sense of diplomacy seems so far better than the policies of the last eight years. We call upon President-elect Obama and cabinet to follow this kind of foreign policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)