► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Foreign Policy’

Mitt Romney should change his stance on Syria

by Phantom Ace ( 148 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012, Middle East, Mitt Romney, Progressives at October 10th, 2012 - 8:00 am

I give Mitt Romney credit for smashing the image of Obama as the wise philosopher/god-king during the debate last Wednesday. Whether Obama wins or loses, people no longer look at him as a deity but just another politician. Romney has gotten a bounce in the polls and the race is back to toss up.

On Monday Mitt Romney gave a foreign policy speech to Virginia Military Institute. Instead of offering a new foreign policy based on economic interests and realism, he promotes the same failed Wilsonian policies that both Bush and Obama have promoted. His main theme was intervention in Syria.

Mitt Romney does not understand the situation in Syria. He views it as some revolt for democracy but that is not the case. The Syria conflict pits the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda vs. the Assad Regime, Iran and Hizb’Allah. The goal of the rebels is to establish another Islamic emirate then join up with other Islamist states like Egypt and form the Caliphate. That is their end game and the United States should not assist them in that goal.  Disappointingly, Mitt Romney supports helping the Syrian rebels, despite acknowledging they are Islamists.

The president has also failed to lead in Syria, where more than — more than 30,000 men, women, and children have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months. Violent extremists are flowing into the fight. Our ally Turkey has been attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.

[…]

he greater tragedy of it all is that we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East — friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists and evil tyrants and angry mobs who seek to harm us. Unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our president is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As one Syrian woman put it, “We will not forget that you forgot about us.”

[…]

In Syria I’ll work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and then ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks helicopters and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously through our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran, rather than sitting on the sidelines. It’s essential that we develop influence with those forces in Syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the Middle East.

The war in Syria is not in America’s interest. Most Americans realize this and oppose involvement. Mitt Romney is taking neither a popular position nor the correct one. This is a pissing match between the Muslim Brotherhood/al-Qaeda against Assad/Iran/Hizb’Allah. Both sides are evil and we should stand back and let them kill each other. The Syrian rebels are doing well without us with the assistance they are receiving from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Any weapons we give them will eventually be used against us.

Turkey is not an ally. They are ruled by the AKP who are an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood. Erdogan is a Neo-Ottoman and envisions a Caliphate led by Turkey. He is a bad character and as vile as Assad or the Ayatollahs. If Turkey wants to get involved in Syria they can do it on their own. Turkey’s goal is another Islamist emirate friendly to them and the Muslim Brotherhood. Today’s Turkey is not the same nation that was our cold war ally. That is outmoded thinking and we should not view them as a friend.

On September 11th 2001 we were attacked by al-Qaeda. They are an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be an injustice to those who died on 9/11 to support the same organization and its ideological allies in Syria. In memory of the dead of 9/11, Mitt Romney should reconsider his stance on Syria.

Rick Perry: Internationalist Hawk

by Phantom Ace ( 7 Comments › )
Filed under Headlines, Republican Party at August 11th, 2011 - 9:40 pm

Reports are emerging about Rick Perry’s foreign policy. Aids are describing him as a Internationalist Hawk.  Now one must still wait to articulate what this means, Since Hawk Internationalist is a very vague term and it conjures up Nation Building

If and when Texas Governor Rick Perry declares his candidacy for president, he will stake out a position on foreign policy and national security issues that one foreign policy hand familiar with his thinking described as a “hawk internationalist” profile.

Perry, who has no formal campaign policy team because he has not yet announced that he is running, has however held an increasing number of meetings with foreign policy experts of all stripes. These meetings, which have sometimes gone on for hours, have helped Perry brush up on a range of issues, from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to proliferation, from Middle East policy to international trade, according to those familiar with the meetings. The experts that he has reached out to include former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, former NSC strategy guru William Luti, former Assistant U.S. Attorney and National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy, former Pentagon official Charles “Cully” Stimson, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Europe Daniel Fata, former Pentagon China official Dan Blumenthal, the Heritage Foundation’s Asia expert Peter Brookes, and former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalizad.

[….]

Foreign policy hands with knowledge of the prospective candidate’s identity, which is still taking shape, told The Cable that Perry is planning to stake out political territory as a defense-minded but internationally engaged candidate, contrasting himself with the realism of Jon Huntsman, the ever-changing stance of Mitt Romney, or the Tea Party budget cutting focus of Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul.

“He will distinguish himself from other Republicans as a hawk internationalist, embracing American exceptionalism and the unique role we must play in confronting the many threats we face,” one foreign policy advisor with knowledge of Perry’s thinking told The Cable. “He has no sympathy for the neo-isolationist impulses emanating from some quarters of the Republican Party.”

Neo-Isolationist is a way to smear those on the Right who believe in a cautious American Interest only foreign policy. I am in wait and see mode with this.  Let’s see what Perry himself says on his foreign policy.

Barack Obama Breaks Newt Gingrich’s Backtrack Record!

by Flyovercountry ( 33 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Politics at May 24th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

I didn’t think it was possible, but President Obama beat the former backtrack record of 36 hours previously held by Newt Gingrich. Not like other flip flops, backtracks are a complete denial and reversal. On Thursday, President gave his Cairo II Speech. In it, he gave his vision for an agreement between Israel and the so called, “Palestinians.” He promised Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that there would be no major bombs or surprises in his speech. He dropped three, which if followed would spell out the end for Israel, the end for any survival chances any Jewish person would have in the region, and the death of our only true ally in the region. President Obama made these three very clear statements. One, that any hope for peace in the region would require that the return of 1967 borders be used as a starting point for future negotiation. Two, that Israel would accept the role of Hamas as a negotiating partner on behalf of the, “Palestinian,” people. Three, that Israel accept the, “right of return.” As chilling as it was to hear a President say those things, this next statement is far worse.

The President of the United States just signaled to the Muslim Brotherhood that an Obama led USA would not defend Israel in an attack.

Now, let’s take each of these 4 points and discuss why they are all of them disastrous to the interests of the United States of America. First, let’s make the point very clear, Israel is our only true ally in the region. Israel is an important trading partner. Much of our technology which makes our everyday lives better was developed in Israel. Companies which derive technology in Israel include, Yahoo, Google, Intel, HP, Dell, IBM, Microsoft, and NCR. Many of the weapons used by our military and law enforcement were produced in Israel. Many of our techniques in fighting terrorism were taught to us by the Israelis who have been at the forefront of the war for the last 60 years. Israel, the only nation in the region without oil, enjoys the highest gdp per capita in the middle east, despite the fact that she is constantly at a state of war, being forced to continually defend herself against foreign aggression. What better example of the virtues of allowing for personal freedom and a democratic society than that exists anywhere? The 1967 borders were indefensible, and provided the surrounding 5 nations ample opportunity to launch an endless series of invasions. After the 1967 war, Israel made a decision to keep territory captured during a war, only sufficient to mount a viable defense and to dissuade invasion. If the neighboring Arab nations had not repeatedly invaded, this disputed land would not have been necessary to keep. Not a single other nation in the world has been forced to relinquish land seized after being victorious in a war. this has most assuredly never happened after the victorious nation had been the one attacked. Indeed, the nation which lost the greatest amount of land, Jordan, does not want administration of the West Bank at all. Jordan realizes that reclaiming the West Bank would mean that the, “Palestinians,” would come with it.  The concept that Hamas would make a viable negotiating partner is asinine.  This statement is in fact so stupid, not even top members of Obama’s own party are willing to embrace the idea.  Steny Hoyer, the practically communist House Minority Whip, came out with a joint statement with Eric Cantor that the House would never back such a ridiculous plan.  For those who don’t know, Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Al Queda is a branch of the same organization.  The charter of this organization calls for the destruction of Israel, the death of all Jews in the world, and world domination of an Islamic Caliphate united under Sharia Law.  How is it possible to negotiate with these people?  Their religious belief is that they are commanded by their Deity to kill every Jew on the planet.  It is impossible to reach common ground with people who feel your annihilation is a religious duty.  Driving around with one of those moronic COEXIST bumper stickers while singing Kumbayah will not ever change that.  The, “right of return,” is perhaps the worst of the three proclamations.  During the 1948 and 1954 wars, Egypt and Syria, and Jordan, all ran radio broadcasts stating that all Arabs should leave Israel, so that the Jews could be pushed into the sea.  The Israelis made it very clear, stay in your homes, and you will always be welcome to stay in Israel.  Help us to defend our mutual home, and be a part of this nation.  When the Arabs who left made that decision, to leave and help the invading army, they became refugees by their own choosing.  Many Arabs stayed, and they enjoy full Israeli citizenship today.  At the same time, roughly 650,000 Jews were expelled from every Arab nation in the middle east.  This is the same number of the Arabs who left Israel.  The tiny nation of Israel absorbed all of the Jewish refugees, and helped them to assimilate into Jewish Society.  This of course was not the case for the Arab refugees, who were purposefully used as pawns and kept permanently, by the Arab nations, as refugees never being allowed to move anywhere, or assimilate anywhere.  Much is said about the supposed ethnic cleansing or genocide of the, “Palestinians,” but their population has literally exploded.  Genocides usually don’t take a population of 650,000 and turn it into several million.  We are now talking about the grand children and great grandchildren of the group that left voluntarily and took up arms against Israel.  Allowing this to happen now would make Israel no longer a majority Jewish nation.  This would result in a very quick death to Israel from within, and the Jews would suffer the same fate as the Coptic Christians unfortunate enough to remain in Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood seized control there.

After a tumultuous couple of hours, the Obama White House realized how poorly the message was being received.  Obama went in front of AIPAC yesterday and said, “I never said those things.”  “The media is out to get me.”  “That’s not what I meant.” So, without further ado, here he is making those very comments he claims he never made, and you decide.

Lastly, there has been much backlash from the left calling Netanyahu rude, or ungrateful for the friendship of the U.S. To those people I say this, friendship is a two way street. What choice did we leave PM Netanyahu? Barack Obama had just edicted that the Israeli PM sign onto a plan which amounted to Israeli suicide. For any leader of a nation who cares even the slightest about the people that they lead, the reaction that Netanyahu showed was the only one possible. If Obama cared at all about the nation he leads, he would have known this. Sadly, he does not.

Crossposted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.

The Rubio Doctrine

by Phantom Ace ( 29 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2010, Elections 2012, Politics, Republican Party, Special Report at April 20th, 2011 - 12:43 pm

As someone who once was a big fan of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL.), I must say I am greatly disappointed in him. Here was someone who I could relate too. We came from the same roots of Upper Middle Class landowning Hispanics and we are both Rightwing Latins. During his 2010 campaign he actually called out Islam by name and mentioned it’s historical Imperialism. Now that he is in Washington he has fallen prey to the Wilsonian “spread Democracy” ideology. He actually believes Islamic nations like Afghanistan can have Democracy. Rubio also called for an invasion and occupation of Libya, a war that benefits Al-Qaeda and the French oil interests. He is either naive or the GOP establishment got to him.

Sen. Marco Rubio sailed into office on the tea-party wave, wagging his finger at the Obama administration’s fiscal mischief. But in the Senate, foreign policy has become his passion.

[…]

Rubio has vocally opposed an increase to the federal government’s debtlimit and chastised the president for not being “serious” about deficit reduction. He has also thrown cold water on Republicans. Before the Senate adjourned for spring recess, Rubio bucked leadership and opposed the Boehner–White House deal to keep the government running, since he found the attached spending cuts insufficient.

But foreign policy is Rubio’s calling. He relishes his spot on the Foreign Relations Committee, where he has been tapped to be a ranking subcommittee member. His portfolio focuses on the Western Hemisphere, building relationships with neighbors on trade and terrorism. His work from that post is piled about the room.

[…]

“Ultimately, if we can provide a level of security there, the Afghans have a chance to build a functional state for themselves,” Rubio says. “You can read about these things, but I think when you visit these places, you get to interact with people and see things firsthand.”

Read the rest: Rubio’s Foreign Policy

Clearly Marco Rubio is being misled. As someone who grew up in the same type of family as I did, he should know Democracy is not compatible with Islamic societies. He knows the history of our ancestors very well and their 700 year fight with Arabic Islamic aggression. Clearly he has naively bought into the so called “freedom agenda” and is blind to the consequences of it in Iraq and Egypt.

On Economic policy, Rubio is spot on and I’m with him 100%. On foreign policy him and I have to part ways. As he said himself, no politician is a Messiah. Rubio is no savior and although I would vote for him as President or his Senate re-election, I would do so with without my previous enthusiasm.

Que Lastima!