► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Foreign Policy’

The Afghans don’t want us to die for them Update: US losing out on Iraqi Oil

by Phantom Ace ( 86 Comments › )
Filed under Afghanistan, Democratic Party, George W. Bush, Progressives, Republican Party, Tranzis at December 19th, 2009 - 7:00 am

I have been pushing lately on Blogmocracy the idea that American blood for Muslim Democracy is not worth it. They are a different culture and in all honesty, a rival of ours. They don’t like us and the sooner we realize this, the better our foreign policy will be. Compassionate Conservatives like George W. Bush and Tranzi Progressives like Barack Hussein Obama believe it is America’s duty to spread Democracy through use of our soldiers in the Islamic world. This is a nonsense view. Our Armed Forces should only be used to serve our interests and to me freedom for Muslims is not our interest. Even the Afghans agree with my assessment!

At our next stop, another flashback. Admiral Mullen sat down for a shura with five colorfully-dressed Afghan elders who had risked their lives just showing up for this meeting — just like Iraqi chiefs used to gather with U.S. commanders in Ramadi, or Tikrit or Kirkuk. Another five elders were invited but never showed.

For security reasons, they hadn’t been told who they’d be meeting with (only that is was an “important American”).

Mullen pulled up his chair to their table, instead of sitting across the room from them at the executive table set up for him. Then he pulled out a notebook, and asked them to tell him what they need.

They did not hold back. For two hours, while Mullen’s staff kept cups of tea coming, the admiral heard everything from demands for a new dam (or two, if we Americans could swing it), to complaints that their young men need an army training facility built in Kandahar, instead of having to go all the way to Kabul, where the elders say their southern Pashtun ways make them the butt of abuse from Northerners.

But the most striking message of all was this: Stop fighting for us.

“You must understand our culture,” one said. “It’s insulting for you to die for us. We should be dying to take back our country, not you.”

Read the rest.

I agree with the Afghan elders 100%. If they want Democracy let them fight and die for it. In all honesty, I really couldn’t care less about the Islamic world, Iran being the exception. If they want dictators, thugs and imams calling the shots, I don’t care. American blood is too precious to waste on these people. We should focus on dominating our hemisphere and backing some allies in Europe, Japan, Philippines, Australia, Ethiopia and Israel. To the rest of the world, we don’t care about you. Also if you mess with the US and our allies we will thoroughly crush your nation. That would be the Rodan Doctrine!

I’m tired of  our brave Soldiers dying for silly academic theories. We should only fight for our national interests and we should fight for total victory. God Bless our men and women in uniform. They deserve better leadership than what we have in both Parties at the moment. Hopefully, the American people are waking up and realizing that it is not America’s duty to spread Democracy. That is up to those people in other lands if they are willing to fight for it. If the Afghans want Democracy, let them fight for it!

Update: We lost over 4,000 lives and spent billions rebuilding Iraq. In return we gained, nothing!

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Critics said the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq said was driven by oil, but United States oil majors were largely absent from an Iraqi auction of oil deals snapped up instead by Russian, Chinese and other firms.

Iraqi officials said this proved their independence from U.S. influence and that their two bidding rounds this year for deals to tap Iraq’s vast oil reserves, the world’s third largest, were free of foreign political interference.

The Oil Ministry on Saturday ended its second bidding round after awarding seven of the oilfields offered for development, adding to deals from a first auction in June that could together take Iraq up to a capacity to pump 12 million barrels per day.

“For us in Iraq, it shows the government is fully free from outside influence. Neither Russia nor America could put pressure on anyone in Iraq — it is a pure commercial, transparent competition,” said government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh.

“No one, even the United States, can steal the oil, whatever people think.”

Read the rest.

This is why I don’t believe Iraq was worth it. We conquered the place and have a right to their oil. The Iraqis being the ingrates have shut us out of oil deals. Where these people worth the death of 4,000 Americans?

Patriotism Does Not Mean Blindly Supporting Obama

by tqcincinnatus ( 115 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Politics at October 3rd, 2009 - 4:24 pm

Roland Martin, a columnist for CNN, gets his faketriotism on,

I don’t care if Republicans want to rip President Obama over going to Copenhagen, Denmark, to pitch for the games. This isn’t about politics. It’s not about ideology. This is about America. OUR pride. Our chance to shine. Our loss of the games.

So, to all the critics happy about us losing the 2016 games, turn in your flag lapel pins and stop boasting of being so patriotic. When an American city loses, like New York did in the the last go-round, we all lose. And all you critics are on the same level as the America haters all across the world.

You should be shouted down for not backing your own country. The next time any of you bang out a press release about “Buy American” or “Support our troops,” remember this moment when your cynical, callous and small-minded brains happily rejoiced when America lost the 2016 Olympic Games.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin.

I can understand why CNN adds the disclaimer – I wouldn’t want to have to bear sole responsibility for this nonsense either.

Martin is reiterating a meme that is growing firmly implanted in the rhetoric of the Left: If you laugh at Obama for losing the Olympics, then you really just hate America and are unpatriotic.  This is, of course, ridiculous nonsense.

First of all, I want to say this – “America” didn’t lose anything.  Obama lost face by investing his own imaginary personal popularity and magnetism into trying to strong-arm the IOC into giving the games to Chicago, when apparently they already had no such intention of doing so, and in fact, Chicago hadn’t had a serious hope of getting the games for months. 

Don’t make the false equation of “Obama” with “America.”  The two are not the same.  Obama is not America.  He’s merely an American President who rode into office on a wave of emotionalistic hullabaloo, with a heaping helping of ACORN-related vote fraud to boot.  Many of those who were on an emotional high when voting for him have since come to realise that he was lying to them, and resent him for it.   I repeat, Obama is not America. 

Further, what did “America” really lose?  The chance to host an expensive bauble that always ends up losing money for the host country and especially the host city?  One which, as of late, has been turning into an increasingly anti-American spectacle anywise?  Why should we pay to host a bunch of foreigners to come to our country and tell us how evil we are?  If we wanted to hear about how evil America is, we’d just send President Obama overseas on another apology tour.  

Which is another reason why the “Obama = America” meme fails so badly.  You can’t call somebody “unpatriotic” for not supporting Obama’s foreign policy disasters overseas when the President’s foreign policy is predicated on the need to “atone” for how doggone bad America is in the first place.  Obama himself thinks America is evil – he thinks we’re evil because we’re capitalist, because we fight terrorism, and because we (until recently) didn’t coddle rogue regimes nearly as much as he’d like for us to have.   Obama doesn’t automatically become “patriotic” just because he’s the President, and opposition to his foolish and childish policies doesn’t render one “unpatriotic.”  In fact, as with so much else, when Obama loses, America wins. 

Further, when Martin says,

“The next time any of you bang out a press release about “Buy American” or “Support our troops,” remember this moment when your cynical, callous and small-minded brains happily rejoiced when America lost the 2016 Olympic Games.”

He shows just how shallow those who are supporting Obama in this fiasco really are.  “Support our troops.”  If only the President did that.  But instead, while America is in the middle of trying to deal with a number of important questions, including the fact that we’re apparently losing the Afghanistan War that had previously been the “good” war that we were winning, Obama decides to waste millions (literally) of taxpayer dollars flying himself and his wife over to Copenhagen to lobby for the Olympics bauble.  If Obama and his supporters want to be taken seriously as “patriotic,” how about they stop kowtowing to Europeans, and start focusing on issues that actually mean something for America’s future?  And if the lefties want to talk about supporting the troops, then they should try giving General McChrystal the troops and material support he needs to get the job done in Afghanistan.  Or at least try meeting with General McChrystal more than once every nine months.

Let’s face it – this Olympics thing had nothing to do with “America.”  It was all about President Obama flexing his popularity muscles to show everyone how much the rest of the world just loves and adores him.  And he found out that they really don’t.  He found out that while they may agree that he’s not the evil Bushitler crazy cowboy unilateralist, all the same, they’re not exactly starstruck by his all-thatness.   The Copenhagen visit was merely an outlet for Obama’s voluminous narcissism – and he was struck across the face with the mackerel of reality. 

It was also an attempt to swing some payback towards the corrupt Chicago Democrat machine.  They gave Obama his rise to power, and the Olympics – which always come with abundant opportunities for graft, kickbacks, and the chance to skim off the top – was the way to give a little back to the community of union thugs, mafia members, and Democrat Party hacks who have made Chicago the harmonious, idyllic utopia we see today.   This Olympics bid wasn’t about “America,” it was about lining the pockets of those who took Obama from being just one community organising race-agitator among many, and set him on the path to the Presidency.  In a sense, it was private, opportunistic corruption writ large – there was nothing “good for the country” about it. 

So please, lefties, spare us the hypocritical self-righteous huff-and-puffery about our being “unpatriotic.”  Maybe when you and the President start pursuing a truly pro-American foreign policy, when you and the President get serious about winning the war in Afghanistan, when you and the President get serious about not damaging the prestige and credibility of America’s treaty commitments to our allies overseas, maybe you’ll be taken seriously.  Until then, don’t waste our time blathering at us about the Olympics. 

America’s European President

by tqcincinnatus ( 21 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Politics at July 15th, 2009 - 6:04 am

You can often tell a lot about a man by looking at those who approve of him. This was shown last week during Obama’s whirlwind tour of Russia, Italy, and Ghana. He practically gave away the whole house when he was in Moscow, agreeing to limit America’s nuclear arsenal, while also putting an effective halt to the missile defense program that would protect our erstwhile allies in Europe from Russian extortion – so we can be pretty sure the Russians like him now. In Italy, we were treated to the spectacle of Old Europe’s socialist leaders (and remember, even “right-wingers” like Italy’s Berlesconi and Germany’s Merkel would be moderately-left Democrats here in America) praising Obama for “doing everything right so far” with respect to his foreign policy. Then, in Ghana, we see him acclaimed as the Messiah while he gives a tear-jerker of a speech about the slavery his ancestors never endured, while at an historic slaver’s fort through which his ancestors were never processed.

Yes, even as his approval ratings continue to slump among the people whose country he is in the process of weakening overseas and impoverishing at home, it would seem that our President continues to maintain his popularity in the Old World.

We shouldn’t be surprised by this, especially as it relates to the conduct of his foreign policy to date. Obama’s approach, while making no sense whatsoever to Americans who operate from a starting point of common sense, is the fulfillment of all the hopes and dreams entertained by the radical Left on both sides of the Atlantic. In their world, support for Israel – the only country with a truly open, free, and democratic society in the Middle East that doesn’t have to be constantly maintained by the threat of intervention from its own military (thus ruling out Turkey) – is absolutely indefensible. On the other hand, support for the Palestinians – whose whole existence is predicated on the need to commit genocide against the Jews – is noble and righteous. Among the Leftists, strengthening ties with free and capitalistic nations in Latin America is bad, but pandering to Marxist thugs like Chavez and Ortega is good. Pursuing a policy of building relationships and defense ties with Eastern European nations that escaped the yoke of Soviet Russian domination is “imperialism”, but tossing these nations like sacrificial lambs to Russian neo-imperialists is simply good form. As in every other area, Obama is a solid Leftist in his approach to foreign policy.

What this means is that, regardless of what might be said about his Kenyan origins and birth certificate, or lack thereof, Obama is America’s first European President.

Obama’s foreign policy approach seems to operate from fundamentally European assumptions. Even the “Right” in Old Europe holds to these, just as much as the Left. These assumptions are often diametrically opposed to American approaches – not just from the perspective of realpolitik and the pursuit of disparate national interests, but also from the very basic and foundational presuppositions under which each side operates.

Here in America, we understand that diplomacy needs to be backed by something distinctly non-diplomatic. “Walk softly, and carry a big stick,” and all that. Reagan knew this – which is why he would deal with the Soviets diplomatically, but at the same time was strengthening our military preparedness that the feckless Carter had allowed to languish. This is why the Soviet’s felt not the least bit inhibited in trying to advance world Communism militarily in Afghanistan in 1979. Carter, unlike his successor, was a weak leader who lacked the will to back up American interests with the threat of military action.

The Europeans, on the other hand, existed for so long under America’s military umbrella that they forgot what it means to operate an independent foreign policy that can’t afford to rely on “soft power” alone. Western Europeans grew complacent, softening and feminizing their societies through the building of expensive cradle-to-grave welfare states that didn’t allow any room for substantial military power to be built. As they moved Left en masse, they accepted the suppositions implanted by democratic socialism (as well as Soviet agents in the West) that there is nothing worth fighting for, that every problem can be solved by sitting down in a committee and talking it over until a mutually agreeable compromise is achieved. While this may work well when one soft, complacent society negotiates with another, it doesn’t work so well when one of the “partners” is an Iran or a North Korea who couldn’t care less about civilized sensibilities. Unfortunately, this seems to be exactly what Obama, like Old Europe, doesn’t understand – if you aren’t willing to use “hard power”, then “soft power” is “no power.”

Also, Obama’s foreign policy appears to fundamentally assume that advancing American national interests, as opposed to “world” interests, is wrong. In his mind, like that of “progressive” Europeans, nationalism is bad, while globalism is good. He seems to think that it is more important for the rest of the world to be happy with us, than it is for America to be safe, strong, and prosperous. Much of it is his typically socialist predilection for working through the UN and other globalist agencies, as opposed to the traditional and constitutional reliance upon home-grown American policy-making. Part of it may also be Obama’s own personal narcissism – being President allows him to “big up” his own popularity not just in Illinois, but the world over. Unfortunately, because most of the rest of the world (including Old Europe) has a fundamental interest in strengthening their own positions at the expense of the United States, the way in which Obama can accrue this popularity from the rest of the world is largely by selling out traditional American interests and cutting the legs out from under our nation’s moral and military leadership.

This is why Obama has largely spent his overseas travel time to date apologizing to anyone and everyone who will listen for the “sins” of America. The world is his father confessor, so to speak. Instead of focusing on what America has done right, he has sought expiation for what we’ve done wrong – both real and imagined. And to make it up to the world, he’s going to reverse the course that his predecessors followed that kept America and her allies strong and safe. Missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic to protect our friends from Russian domination? Sure, Vlad, we’ll scrap that. Supporting our staunch ally Israel? We’ll scale that back, and vastly expand the money we send to the Palestinians. He goes to Africa and apologizes for America’s part in slavery. Yet, he fails to point out that the slave trade was started by Muslims from North Africa long before any European had set foot on the Slave Coast.

Obama also seems to hold to the European doctrine of multipolarity. To the European policy-makers, having a quasi-unipolar system in which peace is maintained by the military and economic power of a hyperpower is bad (especially when Europe isn’t the hyperpower). To the socialist mind, the fact that the hyperpower is (or at least was) based upon a relatively capitalistic and free-market system is abominable. Combine these in the thinking of Leftists like Obama and the Old Europeans, and you have the present drive to create a multipolar world in which American influence and power is reduced at the expense of advancing rivals to American “hegemony”, the more antagonistic these rivals, the better. The problem is, the reason these rivals are especially antagonistic to America is because they embody political and philosophical systems that are diametrically opposed to our – they are totalitarians, dictatorships, theocracies, imperialists, and so forth. It even goes so far as looking the other way while regimes like Iran develop nuclear weapons capabilities, and turning a weak knee to North Korea when it fires missiles over our allies in Japan. The Left in Europe and its emulators in America end up having to lie in bed with a whole lot of nasty characters in their push to bring America down to size.

In summation, we see that President Obama is taking our nation on a course that will reduce American moral authority, American power, and American influence generally. He does so because he operates from a mindset not unlike that held by socialists in Old Europe – countries like France and Germany where inordinate governmental power is held by an array of Communists, Greens, and other far Left groups. Unfortunately, the real world results from this will be neither happy nor prosperous for our planet, as we can expect North Korean dictators and Iranian theocrats to grow bolder and bolder. The post-Obama world will be much more nasty, brutish, and Hobbesian than it would have been otherwise.

Is Carter Advising Obama On Foreign Affairs?

by WrathofG-d ( 6 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Dhimmitude, Hamas, Islamists, Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Palestinians, Politics, Syria at March 31st, 2009 - 10:36 am

In an upcoming in-depth article in the April 6, 2009 issue of The New Yorker, investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh states that Carter has met with President Obama to discuss foreign policy, and that the administration was aware of Carter’s trip to Syria in December 2008. Carter is calling for broader U.S.-Syrian relations.  Is Obama using former failed President, Jimmy Carter, as a foreign policy adviser?

____________________________________________

http://theangloamerican.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/carter_obama.jpg “…

In his e-mail, Assad praised the diplomatic efforts of former President Jimmy Carter. “Carter is most knowledgeable about the Middle East and he does not try to dictate or give sermons,” Assad said.  “He sincerely is trying to think creatively and find solutions that are outside the box.” Carter’s calls for engagement with Hamas have angered many in Israel and America.  In “We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land,” published in January, Carter described Syria as “a key factor in any overall regional peace.” Last December, Carter visited Syria, and met not only with President Assad but with Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader.

A senior White House official confirmed that the Obama transition team had been informed in advance of Carter’s trip to Syria, and that Carter met with Obama shortly before the Inauguration. The two men—Obama was accompanied only by David Axelrod, the President’s senior adviser, who helped arrange the meeting; and Carter by his wife, Rosalynn—discussed the Middle East for an hour. Carter declined to discuss his meeting with Obama, but he did write in an e-mail that he hoped the new President “would pursue a wide-ranging dialogue as soon as possible with the Assad government.”  An understanding between Washington and Damascus, he said, “could set the stage for successful Israeli-Syrian talks.”

The Obama transition team also helped persuade Israel to end the bombing of Gaza and to withdraw its ground troops before the InaugurationAccording to the former senior intelligence official, who has access to sensitive information, “Cheney began getting messages from the Israelis about pressure from Obama” when he was President-elect. Cheney, who worked closely with the Israeli leadership in the lead-up to the Gaza war, portrayed Obama to the Israelis as a “pro-Palestinian,” who would not support their efforts (and, in private, disparaged Obama, referring to him at one point as someone who would “never make it in the major leagues”).  But the Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of “smart bombs” and other high-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel.  “It was Jones”—retired Marine General James Jones, at the time designated to be the President’s national-security adviser—“who came up with the solution and told Obama, ‘You just can’t tell the Israelis to get out.’ ” (General Jones said that he could not verify this account; Cheney’s office declined to comment.)