Posted by DipNote Bloggers on Jun 09, 2008 - 09:14 AM
![Photo of Secretary Rice June 9, 2008. [AP photo]](http://blogs.state.gov/images/UNGA/field/secRice_m.jpg)
“My admonition in 2000 that we should seek to get right the 'relationships with the big powers' -- Russia, China, and emerging powers such as India and Brazil -- has consistently guided us. As before, our alliances in the Americas, Europe, and Asia remain the pillars of the international order, and we are now transforming them to meet the challenges of a new era.
What has changed is, most broadly, how we view the relationship between the dynamics within states and the distribution of power among them. As globalization strengthens some states, it exposes and exacerbates the failings of many others -- those too weak or poorly governed to address challenges within their borders and prevent them from spilling out and destabilizing the international order. In this strategic environment, it is vital to our national security that states be willing and able to meet the full range of their sovereign responsibilities, both beyond their borders and within them. This new reality has led us to some significant changes in our policy.”
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Eric in New Mexico writes:
I see you've only done a partial reading of your assignment, Zharkov.
What exactly do you think I was saying here?
---
"The basic problem with the "One World Gov." concept is that it really goes against human nature to give up individual or in this case national identity.
I see what we have today becoming more as a grouping of nations bound by common purpose principally to deal with common problems, and the good stewardship of the rights of man and the envioronment as a matter of humanity's survival into the 22nd century and beyond.
It may take awhile for this dysfunctional mess to get sorted out properly, so enjoy the ride."
---
You should really dive into these G8 links and and study them, because what I said above is become manifest.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy into your paranoid delusional fantasies. There are simply too many natural checks and balances in international affairs that would prevent your global dictat of conspiracy from raising its ugly head in any practical or sustained manner.
Not going to happen my friend...so relax...your chains are of your own making. You can free your mind so long as you believe you can.
Thus, I am no captive to your imagination.
Posted on Wed Jul 09, 2008
I see you've only done a partial reading of your assignment, Zharkov.
What exactly do you think I was saying here?
---
"The basic problem with the "One World Gov." concept is that it really goes against human nature to give up individual or in this case national identity.
I see what we have today becoming more as a grouping of nations bound by common purpose principally to deal with common problems, and the good stewardship of the rights of man and the envioronment as a matter of humanity's survival into the 22nd century and beyond.
It may take awhile for this dysfunctional mess to get sorted out properly, so enjoy the ride."
---
You should really dive into these G8 links and and study them, because what I said above is become manifest.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy into your paranoid delusional fantasies. There are simply too many natural checks and balances in international affairs that would prevent your global dictat of conspiracy from raising its ugly head in any practical or sustained manner.
Not going to happen my friend...so relax...your chains are of your own making. You can free your mind so long as you believe you can.
Thus, I am no captive to your imagination.
Posted on Wed Jul 09, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
@ Eric in New Mexico, there is a huge difference between global trade and global government. If you think I am against both, you have misunderstood my posts.
Global government, the centralization of power over entire regions of the planet through voluntary relinquishment of sovereignty can lead to unimaginable evil. This was the dream of Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler, and the latest bunch we have leading both political parties in America.
Global trade, however, can be accomplished with a network of treaties and economic agreements and is probably good for everyone as long as monopoly power, such as sovereign funds set up by wealthy nations, do not overwhelm the system.
The kind of America that meddles into every other nation's affairs is not the same America that our constitution describes and indeed, is not America at all.
Regarding your lack of suspicion of a global dictatorship arising, I have to assume you have not read as widely as you should if the references exclusively to G-8 resolutions is your point of reference.
I suppose you have not read the news about satellite redeployment for surveillance in the US, or this morning that the federal government is considering placing tazer-like bracelets on airline passengers to monitor their movements; the creation of federal biometric data bases; the installation of tracking chips in new automobiles?
Did you know that our police received military equipment during the Clinton Administration and are now receiving military training during the Bush Administration; that entire civilian police forces are being militarized with military-style missions and training, internal checkpoints, military intelligence surveillance of American citizens? Do you not wonder why more and more of our civilian police have traded their police insignia for military uniforms, military weapons, and military tactics?
Do you know that the president's plan for emergency succession was never approved by Congress and never will be?
I read everything - domestic and foreign intelligence reports, new legislation, changes in state laws, new product advances, new federal contracts - everything you might imagine and more. Frankly, there are too many suspicious developments, much of which you are unaware, to describe in even 5,000 characters, but if you are curious, you can Google for details if you are interested.
Regardless, it is not my intention to hog the blog with disagreeable posts but merely to add another point of view that seems fully justified.
When you say people will determine what works for them, I hope you know that Congress has a 9% approval rating now, so clearly, 91% of Americans say what we are doing now is not working.
Americans do not want to be, and cannot afford to be, the global police force of last resort, or the guardians of the empire, or the builders of democracies. It is un-American. It is not something we celebrate on July 4th.
The whole point of emigrants leaving the old country for America was to get away from the european class structure, the european form of government, and to have real liberty. There are too many in our government who have forgotten why they are here, and it is my pleasure to remind them.
Posted on Wed Jul 09, 2008
@ Eric in New Mexico, there is a huge difference between global trade and global government. If you think I am against both, you have misunderstood my posts.
Global government, the centralization of power over entire regions of the planet through voluntary relinquishment of sovereignty can lead to unimaginable evil. This was the dream of Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler, and the latest bunch we have leading both political parties in America.
Global trade, however, can be accomplished with a network of treaties and economic agreements and is probably good for everyone as long as monopoly power, such as sovereign funds set up by wealthy nations, do not overwhelm the system.
The kind of America that meddles into every other nation's affairs is not the same America that our constitution describes and indeed, is not America at all.
Regarding your lack of suspicion of a global dictatorship arising, I have to assume you have not read as widely as you should if the references exclusively to G-8 resolutions is your point of reference.
I suppose you have not read the news about satellite redeployment for surveillance in the US, or this morning that the federal government is considering placing tazer-like bracelets on airline passengers to monitor their movements; the creation of federal biometric data bases; the installation of tracking chips in new automobiles?
Did you know that our police received military equipment during the Clinton Administration and are now receiving military training during the Bush Administration; that entire civilian police forces are being militarized with military-style missions and training, internal checkpoints, military intelligence surveillance of American citizens? Do you not wonder why more and more of our civilian police have traded their police insignia for military uniforms, military weapons, and military tactics?
Do you know that the president's plan for emergency succession was never approved by Congress and never will be?
I read everything - domestic and foreign intelligence reports, new legislation, changes in state laws, new product advances, new federal contracts - everything you might imagine and more. Frankly, there are too many suspicious developments, much of which you are unaware, to describe in even 5,000 characters, but if you are curious, you can Google for details if you are interested.
Regardless, it is not my intention to hog the blog with disagreeable posts but merely to add another point of view that seems fully justified.
When you say people will determine what works for them, I hope you know that Congress has a 9% approval rating now, so clearly, 91% of Americans say what we are doing now is not working.
Americans do not want to be, and cannot afford to be, the global police force of last resort, or the guardians of the empire, or the builders of democracies. It is un-American. It is not something we celebrate on July 4th.
The whole point of emigrants leaving the old country for America was to get away from the european class structure, the european form of government, and to have real liberty. There are too many in our government who have forgotten why they are here, and it is my pleasure to remind them.
Posted on Wed Jul 09, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Zharkov, how many times do I have to repeat myself till you finally get that people will determine what works for them, and discard the rest.
Back in the 60's, folks (adults to me back then) talked of the world "getting smaller" because of advances in air travel.
Globalization has been taking place ever since at an exponential rate.
Globalization is a technological fact in the age of the internet.
This doesn't mean that a global dictatorship is on a parrallel rise....Really Zharkov, I don't know what you're smoking, but it must be making you hallucinate.
Re-read my last post and then compare that to what is the official position of the G8.
G8 Declaration on the World Economy:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-2.html
G8 Declaration on Environment and Climate Change:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-3.html
G8 Declaration on Development and Africa:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-5.html
G8 Leaders Statement on Global Food Security:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-6.html
G8 Leaders Statement on Counter-Terrorism:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-8.html
G8 Leaders Statement on Zimbabwe:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-9.html
G8 Declaration on International Institutions:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-11.html
G8 Declaration on Political Issues:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-10.html
----
Zharkov, you really don't know me very well, nor would you grasp the kind of education I've had, but if it offers a clue, I was taking American history in High school and coming home at night and watching American history being made during the Watergate hearings...one might say I was a highly dissilusioned young man once. I can somewhat sympathize with your plight, but only to a limited extent.
Arn't you just a wee bit curious why an "uber liberal" like myself has reason to be optimistic today?...Lol!
I doubt if you are prepared for the answer, but do your homework anyway, you have your reading assignment posted.
I'll expect at least a 5000 character outline by morning.
Posted on Tue Jul 08, 2008
@ Zharkov, how many times do I have to repeat myself till you finally get that people will determine what works for them, and discard the rest.
Back in the 60's, folks (adults to me back then) talked of the world "getting smaller" because of advances in air travel.
Globalization has been taking place ever since at an exponential rate.
Globalization is a technological fact in the age of the internet.
This doesn't mean that a global dictatorship is on a parrallel rise....Really Zharkov, I don't know what you're smoking, but it must be making you hallucinate.
Re-read my last post and then compare that to what is the official position of the G8.
G8 Declaration on the World Economy:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-2.html
G8 Declaration on Environment and Climate Change:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-3.html
G8 Declaration on Development and Africa:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-5.html
G8 Leaders Statement on Global Food Security:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-6.html
G8 Leaders Statement on Counter-Terrorism:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-8.html
G8 Leaders Statement on Zimbabwe:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-9.html
G8 Declaration on International Institutions:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-11.html
G8 Declaration on Political Issues:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-10.html
----
Zharkov, you really don't know me very well, nor would you grasp the kind of education I've had, but if it offers a clue, I was taking American history in High school and coming home at night and watching American history being made during the Watergate hearings...one might say I was a highly dissilusioned young man once. I can somewhat sympathize with your plight, but only to a limited extent.
Arn't you just a wee bit curious why an "uber liberal" like myself has reason to be optimistic today?...Lol!
I doubt if you are prepared for the answer, but do your homework anyway, you have your reading assignment posted.
I'll expect at least a 5000 character outline by morning.
Posted on Tue Jul 08, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
@ Eric, if global government fails to occur, it will not have failed from a lack of cooperation from our State Department, so enjoy your captivity, if it happens.
Recent trends suggest that people around the world are slowly awakening to the trend, so the anticipated merger of Europe's governments may never happen and the EU may eventually disintegrate as a political entity and revert to the trade and travel arrangement it should have been.
There is nothing to be gained from global government that cannot be gained by proper treaties and alliances, so the chance exists that the average citizen may retain some liberty after all, once the globalists give up on their goal, remains very high. The globalist movement is dying and that is a very good thing.
As the recent writings of Mr. Gorbachev suggest, American military expansion in Central Europe is making other nations very nervous, mainly Russia, and many Russians believe the Bush Administration is unpredictable and therefore untrustworthy. I think we need to back off in sucking CIS nations into NATO, missile shields, etc., to give Russia time to get used to becoming subservient to the empire.
Posted on Tue Jul 08, 2008
@ Eric, if global government fails to occur, it will not have failed from a lack of cooperation from our State Department, so enjoy your captivity, if it happens.
Recent trends suggest that people around the world are slowly awakening to the trend, so the anticipated merger of Europe's governments may never happen and the EU may eventually disintegrate as a political entity and revert to the trade and travel arrangement it should have been.
There is nothing to be gained from global government that cannot be gained by proper treaties and alliances, so the chance exists that the average citizen may retain some liberty after all, once the globalists give up on their goal, remains very high. The globalist movement is dying and that is a very good thing.
As the recent writings of Mr. Gorbachev suggest, American military expansion in Central Europe is making other nations very nervous, mainly Russia, and many Russians believe the Bush Administration is unpredictable and therefore untrustworthy. I think we need to back off in sucking CIS nations into NATO, missile shields, etc., to give Russia time to get used to becoming subservient to the empire.
Posted on Tue Jul 08, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Teresa in Germany,
Welcome to the blog, and I appreciate the perspective you offered.
Would it be any wonder to folks in Europe if American foreign policy was based upon the trust it places in the common sense of free people?
Your country is living proof.
---
"Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.
All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner."
John F. Kennedy, 1963
Posted on Tue Jul 08, 2008
@ Teresa in Germany,
Welcome to the blog, and I appreciate the perspective you offered.
Would it be any wonder to folks in Europe if American foreign policy was based upon the trust it places in the common sense of free people?
Your country is living proof.
---
"Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.
All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner."
John F. Kennedy, 1963
Posted on Tue Jul 08, 2008
Teresa in Germany writes:
I agree with Mrs. Condolezza Rice.
I have read the article at the Foreign Affairs Online.
Very well balanced. Realistic.
I see the efforts of the Bush Administration in trying to cope in the best way as possible with so many conflicts, some unexpectet, with so much transparancy, equilibrium, and the desire to construct a better world after this difficult and complex post-cold war period.
And in having, at the same time, before so much oppositions all over the world, what became < fashionable >, strengh, structure, capacity of ruling all the affairs that have come to it.
Posted on Thu Jun 26, 2008
I agree with Mrs. Condolezza Rice.
I have read the article at the Foreign Affairs Online.
Very well balanced. Realistic.
I see the efforts of the Bush Administration in trying to cope in the best way as possible with so many conflicts, some unexpectet, with so much transparancy, equilibrium, and the desire to construct a better world after this difficult and complex post-cold war period.
And in having, at the same time, before so much oppositions all over the world, what became < fashionable >, strengh, structure, capacity of ruling all the affairs that have come to it.
Posted on Thu Jun 26, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
(chuckle) Zharkov I gotta say, that was a fine essay from the Borg School of Globalization... i.e. "...resistance is futile, you will be assimilated."
The basic problem with the "One World Gov." concept is that it really goes against human nature to give up individual or in this case national identity.
I see what we have today becoming more as a grouping of nations bound by common purpose principally to deal with common problems, and the good stewardship of the rights of man and the envioronment as a matter of humanity's survival into the 22nd century and beyond.
It may take awhile for this dysfunctional mess to get sorted out properly, so enjoy the ride.
Posted on Fri Jun 20, 2008
(chuckle) Zharkov I gotta say, that was a fine essay from the Borg School of Globalization... i.e. "...resistance is futile, you will be assimilated."
The basic problem with the "One World Gov." concept is that it really goes against human nature to give up individual or in this case national identity.
I see what we have today becoming more as a grouping of nations bound by common purpose principally to deal with common problems, and the good stewardship of the rights of man and the envioronment as a matter of humanity's survival into the 22nd century and beyond.
It may take awhile for this dysfunctional mess to get sorted out properly, so enjoy the ride.
Posted on Fri Jun 20, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
Benjamin in Ohio, I disagree, and I think one good move the Bush Administration has done is to keep America out of ICJ jurisdiction, to the extent it can. You have no idea of how your free speech rights would disappear under the rule of European governments. In France, the government prosecuted Brigette Bardot merely for writing about the effects of Islamic immigration on French culture; in Canada, Macleans Magazine was prosecuted by the Canadian government for publishing a magazine article about some trivial little thing; in Germany, you dare not write articles about the Holocaust that challenge the official view of it. Even today, in America, some Congressional members want to apply their crackpot theories about "hate speech" to criminalize people who say or write the wrong things. Governments everywhere want to limit what you can say and do, particularly if it involves public officials, and you can see that daily in the news media.
Every nation has a court system of some kind. There is no need for an international court as long as we have treaties to determine the choice of law to apply in certain cases, and no nation has yet complained about a shortage of lawyers.
The real problem with global government is that it would end the ancient right of exile. In most of man's history, we have had the right to leave a country which becomes oppressive, malicious, or simply boring, and go to a new country to start a new and hopefully better life. In a global society with one government for all nations, there would be no escape from your past life. You could never start over again. The government would track your every address change because you would belong to them. Today, they want your biometric data. Tomorrow, they will use it for purposes you cannot even imagine right now.
It has always been true that every law is extended to its maximum reach and then beyond, to ridiculous lengths, to accomplish some government objective regardless of whether that objective is good or bad. Today we may have a saint in charge of the EU (just kidding!), but tomorrow they may place another Hitler in power. With global government, can you even imagine the damage another Hitler might do?
Do we trust the elites who govern us not to make another mistake in choosing a leader for the world? I do not, and I hope our Declaration of Independence continues to remind us of what happened the last time we were governed by an unelected leader of a world empire.
An international court is only the beginning of a monolithic global government. To attain such a government requires consolidation of regions into organizations like the EU, the African Union, the North American Union, the South American Union, the Asia Union, to create subordinate bureaucracies under one global leader elected by regional leaders, not the citizens, but they will have tremendous, direct power over citizen's lives. This type of government must be stopped wherever it develops, or our liberties will be lost for a long, long time.
Posted on Fri Jun 20, 2008
Benjamin in Ohio, I disagree, and I think one good move the Bush Administration has done is to keep America out of ICJ jurisdiction, to the extent it can. You have no idea of how your free speech rights would disappear under the rule of European governments. In France, the government prosecuted Brigette Bardot merely for writing about the effects of Islamic immigration on French culture; in Canada, Macleans Magazine was prosecuted by the Canadian government for publishing a magazine article about some trivial little thing; in Germany, you dare not write articles about the Holocaust that challenge the official view of it. Even today, in America, some Congressional members want to apply their crackpot theories about "hate speech" to criminalize people who say or write the wrong things. Governments everywhere want to limit what you can say and do, particularly if it involves public officials, and you can see that daily in the news media.
Every nation has a court system of some kind. There is no need for an international court as long as we have treaties to determine the choice of law to apply in certain cases, and no nation has yet complained about a shortage of lawyers.
The real problem with global government is that it would end the ancient right of exile. In most of man's history, we have had the right to leave a country which becomes oppressive, malicious, or simply boring, and go to a new country to start a new and hopefully better life. In a global society with one government for all nations, there would be no escape from your past life. You could never start over again. The government would track your every address change because you would belong to them. Today, they want your biometric data. Tomorrow, they will use it for purposes you cannot even imagine right now.
It has always been true that every law is extended to its maximum reach and then beyond, to ridiculous lengths, to accomplish some government objective regardless of whether that objective is good or bad. Today we may have a saint in charge of the EU (just kidding!), but tomorrow they may place another Hitler in power. With global government, can you even imagine the damage another Hitler might do?
Do we trust the elites who govern us not to make another mistake in choosing a leader for the world? I do not, and I hope our Declaration of Independence continues to remind us of what happened the last time we were governed by an unelected leader of a world empire.
An international court is only the beginning of a monolithic global government. To attain such a government requires consolidation of regions into organizations like the EU, the African Union, the North American Union, the South American Union, the Asia Union, to create subordinate bureaucracies under one global leader elected by regional leaders, not the citizens, but they will have tremendous, direct power over citizen's lives. This type of government must be stopped wherever it develops, or our liberties will be lost for a long, long time.
Posted on Fri Jun 20, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Well then Ben, I guess the "Quartet" and supporting cast will simply have to compose an "Ode to the common man".
And a "Requime for Mother Earth"
The trick is to get all the players to the concert on time.
Ariving at the same mindset is not a simplistic task, one must become the music one plays.
The previously self billed wannabes having been cancelled due to lack of global interest are in process of packing up their "Death to America" dirge and walking it over oblivion's cliff strait back to the fourteenth century.
How far back to the begining of civilization are we talking about here? From an anthropological perspective, we have dinosaurs running amok as it is.
And Sociologicly? We've been inventing newer and better ways of exterminating ourselves for 200,000 + years. Technology has always outstripped mankind's ability to dicipline ourselves to use it in an ethical manner.
I agree with you that there is the opportunity to change this dynamic in this modern age to something more creative and less destructive.
But humanity has thousands of years of bad habits to undo first.
Posted on Thu Jun 19, 2008
Well then Ben, I guess the "Quartet" and supporting cast will simply have to compose an "Ode to the common man".
And a "Requime for Mother Earth"
The trick is to get all the players to the concert on time.
Ariving at the same mindset is not a simplistic task, one must become the music one plays.
The previously self billed wannabes having been cancelled due to lack of global interest are in process of packing up their "Death to America" dirge and walking it over oblivion's cliff strait back to the fourteenth century.
How far back to the begining of civilization are we talking about here? From an anthropological perspective, we have dinosaurs running amok as it is.
And Sociologicly? We've been inventing newer and better ways of exterminating ourselves for 200,000 + years. Technology has always outstripped mankind's ability to dicipline ourselves to use it in an ethical manner.
I agree with you that there is the opportunity to change this dynamic in this modern age to something more creative and less destructive.
But humanity has thousands of years of bad habits to undo first.
Posted on Thu Jun 19, 2008
Benjamin in Ohio writes:
We need to promote the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect on the way to a democratic world federation. There are global issues like the end to the war system; climate change; fair global trade; basic political, civic, economic, and solidarity rights; which can only be addressed by a global democratic authority with the power and the resources to do the job.
Name-calling and over-simplifications get us nowhere. Research, openness to new structures will get us to the beginning of civilization.
Posted on Thu Jun 19, 2008
We need to promote the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect on the way to a democratic world federation. There are global issues like the end to the war system; climate change; fair global trade; basic political, civic, economic, and solidarity rights; which can only be addressed by a global democratic authority with the power and the resources to do the job.
Name-calling and over-simplifications get us nowhere. Research, openness to new structures will get us to the beginning of civilization.
Posted on Thu Jun 19, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
There's only one correct response to the following, and that is that America considers folks in Europe to be responsible adults, not ethical infants. And thus fully capable of resolving their own direction as a community of democratic nations.
Zharkov wrote, "America allows the european oligarchy to covertly ignore the treaty vote while our State Department pontificates about freedom. Hypocrisy appears to be our primary foreign policy if we are "for" democracy but "against" the Irish vote.
Here's a little perspective on the Irish for you Zharkov:
Shortly after 9/11, when all air travel was cancelled, my mom among others was temporarily stranded in Ireland, and the Irish opened the whole town up to them like a community wide "Bed and Breakfast", inviting one and all into their homes.
One local woman remarked to my mother that it felt to her that Ireland itself had been attacked. She went on to explain that there were "so many Irish in America that it was as if we were the 51st state of the United States".
I'm not suggesting this explains their vote....(chuckle).
Posted on Wed Jun 18, 2008
There's only one correct response to the following, and that is that America considers folks in Europe to be responsible adults, not ethical infants. And thus fully capable of resolving their own direction as a community of democratic nations.
Zharkov wrote, "America allows the european oligarchy to covertly ignore the treaty vote while our State Department pontificates about freedom. Hypocrisy appears to be our primary foreign policy if we are "for" democracy but "against" the Irish vote.
Here's a little perspective on the Irish for you Zharkov:
Shortly after 9/11, when all air travel was cancelled, my mom among others was temporarily stranded in Ireland, and the Irish opened the whole town up to them like a community wide "Bed and Breakfast", inviting one and all into their homes.
One local woman remarked to my mother that it felt to her that Ireland itself had been attacked. She went on to explain that there were "so many Irish in America that it was as if we were the 51st state of the United States".
I'm not suggesting this explains their vote....(chuckle).
Posted on Wed Jun 18, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
As I said Zharkov, you ask some good questions.
At first glance I can fully appreciate how you've come to the assessment regarding the effectiveness of sanctions on Iran. Good and worthy points I'm sure folks at DoS and elsewhere considered before any decision was made.
You say Iran is not self isolating...well in that you must separate the people from the government. The people are not, but the government is....
So how would you go about having allies and friends around the world divest from Iran in a more effective manner than by causing Iran to pull all its money out of their banks?
In fact, Iran has saved folks the trouble of having to go look for it to have it frozen. Now it can be tracked, and like in any good investigation "follow the money" is a sound strategy to discovery.
We don't want to give them the war they want nor expect....on their terms. We give them the war they are neither prepared for nor able to fight...on our terms.
As for any closing of the Persian Gulf to shipping, Iran has tried in the past and the only problem with the premis is the US Navy, who will simply open it up again to shipping like a can opener in about 24-48 hours. After which, no one will be concerned with any Iranian offensive capability ever again. Take that to the bank.
In fact Zharkov, if we were to go to the last option and take a more kinetic approach to the problem, I think it's a safe bet contingincy planning on this has already been done and I don't think you'll see the results you've outlined occur as you described them.
If the Iranians were smart, you'd think they'd see the "gap" and take the fair offer that's currently on the table. But then we arn't dealing with reasonable minds in the first place, and to me this is the fundemental mistake of assumption the EU3 made in trying to negotiate with a state sponsor of terror in the first place.
I'm all for giving diplomacy a chance, but not at the expense of allowing the development of a nuclear weapons program disguising itself as being "peaceful" in nature.
The regime has no interest in peace, that's why it rejected the offer made. And I wouldn't hang your hat on some politicaly skewed NIE, Zharkov. They have an active re-activated program today, and it has been reactivated since mid 2004...not 2005 as some recent articles suggest.
It took America just about 27 months, from 1942-45 to build an industry from scratch, based on designs from scratch, building a city from scratch to build a bomb from scratch, with only theories to go on, in the middle of the largest and most costly war in history. Yet we did this and ended that war that had cost 50 million lives up to that point with the weapon that no one knew would even work at the time it was being produced.
Now Iran has had at least 18 years, lots of help from other nations, black market smugglers, and their scientists have had proven designs to work with, and in all probability now has in its possesion, a handful of nuclear devices smuggled in after being bought on the black market.
Which is I believe why they are behaving like idiots filled with the overconfidence given them by the popular political mythology that atomic weapons buys a nation's security.
Because they think having them can cause us to blink perhaps.... In any case it's a very....bad....mistake.
And you asked "how can this be solved without killing a lot of people?" in similar context in a post you put on Pravda ( at least that's as I remember it ).
Well, I think you give the US President all the rope he needs to give the Iranians the ability to hang themselves with politically, for starters. And then you give him credit for having brought a "common aproach" attitude forward that discredited the notion that it was the US' fault for the impass, when now quite obviously (and admittedly)was a tactic to waste time, divide the will of the international community, and keep the nuclear program alive.
So while the problem is now quite acute, and folks have a chance to reflect on the efforts made to date to solve it, it would indeed be hard to call the effort concrete or successful in meeting the primary goal as yet. When Nantez and other sites are filled in with concrete, then we've got a working "concrete solution", and not before.
But then I also believe that the framework among nations created to handle this crisis has yet to be put to its ultimate test.
I guess we'll see what happens when push comes to shove, but it really is for the Iranians to answer your question in full. Both by the government and the people.
Posted on Tue Jun 17, 2008
As I said Zharkov, you ask some good questions.
At first glance I can fully appreciate how you've come to the assessment regarding the effectiveness of sanctions on Iran. Good and worthy points I'm sure folks at DoS and elsewhere considered before any decision was made.
You say Iran is not self isolating...well in that you must separate the people from the government. The people are not, but the government is....
So how would you go about having allies and friends around the world divest from Iran in a more effective manner than by causing Iran to pull all its money out of their banks?
In fact, Iran has saved folks the trouble of having to go look for it to have it frozen. Now it can be tracked, and like in any good investigation "follow the money" is a sound strategy to discovery.
We don't want to give them the war they want nor expect....on their terms. We give them the war they are neither prepared for nor able to fight...on our terms.
As for any closing of the Persian Gulf to shipping, Iran has tried in the past and the only problem with the premis is the US Navy, who will simply open it up again to shipping like a can opener in about 24-48 hours. After which, no one will be concerned with any Iranian offensive capability ever again. Take that to the bank.
In fact Zharkov, if we were to go to the last option and take a more kinetic approach to the problem, I think it's a safe bet contingincy planning on this has already been done and I don't think you'll see the results you've outlined occur as you described them.
If the Iranians were smart, you'd think they'd see the "gap" and take the fair offer that's currently on the table. But then we arn't dealing with reasonable minds in the first place, and to me this is the fundemental mistake of assumption the EU3 made in trying to negotiate with a state sponsor of terror in the first place.
I'm all for giving diplomacy a chance, but not at the expense of allowing the development of a nuclear weapons program disguising itself as being "peaceful" in nature.
The regime has no interest in peace, that's why it rejected the offer made. And I wouldn't hang your hat on some politicaly skewed NIE, Zharkov. They have an active re-activated program today, and it has been reactivated since mid 2004...not 2005 as some recent articles suggest.
It took America just about 27 months, from 1942-45 to build an industry from scratch, based on designs from scratch, building a city from scratch to build a bomb from scratch, with only theories to go on, in the middle of the largest and most costly war in history. Yet we did this and ended that war that had cost 50 million lives up to that point with the weapon that no one knew would even work at the time it was being produced.
Now Iran has had at least 18 years, lots of help from other nations, black market smugglers, and their scientists have had proven designs to work with, and in all probability now has in its possesion, a handful of nuclear devices smuggled in after being bought on the black market.
Which is I believe why they are behaving like idiots filled with the overconfidence given them by the popular political mythology that atomic weapons buys a nation's security.
Because they think having them can cause us to blink perhaps.... In any case it's a very....bad....mistake.
And you asked "how can this be solved without killing a lot of people?" in similar context in a post you put on Pravda ( at least that's as I remember it ).
Well, I think you give the US President all the rope he needs to give the Iranians the ability to hang themselves with politically, for starters. And then you give him credit for having brought a "common aproach" attitude forward that discredited the notion that it was the US' fault for the impass, when now quite obviously (and admittedly)was a tactic to waste time, divide the will of the international community, and keep the nuclear program alive.
So while the problem is now quite acute, and folks have a chance to reflect on the efforts made to date to solve it, it would indeed be hard to call the effort concrete or successful in meeting the primary goal as yet. When Nantez and other sites are filled in with concrete, then we've got a working "concrete solution", and not before.
But then I also believe that the framework among nations created to handle this crisis has yet to be put to its ultimate test.
I guess we'll see what happens when push comes to shove, but it really is for the Iranians to answer your question in full. Both by the government and the people.
Posted on Tue Jun 17, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Zharkov, I suggest you simply digest the words I wrote and not try to do too much reading between the lines.
I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt, and a perfect opportunity to enlighten all of us as to your motivations on this forum. So please don't think I'm trying to silence you in any way. I'm just returning the favor since you gave me a perfect opportunity to shread your message.
It is not me that calls your credibility into question, you've done quite a thourough job of it all by yourself.
I would say that this blog's potential is far greater than a simple whiner's paradise for those in opposition to US foreign policy.
The alternative is for folks like Robert in Kenya to make so much sense in what he says that it can't possibly be ignored by the "powers that be". As just one example.
If anything Zharkov, I'm encoraging you to think logicly and if there's some percieved criticism in that, then you know why that is better than I.
It would make perfect sense to me if you had finally after 8000 some odd posts on Pravda, decided it was a total waste of your time, so you decided to grace us with your presence here. No problemo. I'm having a good time with it....(chuckle).
It is after all a debate no?
I may not agree with your perceptions of reality, but I sure do find them interesting, if not amusing.
But in case you think I have any attachment to becoming a "foreign journalist", I don't need to waste my time with Pravda to get an idea to folks in the Kremlin. Seems a lot of folks have got the concept (see press release posted-Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism) I put to Bill Clinton in 91 in these words on the flyleaf of my grandmother's book about Los Alamos, that I gave to him the day he was first elected President:
"This is a slice of times past, to give perspective on the present, so that in the future we can eliminate the threat of nuclear war. The greatest threat we face today is that terrorists will obtain nuclear weapons."
It's taken this administration it's entire two terms in office to help folks internationally wrap thier political reality around the stark reality of WMD we've all helped to create as nations.
So what's my motivation for being here? Well it's pretty transparent when you consider the reason my grandmother wrote a book about the Manhattan Project was because my Granddad was one of the division heads of the project that designed and produced the first atomic bomb in history.
If one were to say "The fellow's got issues" that would be correct in my case where it concerns the dysfunctionality of nations.
But I do not find it productive, or convincing argument to simply opine with a whine, because anyone can do that and it changes nothing.
But if folks have listened to me , it is only because they know I'm for real and do not mislead, and I think you've got to work on that one if you're going to be doing anything but be wasting your time trying to expound on your vision of America here on this blog.
Posted on Tue Jun 17, 2008
Zharkov, I suggest you simply digest the words I wrote and not try to do too much reading between the lines.
I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt, and a perfect opportunity to enlighten all of us as to your motivations on this forum. So please don't think I'm trying to silence you in any way. I'm just returning the favor since you gave me a perfect opportunity to shread your message.
It is not me that calls your credibility into question, you've done quite a thourough job of it all by yourself.
I would say that this blog's potential is far greater than a simple whiner's paradise for those in opposition to US foreign policy.
The alternative is for folks like Robert in Kenya to make so much sense in what he says that it can't possibly be ignored by the "powers that be". As just one example.
If anything Zharkov, I'm encoraging you to think logicly and if there's some percieved criticism in that, then you know why that is better than I.
It would make perfect sense to me if you had finally after 8000 some odd posts on Pravda, decided it was a total waste of your time, so you decided to grace us with your presence here. No problemo. I'm having a good time with it....(chuckle).
It is after all a debate no?
I may not agree with your perceptions of reality, but I sure do find them interesting, if not amusing.
But in case you think I have any attachment to becoming a "foreign journalist", I don't need to waste my time with Pravda to get an idea to folks in the Kremlin. Seems a lot of folks have got the concept (see press release posted-Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism) I put to Bill Clinton in 91 in these words on the flyleaf of my grandmother's book about Los Alamos, that I gave to him the day he was first elected President:
"This is a slice of times past, to give perspective on the present, so that in the future we can eliminate the threat of nuclear war. The greatest threat we face today is that terrorists will obtain nuclear weapons."
It's taken this administration it's entire two terms in office to help folks internationally wrap thier political reality around the stark reality of WMD we've all helped to create as nations.
So what's my motivation for being here? Well it's pretty transparent when you consider the reason my grandmother wrote a book about the Manhattan Project was because my Granddad was one of the division heads of the project that designed and produced the first atomic bomb in history.
If one were to say "The fellow's got issues" that would be correct in my case where it concerns the dysfunctionality of nations.
But I do not find it productive, or convincing argument to simply opine with a whine, because anyone can do that and it changes nothing.
But if folks have listened to me , it is only because they know I'm for real and do not mislead, and I think you've got to work on that one if you're going to be doing anything but be wasting your time trying to expound on your vision of America here on this blog.
Posted on Tue Jun 17, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
Each public referendum held regarding joining the EU has resulted in overwhelming rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, the latest being Ireland, yet the US says nothing to stop the EU leaders from ramming their treaty down the throats of an unwilling european public. America allows the european oligarchy to covertly ignore the treaty vote while our State Department pontificates about freedom. Hypocrisy appears to be our primary foreign policy if we are "for" democracy but "against" the Irish vote.
Let's talk about Iran and nuclear terrorism. Iran has just withdrawn about $75 billion from Europe to prevent the assets from being blocked under threatened new sanctions over Tehran's disputed nuclear ambitions, an Iranian weekly said. "Part of Iran's assets in European banks have been converted to gold and shares and another part has been transferred to Asian banks," Mohsen Talaie, deputy foreign minister in charge of economic affairs, was quoted as saying.
Now this is the wrong way to enforce sanctions. Economic sanctions are economic warfare, and in war, one does not announce the next attack in advance. If prior demands fail, you block the accounts without warning. If we are going to announce sanctions, and then advertise in advance what will occur, the sanctions will be worthless because the enemy will dynamically adjust its economic behavior to neutralize the inconvenience. In conducting economic war, the first principle is that it is a war, and we use economics and finance as weapons instead of bullets but it requires some of the same tactical skills as a shooting war. As long as Iran finds a bank with an open door, it will conduct business as usual. Iran is not self-isolating like North Korea. If the enemy is surrounded except for a gap, it will exit through the gap without losses. To properly embargo Iran, it will take unanimous cooperation of all banks in every country, including Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Venezuela, and across the globe. If you cannot do that, then your sanctions remain mostly symbolic. Iran will continue to do what it does, and banking sanctions will remain ineffective.
The Iranians haven't been shy about making clear what's at stake. If the U.S. or Israel so much as drops a bomb on one of its reactors or its military training camps, Iran will shut down Gulf oil exports by launching a barrage of Chinese Silkworm missiles on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and Arab oil facilities. In the worst case scenario, seventeen million barrels of oil would come off world markets.
One oil speculator said that oil would hit $200 a barrel within minutes. But Iran's official news agency, Fars, puts it at $300 a barrel. If Iran is right, what does that mean?
"Four-dollar-a-gallon of gasoline only reflects $100 oil because the refiners' margins are squeezed," he said. "At $300, you have $12 a gallon of gasoline and riots in Newark, Los Angeles, Harlem, Oakland, Cleveland, Detroit, Dallas."
In either case, whether at $200 or $300, Mr. Bush does not want to be the President who leaves the White House on a mule-drawn cart. But Iran's blackmail is not just about oil. The Iranians truly believe they have us hostage in Iraq ? our supply lines, the acquiescence of the Shi'a in the occupation. It would all change in an instant, though, especially if we were to borrow Iraq to attack Iran.
What foreign policy can we have to end an Iranian nuclear weapons program if we cannot be certain it even exists?
Posted on Tue Jun 17, 2008
Each public referendum held regarding joining the EU has resulted in overwhelming rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, the latest being Ireland, yet the US says nothing to stop the EU leaders from ramming their treaty down the throats of an unwilling european public. America allows the european oligarchy to covertly ignore the treaty vote while our State Department pontificates about freedom. Hypocrisy appears to be our primary foreign policy if we are "for" democracy but "against" the Irish vote.
Let's talk about Iran and nuclear terrorism. Iran has just withdrawn about $75 billion from Europe to prevent the assets from being blocked under threatened new sanctions over Tehran's disputed nuclear ambitions, an Iranian weekly said. "Part of Iran's assets in European banks have been converted to gold and shares and another part has been transferred to Asian banks," Mohsen Talaie, deputy foreign minister in charge of economic affairs, was quoted as saying.
Now this is the wrong way to enforce sanctions. Economic sanctions are economic warfare, and in war, one does not announce the next attack in advance. If prior demands fail, you block the accounts without warning. If we are going to announce sanctions, and then advertise in advance what will occur, the sanctions will be worthless because the enemy will dynamically adjust its economic behavior to neutralize the inconvenience. In conducting economic war, the first principle is that it is a war, and we use economics and finance as weapons instead of bullets but it requires some of the same tactical skills as a shooting war. As long as Iran finds a bank with an open door, it will conduct business as usual. Iran is not self-isolating like North Korea. If the enemy is surrounded except for a gap, it will exit through the gap without losses. To properly embargo Iran, it will take unanimous cooperation of all banks in every country, including Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Venezuela, and across the globe. If you cannot do that, then your sanctions remain mostly symbolic. Iran will continue to do what it does, and banking sanctions will remain ineffective.
The Iranians haven't been shy about making clear what's at stake. If the U.S. or Israel so much as drops a bomb on one of its reactors or its military training camps, Iran will shut down Gulf oil exports by launching a barrage of Chinese Silkworm missiles on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and Arab oil facilities. In the worst case scenario, seventeen million barrels of oil would come off world markets.
One oil speculator said that oil would hit $200 a barrel within minutes. But Iran's official news agency, Fars, puts it at $300 a barrel. If Iran is right, what does that mean?
"Four-dollar-a-gallon of gasoline only reflects $100 oil because the refiners' margins are squeezed," he said. "At $300, you have $12 a gallon of gasoline and riots in Newark, Los Angeles, Harlem, Oakland, Cleveland, Detroit, Dallas."
In either case, whether at $200 or $300, Mr. Bush does not want to be the President who leaves the White House on a mule-drawn cart. But Iran's blackmail is not just about oil. The Iranians truly believe they have us hostage in Iraq ? our supply lines, the acquiescence of the Shi'a in the occupation. It would all change in an instant, though, especially if we were to borrow Iraq to attack Iran.
What foreign policy can we have to end an Iranian nuclear weapons program if we cannot be certain it even exists?
Posted on Tue Jun 17, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Reality check of the day:
Posted on Tue Jun 17, 2008
Reality check of the day:
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 17, 2008
Joint Statement of the President of the Russian Federation and the President of the United States of America for the 4th Meeting of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism
White House News
We are pleased to be working closely together with our Global Initiative Partners to combat nuclear terrorism. That so many nations have joined the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism demonstrates a true commitment to defeat this threat to our peace and security.
The Russian Federation and the United States launched the Global Initiative on July 15, 2006 and we can now call more than 70 nations Global Initiative partners. We will continue to stand upon the principles at the heart of this Initiative, attract others to our ranks and realize our goal of making this a truly global effort. Gathering as partners in Madrid is an important reminder to one another of the commitments we have to each of our citizens to see clearly the concrete steps we can take together to prevent nuclear terrorism and ensure our peace and security.
# # #
Posted on Tue Jun 17, 2008
Robert in Kenya writes:
Interesting observations. It is worth noting that power does tend to obscure vision. And sometimes potentially powerful states are not listened to because their full potential has not been unleashed given a myriad of internal and external factors. Power seems to draw power to power. Does foreign policy have the patience to listen to power on its back? To listen to the potential of power rather than its excercise? Some of the nation's with greatest potential may seem to be handicapped by poverty and incessant squabbling. The standards of power are set by the powerful as we know them today, but much like we talk of alternative sources of energy today, we need to give power a new dimension, an alternative and serious dimension that reflects less on material and more on values that have led to nations developing national characters that can stand up to be counted as having universally acceptable values and strengths. Pride in humane values free from double standards should be part-reflection of this alternative character of power that should transcend the internal factors in today's powerful states and gain a foothold into emerging ones. Small states too need something to hold onto to give them power. They may not want nuclear arms, but they want model communties, clean environments and convenience of social services.
Posted on Tue Jun 17, 2008
Interesting observations. It is worth noting that power does tend to obscure vision. And sometimes potentially powerful states are not listened to because their full potential has not been unleashed given a myriad of internal and external factors. Power seems to draw power to power. Does foreign policy have the patience to listen to power on its back? To listen to the potential of power rather than its excercise? Some of the nation's with greatest potential may seem to be handicapped by poverty and incessant squabbling. The standards of power are set by the powerful as we know them today, but much like we talk of alternative sources of energy today, we need to give power a new dimension, an alternative and serious dimension that reflects less on material and more on values that have led to nations developing national characters that can stand up to be counted as having universally acceptable values and strengths. Pride in humane values free from double standards should be part-reflection of this alternative character of power that should transcend the internal factors in today's powerful states and gain a foothold into emerging ones. Small states too need something to hold onto to give them power. They may not want nuclear arms, but they want model communties, clean environments and convenience of social services.
Posted on Tue Jun 17, 2008
Daniel in Virginia writes:
What is this?
Yet another attempt to gloss over the absolute disastrous policies of this administration?
Yes, our policies have changed-we rely on phony evidence to invade another country and put our troops in harm's way for what? And in the meantime, we ignore Afghanistan, where the real threat remains.
Pathetic.
History will not judge you kindly Madame secretary.
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008
What is this?
Yet another attempt to gloss over the absolute disastrous policies of this administration?
Yes, our policies have changed-we rely on phony evidence to invade another country and put our troops in harm's way for what? And in the meantime, we ignore Afghanistan, where the real threat remains.
Pathetic.
History will not judge you kindly Madame secretary.
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
This blog could become far more interesting if the participants attacked the message rather than the messenger.
Shall we criticize our foreign policy, or shall we criticize the few people who criticize our foreign policy in order to silence them?
Do we discuss foreign policy issues, Eric, or do we discuss the lack of international journalism on Eric's part? If the latter, this blog will quickly become boring. Should it make a difference to a valid argument if we know that Eric never posted a single idea on a Russian blog or can we just move on to discuss his ideas?
Most of our foreign policy, if not all of it, is influenced or devised by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and they should be open to public criticism, particularly here at DoS where they advertise, yet some blog participants that do not like such criticism. It seems being too American is now "anti-American".
Yes, we could all agree that our government and its foreign policy are infallible, but we can see it is otherwise, and some of us want to say so. If this blog is not the place for airing public perceptions and criticism, then what good is it?
Do we need a blog "protest zone" established to keep criticism away from our government officials? Shall we build more bunkers to protect government employees from the voters?
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008
This blog could become far more interesting if the participants attacked the message rather than the messenger.
Shall we criticize our foreign policy, or shall we criticize the few people who criticize our foreign policy in order to silence them?
Do we discuss foreign policy issues, Eric, or do we discuss the lack of international journalism on Eric's part? If the latter, this blog will quickly become boring. Should it make a difference to a valid argument if we know that Eric never posted a single idea on a Russian blog or can we just move on to discuss his ideas?
Most of our foreign policy, if not all of it, is influenced or devised by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and they should be open to public criticism, particularly here at DoS where they advertise, yet some blog participants that do not like such criticism. It seems being too American is now "anti-American".
Yes, we could all agree that our government and its foreign policy are infallible, but we can see it is otherwise, and some of us want to say so. If this blog is not the place for airing public perceptions and criticism, then what good is it?
Do we need a blog "protest zone" established to keep criticism away from our government officials? Shall we build more bunkers to protect government employees from the voters?
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008
John in Greece writes:
@ Eric in New Mexico -- I totally agree with you Eric. (extremely nice "drawing")
@ DipNote Bloggers -- If I remember correctly a fellow-blogger (I think she was Anna from Washington D.C. that posted this) wrote something very interesting:
"It's not the salaries or the economy in general, but the big TVs and cars we always... desire even bigger." (in my words)
Unfortunately Joe from Tennessee sometimes presents a "dead" America. On the other hand, he is right that a strong internal economy is a must, not only for America, but also for the rest of the world that needs a wealthy, healthy and happy U.S.A. that can... offer.
Unfortunately, I don not have a clear view of the economic situation there. So, co-bloggers write your opinion...
But, first, think of "Anna's" perspective before writing.
Nevertheless, with all the respect for Joe's comments, I think that the U.S.A. is ALIVE and motivated for even more successes in the near future.
Let's all of us think and act positive!
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008
@ Eric in New Mexico -- I totally agree with you Eric. (extremely nice "drawing")
@ DipNote Bloggers -- If I remember correctly a fellow-blogger (I think she was Anna from Washington D.C. that posted this) wrote something very interesting:
"It's not the salaries or the economy in general, but the big TVs and cars we always... desire even bigger." (in my words)
Unfortunately Joe from Tennessee sometimes presents a "dead" America. On the other hand, he is right that a strong internal economy is a must, not only for America, but also for the rest of the world that needs a wealthy, healthy and happy U.S.A. that can... offer.
Unfortunately, I don not have a clear view of the economic situation there. So, co-bloggers write your opinion...
But, first, think of "Anna's" perspective before writing.
Nevertheless, with all the respect for Joe's comments, I think that the U.S.A. is ALIVE and motivated for even more successes in the near future.
Let's all of us think and act positive!
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008
"In 1989-1990 I urged a certain govt foreign ministry for most urgent joining of International Forces and International Courts to judge tyrants as Saddam and Khomeini - and when asked by that Govt Ministry to render in writing, wrote in May 1990 describing the need for a system of International Brigade of forces to implement decisions of International Tribunals in order to help curb tyranny and terror."Be glad I didn't find Sadam: I would have saved everyone a lot of money and a rope...and the other SHOULD BE DEAD and had his head stuffed in pigs entrails for all the suffering he caused to humanity and the position he put the world in now as a direct result of his existence. The COMMUNIST protected the latter. The U.S. Administration of the 90s protected the first. ..That is a direct result of not having leadership who ever fired a shot in defense of their country or democracy.
Do you not think the world is beyond accepting despots as leaders anywhere? One small country can negatively impact the entire world today. Things have changed, for the worst and less complicated measures may well work better than a civil diplomatic response.
We get back stabbed because intellects tend to not understand where other people come from. Take your idea of a tribunal to any ghetto narcotics organization when they order a hit. See what happens. These leaders are often no more than that. They do not respect civility, which is why they are as they are to begin with. Why can you not accept that fact? It is not a matter of education, doing the right thing, civility or setting a better example to them or those like them. They do understand finite power, which is why they use it...it should be used in the same manner against them. It is not that complicated.
John, you are in Greece correct? What do they actually do there now? I mean, what has become of their Great Civilization? How does it impact my life today, not historically. The same is happening here in the U.S.A., the most beautiful country in the world with the best Constitution and Bill of Rights; but, we have real problems not being addressed and the middle class sturcture which the DoS touts as an example is non-existent today. You cannot compare apples and donuts as an analogy... but you can have an apple donut.
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ PS in Europe -- Interesting testimonial, thanks for being one of the good guys.
While some may feel the ICC is incompatible w/U.S. justice system in regards to legal status of Americans upon facing charges brought, simply because they will be held accountable under our own domestic laws for international crimes anyway...few here on this blg seem to understand the basic premis of U.S. international moral and diplomatic support that formed the underpinnings of the creation of the International Criminal Court.
It is as if some that comment here must have gone to the "Zeitgiest" school of American forign policy (the movie).
---
@ John in Greece -- Google being the wonderful tool that it is, I think I can answer your question...being that since 2003, and 8,596 posts later on Pravda's online forum, Zharkov still claims his location to be the "Utopia of Soviet America".
Well John, either our friend Zharkov has an especially well developed sense of humor, or you are correct....and moreover I'd say deliberately out of touch. To be kind about it.
The "loyal minority" breaks new ground I guess. But if it's any consolation he actually sounds reasonable compared to the other comments I've read on that forum.
Reminds me of the Washington Post forums in tone actually, but that's another story in free speech I'll save for later.
Guess that's why he showed up here, needed an intellectual challenge I suppose. I think we should provide him with one.
Fellow asks some good questions, but I find it amazing how consistantly he draws the wrong assumption from jumping to conclusion without being armed with the facts.
Like in "Zeitgiest"(the movie) the facts in reality may be twisted to fit theory, to the detriment of understanding and debate.
One must be careful of what one accepts as truth.
And I suppose it serves some percieved purpose for some on this blog to toss a lot of chaff ( or something else ) into the wind to see if something sticks politically, but in reality is only serving to distract and disrupt an otherwise positive forign policy discussion based upon fact, not innuendo. The fellow from Tennessee should take note he is serving no usefull purpose in this regard.
In any case, the world does not revolve around Pravda, and so let's move on to more constructive debate...shall we?
My feeling is that one should be prepared in participating on this blog to leave one's assumptions at home, if one truly wants to become informed.
Because no one has the complete picture, it is only possible for us to contribute our small slice of the reality pie as we've experienced it. So it becomes important to separate perception from reality in our participation on this forum if is to become worthy of our combined intellect to reach some measure of agreement on issues, and that becomes a matter of self dicipline to look beyond one's political motivation or agenda.
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008
@ PS in Europe -- Interesting testimonial, thanks for being one of the good guys.
While some may feel the ICC is incompatible w/U.S. justice system in regards to legal status of Americans upon facing charges brought, simply because they will be held accountable under our own domestic laws for international crimes anyway...few here on this blg seem to understand the basic premis of U.S. international moral and diplomatic support that formed the underpinnings of the creation of the International Criminal Court.
It is as if some that comment here must have gone to the "Zeitgiest" school of American forign policy (the movie).
---
@ John in Greece -- Google being the wonderful tool that it is, I think I can answer your question...being that since 2003, and 8,596 posts later on Pravda's online forum, Zharkov still claims his location to be the "Utopia of Soviet America".
Well John, either our friend Zharkov has an especially well developed sense of humor, or you are correct....and moreover I'd say deliberately out of touch. To be kind about it.
The "loyal minority" breaks new ground I guess. But if it's any consolation he actually sounds reasonable compared to the other comments I've read on that forum.
Reminds me of the Washington Post forums in tone actually, but that's another story in free speech I'll save for later.
Guess that's why he showed up here, needed an intellectual challenge I suppose. I think we should provide him with one.
Fellow asks some good questions, but I find it amazing how consistantly he draws the wrong assumption from jumping to conclusion without being armed with the facts.
Like in "Zeitgiest"(the movie) the facts in reality may be twisted to fit theory, to the detriment of understanding and debate.
One must be careful of what one accepts as truth.
And I suppose it serves some percieved purpose for some on this blog to toss a lot of chaff ( or something else ) into the wind to see if something sticks politically, but in reality is only serving to distract and disrupt an otherwise positive forign policy discussion based upon fact, not innuendo. The fellow from Tennessee should take note he is serving no usefull purpose in this regard.
In any case, the world does not revolve around Pravda, and so let's move on to more constructive debate...shall we?
My feeling is that one should be prepared in participating on this blog to leave one's assumptions at home, if one truly wants to become informed.
Because no one has the complete picture, it is only possible for us to contribute our small slice of the reality pie as we've experienced it. So it becomes important to separate perception from reality in our participation on this forum if is to become worthy of our combined intellect to reach some measure of agreement on issues, and that becomes a matter of self dicipline to look beyond one's political motivation or agenda.
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008
Anna in Washington, DC writes:
@ John in Greece -- I meant no skepticism or discouragement when I wrote that I was touched that someone from Greece could write such beautiful things about the United States. Maybe I selected my words poorly, and I should have not assumed that you were not an American, but I sincerely do appreciate what you write about this country.
Posted on Sun Jun 15, 2008
@ John in Greece -- I meant no skepticism or discouragement when I wrote that I was touched that someone from Greece could write such beautiful things about the United States. Maybe I selected my words poorly, and I should have not assumed that you were not an American, but I sincerely do appreciate what you write about this country.
Posted on Sun Jun 15, 2008
Asi in Turkey writes:
thank you
Posted on Sun Jun 15, 2008
thank you
Posted on Sun Jun 15, 2008
PS in Europe writes:
In 1989-1990 I urged a certain govt foreign ministry for most urgent joining of International Forces and International Courts to judge tyrants as Saddam and Khomeini - and when asked by that Govt Ministry to render in writing, wrote in May 1990 describing the need for a system of International Brigade of forces to implement decisions of International Tribunals in order to help curb tyranny and terror. .
Subsequently, an International Conference was held in Copenhagen which was called the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
(While striving to come to that conference, I was subjected to tragic cruelties as subsequent health problems were mismanaged )
In 1991, I was shocked at the 'sun bathing' incapacities of UN observer missions, not allowed to intervene at massacres ensued on moslem Bosnians and their relatives.
This sums my background when around mid 1990s, I wrote a telefax to the International Court at the Hague calling for the establishment of International Criminal CourtS* of Justice.(*pl.)
My scope of interest then was the most hideous High Crimes against Humanity as extremist militia massacres in Somalia and new rules that could condemn the ultranationalist hate club which Radovan Karadzic was a member of.
Sidelining massacres taking place in Africa and in the Balkan conflict, certain lobbies tried to 'buy' off the issue and Arafat was a main player when instead of building bridges, issues went off hand, as some tried to legitimize the lynch terror and hard headed hatred against the existence of Israel, as demonstrated by the moral religious blackmail regime in Iran.
While not mitigating the cruel dilemmas in various societies, it is essential to respect the major powers and find ways towards encouraging the ratification of parts of the idea, which stems from my inspiration from my grandfather who was sent as a spokesperson to the Hague in Holland towards the end of 1919, when 12 nations met to discuss lasting peace after WW1. Then, the initial International Tribunal of Arbitration was established.
UNSC P-5 members have the pledged oversight to ensure that such horrific ultranationalist and facist hate crimes never happen again. The N�renberg Process has far from completed its mission, as there have been ultranationalist hate movements along side horrific terrorist cartels financed by drugs and certain tyrannic abusers of natural resources as oil.
Since then, the UNSC deliberates on which courts to support and how.
When I wrote to the Hague around mid 1990s, I had construed various International Criminal Courts of Justice ranging from accelerated proceedings to curb narco-terror, to 'bridge courts' to bring together legal establishments, as could have helped in the case of Bulgarian nurses and Palestinian doctor who were accused of deliberately spreading HIV.
I therefore strongly defend and appreciate the U.S. DoS and quite disagree with any party political bias.
Posted on Sat Jun 14, 2008
In 1989-1990 I urged a certain govt foreign ministry for most urgent joining of International Forces and International Courts to judge tyrants as Saddam and Khomeini - and when asked by that Govt Ministry to render in writing, wrote in May 1990 describing the need for a system of International Brigade of forces to implement decisions of International Tribunals in order to help curb tyranny and terror. .
Subsequently, an International Conference was held in Copenhagen which was called the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
(While striving to come to that conference, I was subjected to tragic cruelties as subsequent health problems were mismanaged )
In 1991, I was shocked at the 'sun bathing' incapacities of UN observer missions, not allowed to intervene at massacres ensued on moslem Bosnians and their relatives.
This sums my background when around mid 1990s, I wrote a telefax to the International Court at the Hague calling for the establishment of International Criminal CourtS* of Justice.(*pl.)
My scope of interest then was the most hideous High Crimes against Humanity as extremist militia massacres in Somalia and new rules that could condemn the ultranationalist hate club which Radovan Karadzic was a member of.
Sidelining massacres taking place in Africa and in the Balkan conflict, certain lobbies tried to 'buy' off the issue and Arafat was a main player when instead of building bridges, issues went off hand, as some tried to legitimize the lynch terror and hard headed hatred against the existence of Israel, as demonstrated by the moral religious blackmail regime in Iran.
While not mitigating the cruel dilemmas in various societies, it is essential to respect the major powers and find ways towards encouraging the ratification of parts of the idea, which stems from my inspiration from my grandfather who was sent as a spokesperson to the Hague in Holland towards the end of 1919, when 12 nations met to discuss lasting peace after WW1. Then, the initial International Tribunal of Arbitration was established.
UNSC P-5 members have the pledged oversight to ensure that such horrific ultranationalist and facist hate crimes never happen again. The N�renberg Process has far from completed its mission, as there have been ultranationalist hate movements along side horrific terrorist cartels financed by drugs and certain tyrannic abusers of natural resources as oil.
Since then, the UNSC deliberates on which courts to support and how.
When I wrote to the Hague around mid 1990s, I had construed various International Criminal Courts of Justice ranging from accelerated proceedings to curb narco-terror, to 'bridge courts' to bring together legal establishments, as could have helped in the case of Bulgarian nurses and Palestinian doctor who were accused of deliberately spreading HIV.
I therefore strongly defend and appreciate the U.S. DoS and quite disagree with any party political bias.
Posted on Sat Jun 14, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
3. Krushchev said that, not Putin.
NO, Putin said: "We took the wrong approach to dismantling America. We could have done it Economically, without force."
Posted on Sat Jun 14, 2008
3. Krushchev said that, not Putin.
NO, Putin said: "We took the wrong approach to dismantling America. We could have done it Economically, without force."
Posted on Sat Jun 14, 2008
Ronald in New York writes:
The Bush/Rice DoS set the bar for sovereign responsibility so low; that all other responsible states are wondering what the incentive is for remaining good global partners.
Rogue nations have taken USG foreign policies as a grand excuse for flagrant violations internally and internationally. Not signing onto the Intenatiional Criminal Court of Justice (ICCJ) was an early sign that all bets were off regarding U.S. military accountability. Post 9/11,
U.S. policies have destabilized international security.
I get scared everytime Bush/Rice and now McCain say, "...We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 0/11".
Don't they see the provocative nature of that statement?
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008
The Bush/Rice DoS set the bar for sovereign responsibility so low; that all other responsible states are wondering what the incentive is for remaining good global partners.
Rogue nations have taken USG foreign policies as a grand excuse for flagrant violations internally and internationally. Not signing onto the Intenatiional Criminal Court of Justice (ICCJ) was an early sign that all bets were off regarding U.S. military accountability. Post 9/11,
U.S. policies have destabilized international security.
I get scared everytime Bush/Rice and now McCain say, "...We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 0/11".
Don't they see the provocative nature of that statement?
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008
John in Greece writes:
@ Anna in Washington, DC -- At the beginning of this Blog, a very thinking man wrote me something extremely intelligent (that "many people who live in the States do not feel Americans. On the other hand, others, who live abroad may feel more Americans than people who live in the U.S.") -something like this, but THIS!...
So, don't be so skeptical about my love for the U.S. ("someone from Greece")
OK!
(I would love to live there, but I am too old for this -- so don't say you ...Me- are not an American, I may be ...here in Greece)
The last days, I do not write "enough" ...but I read almost everything -- on the ground that many of the posts are discussing internal policy and economics in U.S. You are right, I do not live there, I do not know... I have no right. I respect it concerning the... internals, although I disagree if this is the appropriate forum for internal policy discussions.
Nevertheless, DoS decides for this.
You write: "but I think that an American has a right to that opinion" Are you so sure that Zharkov in U.S.A. is from U.S.A.?
Zharkov writes:
"The same place it was on Iraq ...non existent. CNN knew more than the CIA regarding Iraq."
Sure!!!
Zharkov knows NOTHING and he should appreciate more the CIA. He should respect!... Plenty of the guys there became stars on a wall -as the movie says- in order for him to write in FREEDOM.
When someone "hits" CIA, do you think that he loves America?
If you think so, bring the guy "in" and make him a Chief...
Best regards Anna.
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008
@ Anna in Washington, DC -- At the beginning of this Blog, a very thinking man wrote me something extremely intelligent (that "many people who live in the States do not feel Americans. On the other hand, others, who live abroad may feel more Americans than people who live in the U.S.") -something like this, but THIS!...
So, don't be so skeptical about my love for the U.S. ("someone from Greece")
OK!
(I would love to live there, but I am too old for this -- so don't say you ...Me- are not an American, I may be ...here in Greece)
The last days, I do not write "enough" ...but I read almost everything -- on the ground that many of the posts are discussing internal policy and economics in U.S. You are right, I do not live there, I do not know... I have no right. I respect it concerning the... internals, although I disagree if this is the appropriate forum for internal policy discussions.
Nevertheless, DoS decides for this.
You write: "but I think that an American has a right to that opinion" Are you so sure that Zharkov in U.S.A. is from U.S.A.?
Zharkov writes:
"The same place it was on Iraq ...non existent. CNN knew more than the CIA regarding Iraq."
Sure!!!
Zharkov knows NOTHING and he should appreciate more the CIA. He should respect!... Plenty of the guys there became stars on a wall -as the movie says- in order for him to write in FREEDOM.
When someone "hits" CIA, do you think that he loves America?
If you think so, bring the guy "in" and make him a Chief...
Best regards Anna.
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
After reading Ms. Rice's article in Foreign Policy, the reason why we disregard our constitution becomes apparent in her statement:
"We acknowledge our birth defect, a constitution founded on a compromise that reduced my ancestors each to three-fifths of a man."
This view of a defective constitution does not justify violating it after swearing under oath to protect and defend it.
The Bush Administration may be over, but America will never be over as long as there is one court willing to enforce our constitution, and as long as Americans remember why we declared our independence, and did not declare our mutual dependence on a global community.
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008
After reading Ms. Rice's article in Foreign Policy, the reason why we disregard our constitution becomes apparent in her statement:
"We acknowledge our birth defect, a constitution founded on a compromise that reduced my ancestors each to three-fifths of a man."
This view of a defective constitution does not justify violating it after swearing under oath to protect and defend it.
The Bush Administration may be over, but America will never be over as long as there is one court willing to enforce our constitution, and as long as Americans remember why we declared our independence, and did not declare our mutual dependence on a global community.
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
I think to get back on 'track', the problem we have in general is exactly what is demonstrated by our Knowledge Base.
I'll explain: In the late 90s, there was a symposium on Russia and its rebuilding. Included were two prominent past officials of the old Communist regime. Not to embarrass a prominent DOS official, and it is not Rice, the discussion came to the histology of Russia and its people. Two of Americas best minds continued to tell the history of the Russian people, both economically and culturally ...This is the reaction of the Old Party Members:
That is the trouble with America. You think your so smart. Your not Russian, how could you possibly know what it means to be a Russian or live in Russia at any time in its history? You read books, study and think you know everything about everyone. I will tell you this now, America is over, its over and you do not even know it...
It was at this juncture I stated watching their economic treaties, movements to South America, new ties with Asia, purchasing of raw materials ...etc. Where was our Intel? The same place it was on Iraq ...non existent. CNN knew more than the CIA regarding Iraq. Apearently most old Mercs and German Enginerrs knew more about what they built underground as well...
Anyone who was in the game back in the 80s knows more about Russia ...but everyone was shelved or buried or burned. You cannot denounce that fact. Somehow, because someone shakes our hand, listens attentively, goes along with any program that mutually benefits them as well as us, we consider them our friend. It is not true to any degree.
The same concept exists on even a Military basis. IE: When Russia started flying the old Russian Bear, Tupolev Tu-95 , what did the DOD say: If they want to take that rusty plane out of mothballs, who cares. Guess what: it has new engines and a much greater pay load that includes smaller tactical WMD capable of being launched even if the plane is destroyed. Doesn't sound like a moth balled plane to me...and guess what, they can afford to fly them 24/7.
Now you tell me, why anyone should believe any of our best minds views to be worthwhile? Ideology and application are only as good as the intelligence and reactions of any Administration. Where are we NOW and why?
Our leadership is as far from the people it represents here, why do you we think we are so superior in knowing the people on others soils? Numbers do not always apply to the human factor unfortunately.
It is the Failure of American Politics and intellectual arrogance which eliminated or contrived Intel resourcing for its own purposes which have led us to where we are and QUOTE: This new reality has led us to some significant changes in our policy. END QUOTE..
Ever think they are NOT NEW REALITIES, just overlooked ones?
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008
I think to get back on 'track', the problem we have in general is exactly what is demonstrated by our Knowledge Base.
I'll explain: In the late 90s, there was a symposium on Russia and its rebuilding. Included were two prominent past officials of the old Communist regime. Not to embarrass a prominent DOS official, and it is not Rice, the discussion came to the histology of Russia and its people. Two of Americas best minds continued to tell the history of the Russian people, both economically and culturally ...This is the reaction of the Old Party Members:
That is the trouble with America. You think your so smart. Your not Russian, how could you possibly know what it means to be a Russian or live in Russia at any time in its history? You read books, study and think you know everything about everyone. I will tell you this now, America is over, its over and you do not even know it...
It was at this juncture I stated watching their economic treaties, movements to South America, new ties with Asia, purchasing of raw materials ...etc. Where was our Intel? The same place it was on Iraq ...non existent. CNN knew more than the CIA regarding Iraq. Apearently most old Mercs and German Enginerrs knew more about what they built underground as well...
Anyone who was in the game back in the 80s knows more about Russia ...but everyone was shelved or buried or burned. You cannot denounce that fact. Somehow, because someone shakes our hand, listens attentively, goes along with any program that mutually benefits them as well as us, we consider them our friend. It is not true to any degree.
The same concept exists on even a Military basis. IE: When Russia started flying the old Russian Bear, Tupolev Tu-95 , what did the DOD say: If they want to take that rusty plane out of mothballs, who cares. Guess what: it has new engines and a much greater pay load that includes smaller tactical WMD capable of being launched even if the plane is destroyed. Doesn't sound like a moth balled plane to me...and guess what, they can afford to fly them 24/7.
Now you tell me, why anyone should believe any of our best minds views to be worthwhile? Ideology and application are only as good as the intelligence and reactions of any Administration. Where are we NOW and why?
Our leadership is as far from the people it represents here, why do you we think we are so superior in knowing the people on others soils? Numbers do not always apply to the human factor unfortunately.
It is the Failure of American Politics and intellectual arrogance which eliminated or contrived Intel resourcing for its own purposes which have led us to where we are and QUOTE: This new reality has led us to some significant changes in our policy. END QUOTE..
Ever think they are NOT NEW REALITIES, just overlooked ones?
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. wrote:
Here is what the current Russian leader said:
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008
Here is what the current Russian leader said:
Dimitry Medvedev - Speech at the V Krasnoyarsk Economic Forum
"Our policy is founded on a principle that, for all its self-evidence, I consider the most important in the life of any modern state seeking to provide high standards of living. This is the principle that the existence of freedom is better than its absence. These words are the quintessence of human experience.
I am talking here of freedom in all its different manifestations: personal freedom, economic freedom, freedom of self-expression. I think that achieving harmony between freedom and law and order is crucial at this stage."
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008
Zharkov in U.S. A. writes:
@ Joe in Tennessee --
1. Joe, you might want to read: http://english.pravda.ru/about/
2. Congress will not approve oil drilling anywhere near the artic. What they intend to tax next after people stop buying oil is a mystery, but right now the gas tax is like winning the lottery for them.
3. Krushchev said that, not Putin.
4. I agree.
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008
@ Joe in Tennessee --
1. Joe, you might want to read: http://english.pravda.ru/about/
2. Congress will not approve oil drilling anywhere near the artic. What they intend to tax next after people stop buying oil is a mystery, but right now the gas tax is like winning the lottery for them.
3. Krushchev said that, not Putin.
4. I agree.
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
1. The Russian Govt. owns Pravda. It is also listed in three other Publications within the Russian domain.
2. All news sources are checked OUTSIDE the Russian Domain...such as the following: Russia is trying to claim the North Pole oil rights, Denmark is sending ships to claim Arctic oil rights, Canada is shifting military to its borders to protect its oil rights and America is sending ships and subs to claim the Arctic rights. Like some Novel...it is happening and what newspaper did you read it in here in America?...
3. Putin, long ago, stated he would economically destroy America and defeat the U.S. without firing a shot. That is not my words, but his....and he has.
4. News in all countries is tainted; but verifiable sources are not as hard to find as in the past.
Greece: John, what you see as the American ideology is seen by Americans as having been hijacked. We started a country to be fee of a King and enslavement, to have a country of citizens who were Represented and have a say in their future, not controlled by pseudo intellects, people who failed in their own occupations, or never worked and simply as an occupation and certainly not to be TOLD what is best for us by profiting outside its own people and definitely not dominated by a hundred little Kings.
Representation of the people simply has not been an actuality in the last decades and the American Dream is not a Middle Class that works at McDonalds or Wall Mart and lives out of their vehicles....
This morning in Congress is a case in point: They had an emergency meeting to extend unemployment benefits for the largest non employed population since the great depression here and I guess it was too early as there were only about 1/10 of the Congressional Representatives on the floor and all they did was argue and point fingers, just like Ross Perrot said long ago. They care? They passed the bills that sold American jobs overseas�.America and Americans are hurting, that is FACT not propaganda.
Russia recognizes our economic weaknesses and Congressional apathy quite well.
Lastly, if the last eight years were so GOOD and we Know so much, why is the world as it is?
Words don't win wars or feed people and America is the leader in all this, but we cannot keep it up printing bad money.
Posted on Thu Jun 12, 2008
1. The Russian Govt. owns Pravda. It is also listed in three other Publications within the Russian domain.
2. All news sources are checked OUTSIDE the Russian Domain...such as the following: Russia is trying to claim the North Pole oil rights, Denmark is sending ships to claim Arctic oil rights, Canada is shifting military to its borders to protect its oil rights and America is sending ships and subs to claim the Arctic rights. Like some Novel...it is happening and what newspaper did you read it in here in America?...
3. Putin, long ago, stated he would economically destroy America and defeat the U.S. without firing a shot. That is not my words, but his....and he has.
4. News in all countries is tainted; but verifiable sources are not as hard to find as in the past.
Greece: John, what you see as the American ideology is seen by Americans as having been hijacked. We started a country to be fee of a King and enslavement, to have a country of citizens who were Represented and have a say in their future, not controlled by pseudo intellects, people who failed in their own occupations, or never worked and simply as an occupation and certainly not to be TOLD what is best for us by profiting outside its own people and definitely not dominated by a hundred little Kings.
Representation of the people simply has not been an actuality in the last decades and the American Dream is not a Middle Class that works at McDonalds or Wall Mart and lives out of their vehicles....
This morning in Congress is a case in point: They had an emergency meeting to extend unemployment benefits for the largest non employed population since the great depression here and I guess it was too early as there were only about 1/10 of the Congressional Representatives on the floor and all they did was argue and point fingers, just like Ross Perrot said long ago. They care? They passed the bills that sold American jobs overseas�.America and Americans are hurting, that is FACT not propaganda.
Russia recognizes our economic weaknesses and Congressional apathy quite well.
Lastly, if the last eight years were so GOOD and we Know so much, why is the world as it is?
Words don't win wars or feed people and America is the leader in all this, but we cannot keep it up printing bad money.
Posted on Thu Jun 12, 2008
PS in Europe writes:
Thanks 'Eric in New Mexico' for understanding and I agree with what you added re my posting of June 10th.
My posting was a 'generalities' comment on the main theme of this blog line regarding the Sec of State Hon Ms Doctor Rice's admonition in the year 2000. I concur and highly applaud Her tireless efforts along those lines as described above, as She has striven to unite the best interests of all sides as well as U.S. interests.
We have just rounded June 11th which brings us 81 months on after September 11th 2001 attacks, being most psychopathological and cruel attack on Metropolitan Society in recent times. This did not deter the US Secretary of State from continuing the most important work of reaching out, - on the contrary, good people rose above party politics and there is still immense work to be done, for we must never become complacent for a split moment.
I pay tribute to the Beloved American Peoples and Government for rising above such horrific events.
If I had been the President, I could not imagine how I would react. President G.W. Bush reacted immediately comforting the US public, stating that we must not allow ourselves to become like the terrorists - for then they would have won.
President G.W. Bush, proved that the U.S.A. is not to be messed around with, and it will never serve the purpose of any psychopath to ever imagine such pathological ideas ever.
Communities across the entire world can understand that -- for they all need to just put themselves in U.S. American shoes, and feel the distress and grief as evil plots unfolded -- such that nobody could imagine, how evil and cruel some could become, misguided by extremism and trying to play reactively into the hands of certain ultranationalist hate movements in Europe who had dreamt of an excuse for blanket judgemental attitudes.
The President judged well to strive to stop those tyrants that threatened to run a proxy war funded by offshore accounts. Saddam did have simple biological precursers to WMDs not apt to discuss here - and not only the intent, but was in the process of unleashing his ' mother of all battles ' and had reinstated many times that he had come to complete what Hitler had not completed.
I highly respect Very Honorable U.S. President G.W. Bush turn criticism back on those who had a shared responsibility to 'step up to the plate' when innocent people were massacred in Iraq.
In early 1991 I wrote an article in a local European newspaper entitled 'Global shared responsibility ' ( translated approx. ) -- the editor removed my name and left my two cosignatories although they were not the writers.
Some people make cruel judgements as they lack insight and empathy on events -- and some resort to cruel name calling or demeaning media propaganda.
I for one, am grateful that many world leaders of today are careful, wise and mindful about the urgencies on struggle against terrorism, tyranny, extremism, and specially drug cartels which had also become part of Saddam's family activities as well as cruel fanatic bigots in Afghanistan regions.
To make it clear, when I wrote 'pre-emptive' I also meant 'prophylactic' or 'preventative' as ALL possible measures must needs be taken to prevent all high crimes of terrorism, whether due to fanatism, tyrannic state funded, ultranationalist hate group instigated, or instigated by narco-terror affiliate interests.
It is up to the entire World Community also to seek to understand and to help positively and constructively towards a Global Coalition of the Conscientious so that all forms of terror and tyranny and the scourge of drugs be halted and disease and ignorance be remedied - for the the lives of innocent masses are in dire danger - and certain do not yet know how to interact optimally and positively..... Thanks to Dept of State for opportunities !
Posted on Thu Jun 12, 2008
Thanks 'Eric in New Mexico' for understanding and I agree with what you added re my posting of June 10th.
My posting was a 'generalities' comment on the main theme of this blog line regarding the Sec of State Hon Ms Doctor Rice's admonition in the year 2000. I concur and highly applaud Her tireless efforts along those lines as described above, as She has striven to unite the best interests of all sides as well as U.S. interests.
We have just rounded June 11th which brings us 81 months on after September 11th 2001 attacks, being most psychopathological and cruel attack on Metropolitan Society in recent times. This did not deter the US Secretary of State from continuing the most important work of reaching out, - on the contrary, good people rose above party politics and there is still immense work to be done, for we must never become complacent for a split moment.
I pay tribute to the Beloved American Peoples and Government for rising above such horrific events.
If I had been the President, I could not imagine how I would react. President G.W. Bush reacted immediately comforting the US public, stating that we must not allow ourselves to become like the terrorists - for then they would have won.
President G.W. Bush, proved that the U.S.A. is not to be messed around with, and it will never serve the purpose of any psychopath to ever imagine such pathological ideas ever.
Communities across the entire world can understand that -- for they all need to just put themselves in U.S. American shoes, and feel the distress and grief as evil plots unfolded -- such that nobody could imagine, how evil and cruel some could become, misguided by extremism and trying to play reactively into the hands of certain ultranationalist hate movements in Europe who had dreamt of an excuse for blanket judgemental attitudes.
The President judged well to strive to stop those tyrants that threatened to run a proxy war funded by offshore accounts. Saddam did have simple biological precursers to WMDs not apt to discuss here - and not only the intent, but was in the process of unleashing his ' mother of all battles ' and had reinstated many times that he had come to complete what Hitler had not completed.
I highly respect Very Honorable U.S. President G.W. Bush turn criticism back on those who had a shared responsibility to 'step up to the plate' when innocent people were massacred in Iraq.
In early 1991 I wrote an article in a local European newspaper entitled 'Global shared responsibility ' ( translated approx. ) -- the editor removed my name and left my two cosignatories although they were not the writers.
Some people make cruel judgements as they lack insight and empathy on events -- and some resort to cruel name calling or demeaning media propaganda.
I for one, am grateful that many world leaders of today are careful, wise and mindful about the urgencies on struggle against terrorism, tyranny, extremism, and specially drug cartels which had also become part of Saddam's family activities as well as cruel fanatic bigots in Afghanistan regions.
To make it clear, when I wrote 'pre-emptive' I also meant 'prophylactic' or 'preventative' as ALL possible measures must needs be taken to prevent all high crimes of terrorism, whether due to fanatism, tyrannic state funded, ultranationalist hate group instigated, or instigated by narco-terror affiliate interests.
It is up to the entire World Community also to seek to understand and to help positively and constructively towards a Global Coalition of the Conscientious so that all forms of terror and tyranny and the scourge of drugs be halted and disease and ignorance be remedied - for the the lives of innocent masses are in dire danger - and certain do not yet know how to interact optimally and positively..... Thanks to Dept of State for opportunities !
Posted on Thu Jun 12, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
I think a bit of research will reveal that Pravda Online is not the same "Pravda" that was an official news source for the Soviet government.
Pravda's website does not speak for the Russian government, which has its own website, and there is no particular purpose served in the Secretary of State responding to name-calling by some independent journalist with a grudge. The State Department has a long list of duties but answering newspaper insults isn't one of them yet. If Mr. Bush submitted to a DNA test to refute the accusation, it would not change any minds at that website.
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008
I think a bit of research will reveal that Pravda Online is not the same "Pravda" that was an official news source for the Soviet government.
Pravda's website does not speak for the Russian government, which has its own website, and there is no particular purpose served in the Secretary of State responding to name-calling by some independent journalist with a grudge. The State Department has a long list of duties but answering newspaper insults isn't one of them yet. If Mr. Bush submitted to a DNA test to refute the accusation, it would not change any minds at that website.
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008
Anna in Washington, DC writes:
@ John in Greece -
It touches my heart what you write about America in your postings. I am encouraged to read that someone from Greece can see all the things that makes America so great, someone who appreciates what this country stands for, in theory and in practice (and I say practice, because as Eric points out, America is evolving). I am glad to know that there are people out in the world with your perspective on the U.S.
I guess what I was saying earlier was that advocating for isolationism in U.S. foreign policy doesn't translate to anti-Americanism, so when many of us interpreted Zharkov's first posting to mean that he advocated for a foreign policy that was more isolationist in practice, I didn't think that he was being anti-American. I may not have agreed with that position, but I think that an American has a right to that opinion. I read now that Zharkov writes that he doesn't want to see America retreat into itself. Maybe we all agree more on that than we first thought.
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008
@ John in Greece -
It touches my heart what you write about America in your postings. I am encouraged to read that someone from Greece can see all the things that makes America so great, someone who appreciates what this country stands for, in theory and in practice (and I say practice, because as Eric points out, America is evolving). I am glad to know that there are people out in the world with your perspective on the U.S.
I guess what I was saying earlier was that advocating for isolationism in U.S. foreign policy doesn't translate to anti-Americanism, so when many of us interpreted Zharkov's first posting to mean that he advocated for a foreign policy that was more isolationist in practice, I didn't think that he was being anti-American. I may not have agreed with that position, but I think that an American has a right to that opinion. I read now that Zharkov writes that he doesn't want to see America retreat into itself. Maybe we all agree more on that than we first thought.
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge the admiration I have for the loyalty and commitment that Ms. Rice had for the Presidents policies and direction toward democracy throughout the world, but...
I am surprised that with the US economic situation a review of the last eight years has any relevance to be honest. I am especially awed that the blind eye turned toward Russia for the last eight years which went unnoticed by one of our most educated Russian Specialist. Without even a shot fired:
Pravda today June 11, 08:
Bush in Europe tries to save the West from collapse
US President George bush tries to save the West from the imminent crisis that may result from the growth of prices on energy sources. It goes without saying that the incumbent US president is just a lame duck. His influence and image in the States continues to decline. His IQ is not higher than that of a gorilla
Russia stands up for new world without America
The XII World Economic Forum, which took place last week in St. Petersburg, will be remembered for its daring statements made by Russia's top economic officials. The opening speech made by President Dmitry Medvedev produced a furore. Dmitry Medvedev did not hesitate to point out the major initiator of the unfortunate situation. He believes that the formal role of the United States of America in the global economic system does not comply with its real possibilities
Oil price may double within 18 months
Russia 's Gazprom, the supplier of a quarter of Europe's natural gas, expects the price of crude oil to almost double within 18 months and to take gas prices higher with it. "We think it will reach $250 a barrel in the foreseeable future," Chief Executive Alexei Miller told reporters at a presentation in France, adding high demand rather than speculation was the primary factor for high hydrocarbon prices.
So, how does that fit into the last eight years? If the red flags were not sent upline, it would not bother me. Why did it all go without addressing?
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008
First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge the admiration I have for the loyalty and commitment that Ms. Rice had for the Presidents policies and direction toward democracy throughout the world, but...
I am surprised that with the US economic situation a review of the last eight years has any relevance to be honest. I am especially awed that the blind eye turned toward Russia for the last eight years which went unnoticed by one of our most educated Russian Specialist. Without even a shot fired:
Pravda today June 11, 08:
Bush in Europe tries to save the West from collapse
US President George bush tries to save the West from the imminent crisis that may result from the growth of prices on energy sources. It goes without saying that the incumbent US president is just a lame duck. His influence and image in the States continues to decline. His IQ is not higher than that of a gorilla
Russia stands up for new world without America
The XII World Economic Forum, which took place last week in St. Petersburg, will be remembered for its daring statements made by Russia's top economic officials. The opening speech made by President Dmitry Medvedev produced a furore. Dmitry Medvedev did not hesitate to point out the major initiator of the unfortunate situation. He believes that the formal role of the United States of America in the global economic system does not comply with its real possibilities
Oil price may double within 18 months
Russia 's Gazprom, the supplier of a quarter of Europe's natural gas, expects the price of crude oil to almost double within 18 months and to take gas prices higher with it. "We think it will reach $250 a barrel in the foreseeable future," Chief Executive Alexei Miller told reporters at a presentation in France, adding high demand rather than speculation was the primary factor for high hydrocarbon prices.
So, how does that fit into the last eight years? If the red flags were not sent upline, it would not bother me. Why did it all go without addressing?
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. Writes:
After we read the Federalist Papers, we will understand that "America first" was the entire point of the American revolution against Britain. Many royalists who did not want to separate from England left America for Canada.
If not "America first", then which country should be first in the minds of Americans? Which country is more important that our own?
Do we really want an international group such as the U.N. to govern the world? Are you so ready to abandon the U.S. Constitution? If so, then perhaps Canada is the country for you.
Who elected the U.N. to govern Darfur? Do we have an obligation to govern the ungoverned in every nook and cranny on earth? In which document is that obligation stated? Or is this a matter of sheer military power that grants such a right?
Lawlessness cuts both ways. If we assume obligations without request to do so, and compel obedience to our policies through force, we may expect the same officious intermeddling by other countries in our own domestic politics, eventually.
Contrary to what Eric said, I do not advocate isolation from the world, but merely hope for respect for other cultures - The Golden Rule.
Iranians are not our children and we are not their nanny. If they wish to have another revolution, our Declaration of Independence suggests that is within their right, without our stepping into the middle of it. One would expect the same for any country, including Sudan, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, or any other misgoverned nation.
If Iran is making atomic bombs, I would expect the IAEA to say so, and they said Iran is not doing that, so then what is the point of funding the IAEA if nobody can trust its report?
Are we going to war again based on speculation and doubts? Would we go to war with Iran if we had a different foreign policy that did not try to second-guess everything that other countries might do?
Is the foreign policy that got us mired down in Iraq working for us or is our dollar devaluation evidence that we are spending too much on wars?
Will America still be as loved when we run out of oil and our military power has diminished or will that be payback time for our past sins? I think we need to back off some of our agressiveness regarding weaker nations and try persuasion and reason and maybe even see if the U.N. can do what it was created to do - avoid war. If the U.N. is a waste of time in that regard, then why do we remain there?
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008
After we read the Federalist Papers, we will understand that "America first" was the entire point of the American revolution against Britain. Many royalists who did not want to separate from England left America for Canada.
If not "America first", then which country should be first in the minds of Americans? Which country is more important that our own?
Do we really want an international group such as the U.N. to govern the world? Are you so ready to abandon the U.S. Constitution? If so, then perhaps Canada is the country for you.
Who elected the U.N. to govern Darfur? Do we have an obligation to govern the ungoverned in every nook and cranny on earth? In which document is that obligation stated? Or is this a matter of sheer military power that grants such a right?
Lawlessness cuts both ways. If we assume obligations without request to do so, and compel obedience to our policies through force, we may expect the same officious intermeddling by other countries in our own domestic politics, eventually.
Contrary to what Eric said, I do not advocate isolation from the world, but merely hope for respect for other cultures - The Golden Rule.
Iranians are not our children and we are not their nanny. If they wish to have another revolution, our Declaration of Independence suggests that is within their right, without our stepping into the middle of it. One would expect the same for any country, including Sudan, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, or any other misgoverned nation.
If Iran is making atomic bombs, I would expect the IAEA to say so, and they said Iran is not doing that, so then what is the point of funding the IAEA if nobody can trust its report?
Are we going to war again based on speculation and doubts? Would we go to war with Iran if we had a different foreign policy that did not try to second-guess everything that other countries might do?
Is the foreign policy that got us mired down in Iraq working for us or is our dollar devaluation evidence that we are spending too much on wars?
Will America still be as loved when we run out of oil and our military power has diminished or will that be payback time for our past sins? I think we need to back off some of our agressiveness regarding weaker nations and try persuasion and reason and maybe even see if the U.N. can do what it was created to do - avoid war. If the U.N. is a waste of time in that regard, then why do we remain there?
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008
SNP in Syria writes:
1. US forces would be free to attack via Iraqi airspace, land or waterways any country which threatens global and regional peace and security, menaces Iraqi government and constitution, or instigates terrorist and paramilitary groups.
2. US forces would have the right to set up additional military bases and stations inside Iraq that will support the Iraqi army. The number of the bases would depend on several factors, including the security conditions the US government deems desirable, negotiations with the US Embassy in Baghdad and the US command as well as discussions with the Iraqi Defense Ministry and relevant authorities.
3. The Iraqi government and its judiciary would not have the right to prosecute American forces or individuals. The immunity measure would extend to the US military, security, non-military and logistics firms affiliated with the US Army.
4. The Iraqi government would not have the right to independently determine whether US forces inside Iraq are qualified, nor would it have the right to limit or determine the size of American military bases and their routes.
5. US security forces would have the right to build security centers, particularly their own special prisons, to maintain security.
6. US forces would have the right to use their privilege to arrest those who threaten peace and security without a warrant from the Iraqi government or its institutions.
7. The US government must be informed of and negotiated with on Iraq's regional and international relations as well as signing of agreements so as to safeguard the country's security and constitution.
8. US forces will control Iraq's defense, interior and intelligence ministries for 10 years to carry out efforts toward training and enabling their staff, a measure which would mean even the weapons used by Iraqi forces and their types must be employed with the consent of US forces.
9. The agreement to be signed would be a pact rather than a treaty.
10. US forces would remain in Iraq for an unspecified and presumably lengthy period depending on conditions in the country. Future reviews on the matter would depend on the US and Iraqi governments. Any review would only be made under certain preconditions, including that Iraq's security and military organizations improve their performance; the country's security situation improves; national reconciliation takes place; neighboring countries are warned; the Iraqi government regains complete control throughout the country; and put an end to the presence of paramilitary forces inside Iraq.
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008
1. US forces would be free to attack via Iraqi airspace, land or waterways any country which threatens global and regional peace and security, menaces Iraqi government and constitution, or instigates terrorist and paramilitary groups.
2. US forces would have the right to set up additional military bases and stations inside Iraq that will support the Iraqi army. The number of the bases would depend on several factors, including the security conditions the US government deems desirable, negotiations with the US Embassy in Baghdad and the US command as well as discussions with the Iraqi Defense Ministry and relevant authorities.
3. The Iraqi government and its judiciary would not have the right to prosecute American forces or individuals. The immunity measure would extend to the US military, security, non-military and logistics firms affiliated with the US Army.
4. The Iraqi government would not have the right to independently determine whether US forces inside Iraq are qualified, nor would it have the right to limit or determine the size of American military bases and their routes.
5. US security forces would have the right to build security centers, particularly their own special prisons, to maintain security.
6. US forces would have the right to use their privilege to arrest those who threaten peace and security without a warrant from the Iraqi government or its institutions.
7. The US government must be informed of and negotiated with on Iraq's regional and international relations as well as signing of agreements so as to safeguard the country's security and constitution.
8. US forces will control Iraq's defense, interior and intelligence ministries for 10 years to carry out efforts toward training and enabling their staff, a measure which would mean even the weapons used by Iraqi forces and their types must be employed with the consent of US forces.
9. The agreement to be signed would be a pact rather than a treaty.
10. US forces would remain in Iraq for an unspecified and presumably lengthy period depending on conditions in the country. Future reviews on the matter would depend on the US and Iraqi governments. Any review would only be made under certain preconditions, including that Iraq's security and military organizations improve their performance; the country's security situation improves; national reconciliation takes place; neighboring countries are warned; the Iraqi government regains complete control throughout the country; and put an end to the presence of paramilitary forces inside Iraq.
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008
Ronald in New York writes:
Sovereign Responsibilities?
Get over SOVEREIGN and see the interconnectness of resonsible governance. The world can no longer be run by reciprocal contracts. Look at Darfur, for example.
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008
Sovereign Responsibilities?
Get over SOVEREIGN and see the interconnectness of resonsible governance. The world can no longer be run by reciprocal contracts. Look at Darfur, for example.
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Ah Zharkov, with all due respect..your oath to protect and defend the Constitution does not preclude abandoning the values which concieved it.
The common inalienable rights of all mankind, for one.
You have interpreted the words to mean what they never implied, for nowhere in the Constitution does it suggest a doctrine of isolationism from the rest of the world.
As I understand it, Ben Franklin had a pretty good time in Paris and London being this nation's very first ambassador.
I just have to say that what you believe America should be all about never had anything to do with what America is all about...no insult intended, just raw analysis.
And how many people would starve to death worldwide were America to adopt your "America First" foreign policy aproach and hide behind our borders eh? No, that's not putting America first, that's a sure strategy for us to finish last in credibility among nations.
Quite the dilema, no?
Well, I'd say if you were going to toss out policy ideas for debate, you might want to consider whether they are morally doable, as well as Constitutional.
And FDR's "Four Freedoms" violates our Constitution? Must I guess if you say the Marshall Plan which based it's entire premis on them was "unconstitutional".
You know folks tend to get a little upset at how you voice your patriotism, Zharkov, when they tend to use ALL CAPS...(chuckle). I'm not saying this to rail on you or to change your mindset. Only you can do that. But you seem quite bitter about the way things are, and I don't think you need to be.
Shamir in Europe's "swift improvisation" got it about right.
I would only add that "winning hearts and minds" is a two way street. What comes around, goes around.
I think the smart thing is to be of cautious mind and flexible to change, and so to John from Greece who may on occassion mistake "the loyal minority" for anti-Americanism I can simply say that I do believe you're about to get an education 'round November. I hope this election sets a good example to others for what is possible. Thanks for the kind words. I've given up any attachment to permanance long ago....(LOL!)
On the other hand, folks around the world that fear radical change in US foreign policy need not. For there are far too many checks and balances within government for things to get too far out of whack one side of the pendulum or the other. I just trust the American people's center of gravity as we the people proceed to the vote with our traditional revolutionary instincts. Works for me all the time.
The power we invest in our government comes from us, the people. So please do feel free to raise a glass, and celebrate. No need to crash the party, the world's invited.
Mi' casa, es su' casa.
"we the people" is all of you who've come from distant land to become citizen, those native to the land, and those born of the land known as America.
What America is becomes an evolving process, and when when one thinks of a diplomat being America's face to the world, it be only natural for the Sec of State to project the mirror that America has become to the rest of the world. We are no different from the world, the world is us in a great meltingpot.
Sometimes folks don't like the mirror held up too closely. They may be comforted in that it is a two way looking glass.
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008
Ah Zharkov, with all due respect..your oath to protect and defend the Constitution does not preclude abandoning the values which concieved it.
The common inalienable rights of all mankind, for one.
You have interpreted the words to mean what they never implied, for nowhere in the Constitution does it suggest a doctrine of isolationism from the rest of the world.
As I understand it, Ben Franklin had a pretty good time in Paris and London being this nation's very first ambassador.
I just have to say that what you believe America should be all about never had anything to do with what America is all about...no insult intended, just raw analysis.
And how many people would starve to death worldwide were America to adopt your "America First" foreign policy aproach and hide behind our borders eh? No, that's not putting America first, that's a sure strategy for us to finish last in credibility among nations.
Quite the dilema, no?
Well, I'd say if you were going to toss out policy ideas for debate, you might want to consider whether they are morally doable, as well as Constitutional.
And FDR's "Four Freedoms" violates our Constitution? Must I guess if you say the Marshall Plan which based it's entire premis on them was "unconstitutional".
You know folks tend to get a little upset at how you voice your patriotism, Zharkov, when they tend to use ALL CAPS...(chuckle). I'm not saying this to rail on you or to change your mindset. Only you can do that. But you seem quite bitter about the way things are, and I don't think you need to be.
Shamir in Europe's "swift improvisation" got it about right.
I would only add that "winning hearts and minds" is a two way street. What comes around, goes around.
I think the smart thing is to be of cautious mind and flexible to change, and so to John from Greece who may on occassion mistake "the loyal minority" for anti-Americanism I can simply say that I do believe you're about to get an education 'round November. I hope this election sets a good example to others for what is possible. Thanks for the kind words. I've given up any attachment to permanance long ago....(LOL!)
On the other hand, folks around the world that fear radical change in US foreign policy need not. For there are far too many checks and balances within government for things to get too far out of whack one side of the pendulum or the other. I just trust the American people's center of gravity as we the people proceed to the vote with our traditional revolutionary instincts. Works for me all the time.
The power we invest in our government comes from us, the people. So please do feel free to raise a glass, and celebrate. No need to crash the party, the world's invited.
Mi' casa, es su' casa.
"we the people" is all of you who've come from distant land to become citizen, those native to the land, and those born of the land known as America.
What America is becomes an evolving process, and when when one thinks of a diplomat being America's face to the world, it be only natural for the Sec of State to project the mirror that America has become to the rest of the world. We are no different from the world, the world is us in a great meltingpot.
Sometimes folks don't like the mirror held up too closely. They may be comforted in that it is a two way looking glass.
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
To John in Greece:
I am loyal to America. This loyalty runs to our country and not necessarily to a political party and their often misguided policies and temporary occupants of office.
When I salute our flag, I salute the soldiers who fought and died for our freedom and the founders who risked their lives and fortunes for liberty, but I do not salute the mistakes made by current and past government administrations and their increasing efforts to ignore our constitution, our liberties, and our purpose as a nation.
When I pledge allegiance to the flag, I do not ratify undeclared wars, unauthorized expenditures, criminality, graft, bribes, and corruption of Congress, the exercise of undue influence on foreign elections, the overthrow or assassination of foreign leaders, secret plans to permanently occupy foreign nations, torture of foreign combatants, or abuses of power.
When I wear a uniform in the US military, I wear the colors of my country and not that of the United Nations, the E.U., NATO, or any other cadre internationale.
When I cross the border of my country, I expect that border to be there when I return and not disappear or require a briefcase of documents to cross it. I expect to travel intrastate without government checkpoints demanding to see my papers. I expect a government that can function without my biometric data, my shoe size, or my preference for dessert.
There is only one American Constitution in the history of man and it is our only defense against a fantastically powerful federal government. I would like to see our government live within its means and within its borders.
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008
To John in Greece:
I am loyal to America. This loyalty runs to our country and not necessarily to a political party and their often misguided policies and temporary occupants of office.
When I salute our flag, I salute the soldiers who fought and died for our freedom and the founders who risked their lives and fortunes for liberty, but I do not salute the mistakes made by current and past government administrations and their increasing efforts to ignore our constitution, our liberties, and our purpose as a nation.
When I pledge allegiance to the flag, I do not ratify undeclared wars, unauthorized expenditures, criminality, graft, bribes, and corruption of Congress, the exercise of undue influence on foreign elections, the overthrow or assassination of foreign leaders, secret plans to permanently occupy foreign nations, torture of foreign combatants, or abuses of power.
When I wear a uniform in the US military, I wear the colors of my country and not that of the United Nations, the E.U., NATO, or any other cadre internationale.
When I cross the border of my country, I expect that border to be there when I return and not disappear or require a briefcase of documents to cross it. I expect to travel intrastate without government checkpoints demanding to see my papers. I expect a government that can function without my biometric data, my shoe size, or my preference for dessert.
There is only one American Constitution in the history of man and it is our only defense against a fantastically powerful federal government. I would like to see our government live within its means and within its borders.
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008
PS in Europe writes:
(swift improvisation -- please excuse any errors)
I deeply appreciate the courage and positive outlook US Secretary of State Very Honorable Ms Doctor Condoleezza Rice demonstrates by striving to enhance understanding and cooperation between major powers and most populous developing states in the world.
The US Government and People are thus well represented by such strivings, and by seeking common grounds with great powers and developing nations, the best forces in the world could be encouraged towards consensus and civil societies could gradually gain far more.
The present UN Charter was designed shortly after the second world war, and had not foreseen problems of multinational extremism, fanatism, tyranny and those most proliferous drug cartels which have long funded terrorists in the Middle East (along with states who abuse oil resources).
UN and world insitution reforms are needed to include protection of diversified Civil Society and protection of unique people and individuals.
This is best achieved by consensus between the great Powers and Peoples of the World, and thus the horrors of terror and tyranny and narcoterror could be broken and good people protected.
This is best achieved by the understanding and consensus along the lines the Very Honorable Secretary of State has been struggling ( - and simultaneously, all positive forces within Civil Societies can be encouraged)
By encouraging Great and Populous Nations as Russia, China, as well as Brazil and India, along with others, the US gains in friends, and understanding and consensus will be easier now and for future generations.
I believe that plans to encourage protection of unique refugees, proponents of peace and reform, as well as peace loving minority peoples, can be best achieved through mutual understanding and not the antagonism certain sensationalist media, ( some extremist lobby funded, ) may demonstrate from time to time.
With ardent zeal and interest, relationship building will gain the USA, thus enabling true 'pre-emptive' problem prevention, by winning hearts and minds.
By the USA moving out into the world and creating alliances and friendships does not need play into the snares and schemes of certain local states and politics.
Partisan politics may want to make hostage out of the Great Nation of the USA - but with positive outlook, people will be drawn to look away from differences, and grow to understand better intentions of common security and mutual prosperity that helps good people and forces and avoid becoming hostage of certain ulterior unclear motives and confusions ( as participants of certain NGOs have been 'running in packed antique shops' crashing issues and squandering opportunities towards progress that keeps in touch with the local problems and dilemmas of people and administrations.
In order to achieve these most lofty aims as expressed by Secretary of State, Very Honorableable Ms Doctor Condoleezza Rice, a tremendous attention from the entire US society and people around the world, appealing for heartfelt and devoted support and encouragement.
People all around the world must needs recognize and appreciate the most unique catalyst and consolidator role the USA can play.
Those most hard working Civil Servants of the Department of State must be encouraged in every way possible and imaginable, as well as all positive potentials all around the world must needs be appreciated and defended.
It is a logical falaccy if anyone expects the USA to be able to limitlessly shoulder such a huge burden, as just for example, the US contributes at least 50% of all world food aid.
People around the world must learn to appreciate and encourage the potentials of the USA with all their hearts minds and souls, for the USA can bring together great proponents of World Peace and Prosperity that can be consolidated through multitudes of joint projects and ventures.
It is paramount that during these US elections, all minds and hearts be focused on 'keeping their eyes fixed on the ball' in this so crucial world scenario of peace and confidence building.
Re-emerging powers as Russia and China, and populous economies as India and Brazil could realize more and more through US cooperation - and rationally, by building along these lines, the USA will gain by such confidence building - and will always retain the greatest advantages of being multicultural, uniting so many peoples, nations and walks of life, and a world recognized language of communication: English.
I appeal to all to look away from party political divisions and focus on how we can build and encourage a strong US Civil Service that rises above all party political lobbies and divides.
I hope to post issues in future that could help encourage the securing of good individuals in Civil Societies and recognition of positive legacy and heritage.
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008
(swift improvisation -- please excuse any errors)
I deeply appreciate the courage and positive outlook US Secretary of State Very Honorable Ms Doctor Condoleezza Rice demonstrates by striving to enhance understanding and cooperation between major powers and most populous developing states in the world.
The US Government and People are thus well represented by such strivings, and by seeking common grounds with great powers and developing nations, the best forces in the world could be encouraged towards consensus and civil societies could gradually gain far more.
The present UN Charter was designed shortly after the second world war, and had not foreseen problems of multinational extremism, fanatism, tyranny and those most proliferous drug cartels which have long funded terrorists in the Middle East (along with states who abuse oil resources).
UN and world insitution reforms are needed to include protection of diversified Civil Society and protection of unique people and individuals.
This is best achieved by consensus between the great Powers and Peoples of the World, and thus the horrors of terror and tyranny and narcoterror could be broken and good people protected.
This is best achieved by the understanding and consensus along the lines the Very Honorable Secretary of State has been struggling ( - and simultaneously, all positive forces within Civil Societies can be encouraged)
By encouraging Great and Populous Nations as Russia, China, as well as Brazil and India, along with others, the US gains in friends, and understanding and consensus will be easier now and for future generations.
I believe that plans to encourage protection of unique refugees, proponents of peace and reform, as well as peace loving minority peoples, can be best achieved through mutual understanding and not the antagonism certain sensationalist media, ( some extremist lobby funded, ) may demonstrate from time to time.
With ardent zeal and interest, relationship building will gain the USA, thus enabling true 'pre-emptive' problem prevention, by winning hearts and minds.
By the USA moving out into the world and creating alliances and friendships does not need play into the snares and schemes of certain local states and politics.
Partisan politics may want to make hostage out of the Great Nation of the USA - but with positive outlook, people will be drawn to look away from differences, and grow to understand better intentions of common security and mutual prosperity that helps good people and forces and avoid becoming hostage of certain ulterior unclear motives and confusions ( as participants of certain NGOs have been 'running in packed antique shops' crashing issues and squandering opportunities towards progress that keeps in touch with the local problems and dilemmas of people and administrations.
In order to achieve these most lofty aims as expressed by Secretary of State, Very Honorableable Ms Doctor Condoleezza Rice, a tremendous attention from the entire US society and people around the world, appealing for heartfelt and devoted support and encouragement.
People all around the world must needs recognize and appreciate the most unique catalyst and consolidator role the USA can play.
Those most hard working Civil Servants of the Department of State must be encouraged in every way possible and imaginable, as well as all positive potentials all around the world must needs be appreciated and defended.
It is a logical falaccy if anyone expects the USA to be able to limitlessly shoulder such a huge burden, as just for example, the US contributes at least 50% of all world food aid.
People around the world must learn to appreciate and encourage the potentials of the USA with all their hearts minds and souls, for the USA can bring together great proponents of World Peace and Prosperity that can be consolidated through multitudes of joint projects and ventures.
It is paramount that during these US elections, all minds and hearts be focused on 'keeping their eyes fixed on the ball' in this so crucial world scenario of peace and confidence building.
Re-emerging powers as Russia and China, and populous economies as India and Brazil could realize more and more through US cooperation - and rationally, by building along these lines, the USA will gain by such confidence building - and will always retain the greatest advantages of being multicultural, uniting so many peoples, nations and walks of life, and a world recognized language of communication: English.
I appeal to all to look away from party political divisions and focus on how we can build and encourage a strong US Civil Service that rises above all party political lobbies and divides.
I hope to post issues in future that could help encourage the securing of good individuals in Civil Societies and recognition of positive legacy and heritage.
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
Conducting foreign relations is a duty of the President and effected through the Secretary of State, under our constitution.
"Foreign relations" includes drafting treaties, diplomacy, and negotiation but does not include nation building other than our own. The rebuilding of europe after WW2 was illegal and unconstitutional, as was much of what President Roosevelt did. Such things are not authorized under the US Constitution nor should they be. If the grant of power is not written in that document, it is illegal for federal officials to do it. The expenditure of funds to build other nations constitutes a misappropriation or gift of taxpayer funds. To advocate nation-building is to advocate the violation of law.
If the Soviet Union had succeeded in Afghanistan, the US would not be there today. When the Soviet Union dissolved, Afghanistan would most likely have received the same deal that the Baltic Nations received - withdrawal of Soviet troops and complete autonomy. We know this is likely because it already happened for the Baltic States.
What would have happened if the Roman Empire had not conquered Britan, or the Mongols had not conquered Russia, or if Roosevelt had not embargoed oil for Japan, or if President Carter had not supported the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran? We could not know or guess. Making history allows no second chance in most cases.
Today, US foreign policy includes shaping the world's future with American military power, the same basic mistake made by the Roman Empire. One would hope our leaders would have learned from that mistake but perhaps not.
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008
Conducting foreign relations is a duty of the President and effected through the Secretary of State, under our constitution.
"Foreign relations" includes drafting treaties, diplomacy, and negotiation but does not include nation building other than our own. The rebuilding of europe after WW2 was illegal and unconstitutional, as was much of what President Roosevelt did. Such things are not authorized under the US Constitution nor should they be. If the grant of power is not written in that document, it is illegal for federal officials to do it. The expenditure of funds to build other nations constitutes a misappropriation or gift of taxpayer funds. To advocate nation-building is to advocate the violation of law.
If the Soviet Union had succeeded in Afghanistan, the US would not be there today. When the Soviet Union dissolved, Afghanistan would most likely have received the same deal that the Baltic Nations received - withdrawal of Soviet troops and complete autonomy. We know this is likely because it already happened for the Baltic States.
What would have happened if the Roman Empire had not conquered Britan, or the Mongols had not conquered Russia, or if Roosevelt had not embargoed oil for Japan, or if President Carter had not supported the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran? We could not know or guess. Making history allows no second chance in most cases.
Today, US foreign policy includes shaping the world's future with American military power, the same basic mistake made by the Roman Empire. One would hope our leaders would have learned from that mistake but perhaps not.
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008
John in Greece writes:
John@Anna
I certainly agree with your theoretical perspective and of course with what Secretary Rice writes. This would be the ideal.
Nevertheless, let me explain what I mean. As Eric from New Mexico notes, things change and policy -- especially foreign policy -- must be dynamic and adaptive. America did not choose to engage in all these situations, but what would had happened to the world if, for example, U.S. had not engaged in WW2?
Another example is Afghanistan. What if U.S. had not stopped the Russians there, even if they had to "deal" with Taliban back then?
And there are hundreds of similar examples of this vital engagement.
That's why I liked so much this phrase of the Secretary Rice: "We Americans engage in foreign policy because we have to, not because we want to, and this is a healthy disposition -- it is that of a republic, not an empire. ...I find that whatever differences we and our allies have had over the last eight years, they still want a confident and engaged United States, because there are few problems in the world that can be resolved without us. We need to recognize that, too."
In other words, I strongly respect the theoretical basis that the founding fathers offered, although I think that, as Eric writes, "the founding fathers would have approved of that intervention, and the interactive role America plays in the world today".
I strongly disagreed with Zharkov on the ground that he -- below the line -- suggests the "disarmament" of Intelligence and Army.
All the western world needs a strong, healthy, democratic America that can offer theoretical advice, help, security and vision to the rest of the globe. I may be wrong, but according to my opinion the 1 to 3 list for achieving this global mission are:
1. Extremely strong Intelligence
2. Productive and healthy DoS
3. Powerful army (just in case?)
Thank God, America has already achieved the theoretical part.
U.S. philosophy for global democracy is clear and complete. That's why all of us love the States.
However, the above 3 tools are prerequisites if we want a strong, secure America.
Bests regards Anna, I read your very interesting posts too.
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008
John@Anna
I certainly agree with your theoretical perspective and of course with what Secretary Rice writes. This would be the ideal.
Nevertheless, let me explain what I mean. As Eric from New Mexico notes, things change and policy -- especially foreign policy -- must be dynamic and adaptive. America did not choose to engage in all these situations, but what would had happened to the world if, for example, U.S. had not engaged in WW2?
Another example is Afghanistan. What if U.S. had not stopped the Russians there, even if they had to "deal" with Taliban back then?
And there are hundreds of similar examples of this vital engagement.
That's why I liked so much this phrase of the Secretary Rice: "We Americans engage in foreign policy because we have to, not because we want to, and this is a healthy disposition -- it is that of a republic, not an empire. ...I find that whatever differences we and our allies have had over the last eight years, they still want a confident and engaged United States, because there are few problems in the world that can be resolved without us. We need to recognize that, too."
In other words, I strongly respect the theoretical basis that the founding fathers offered, although I think that, as Eric writes, "the founding fathers would have approved of that intervention, and the interactive role America plays in the world today".
I strongly disagreed with Zharkov on the ground that he -- below the line -- suggests the "disarmament" of Intelligence and Army.
All the western world needs a strong, healthy, democratic America that can offer theoretical advice, help, security and vision to the rest of the globe. I may be wrong, but according to my opinion the 1 to 3 list for achieving this global mission are:
1. Extremely strong Intelligence
2. Productive and healthy DoS
3. Powerful army (just in case?)
Thank God, America has already achieved the theoretical part.
U.S. philosophy for global democracy is clear and complete. That's why all of us love the States.
However, the above 3 tools are prerequisites if we want a strong, secure America.
Bests regards Anna, I read your very interesting posts too.
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
I think what people tend to forget is that being "neutral" and cautious about getting involved in European rivalries in this nation's early years was because our nation had only a defensive capability, no navy to speak of, and was more concerned with building a nation from scratch than getting involved with the conflicts of others.
This nation's isolationism came to an end off the Barbary coast, and while it's true we were dragged kicking and screeming into two world wars, I think the founding fathers would have aproved of that intervention, and the interactive role America plays in the world today.
Including being a nation of nation builders.
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008
I think what people tend to forget is that being "neutral" and cautious about getting involved in European rivalries in this nation's early years was because our nation had only a defensive capability, no navy to speak of, and was more concerned with building a nation from scratch than getting involved with the conflicts of others.
This nation's isolationism came to an end off the Barbary coast, and while it's true we were dragged kicking and screeming into two world wars, I think the founding fathers would have aproved of that intervention, and the interactive role America plays in the world today.
Including being a nation of nation builders.
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008
Anna in Washington, DC writes:
John, I have read your comments on other postings, and I think you often make a good point. In this case, I think Zharkov makes a valid point when he reminds us that America's founding fathers warned us of foreign entanglements. There is certainly wisdom in their guidance, and it remains a legitimate - but certainly debatable - argument today.
I wonder whether President Washington would - whether he could - give such advice today. I would assert that he could not. That the realities of the world have changed, and the United States must be engaged in it.
Leaders - and nations - sometimes have to change their minds, and it takes courage to do so. To me, Secretary Rice's article in Foreign Affairs is about changing one's mind. The world is a different place than it was in 2000.
She writes, "In these pages in 2000, I decried the role of the United States, in particular the U.S. military, in nation building. In 2008, it is absolutely clear that we will be involved in nation building for years to come."
We Americans may want to disengage from the world right now, but we cannot. It is not in our interest. What happens across the world does impact us: political instability, economic markets, infectious diseases, climate change.
Later in the article, Secretary Rice writes: "Perhaps of greater concern is not that the United States lacks the capacity for global leadership but that it lacks the will. We Americans engage in foreign policy because we have to, not because we want to, and this is a healthy disposition -- it is that of a republic, not an empire. ...I find that whatever differences we and our allies have had over the last eight years, they still want a confident and engaged United States, because there are few problems in the world that can be resolved without us. We need to recognize that, too."
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008
John, I have read your comments on other postings, and I think you often make a good point. In this case, I think Zharkov makes a valid point when he reminds us that America's founding fathers warned us of foreign entanglements. There is certainly wisdom in their guidance, and it remains a legitimate - but certainly debatable - argument today.
I wonder whether President Washington would - whether he could - give such advice today. I would assert that he could not. That the realities of the world have changed, and the United States must be engaged in it.
Leaders - and nations - sometimes have to change their minds, and it takes courage to do so. To me, Secretary Rice's article in Foreign Affairs is about changing one's mind. The world is a different place than it was in 2000.
She writes, "In these pages in 2000, I decried the role of the United States, in particular the U.S. military, in nation building. In 2008, it is absolutely clear that we will be involved in nation building for years to come."
We Americans may want to disengage from the world right now, but we cannot. It is not in our interest. What happens across the world does impact us: political instability, economic markets, infectious diseases, climate change.
Later in the article, Secretary Rice writes: "Perhaps of greater concern is not that the United States lacks the capacity for global leadership but that it lacks the will. We Americans engage in foreign policy because we have to, not because we want to, and this is a healthy disposition -- it is that of a republic, not an empire. ...I find that whatever differences we and our allies have had over the last eight years, they still want a confident and engaged United States, because there are few problems in the world that can be resolved without us. We need to recognize that, too."
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008
John in Greece writes:
@ Zharkov in U.S.A.
Zharkov, if that's your real name, you love Russia, Iran and China and you hate AMERICA.
YOU WRITE:
"We have the world's most expensive intelligence agencies plus an army, navy, and air force to forewarn and protect us from attack. National security disappears when we make mutual defense treaties that get us involved in foreign civil wars, foreign revolutions, and foreign election disputes.
Our national security should not depend so much on what happens in other countries. Nothing in our federal constitution makes it America's job to prevent or direct revolutions in weaker nations in Africa, Latin America, or Asia.
If people in Iran want to be ruled by ayatollahs, we should not be offering to rescue them from their choice. If Russian people do not want US missile bases next door to their homes and villages, we should respect their wishes, out of common courtesy if not policy, unless we are prepared to accept the same treatment from them".
EVEN A KID UNDERSTANDS THAT YOU DO NOT LOVE USA.
EVEN A CHILD UNDERSTANDS THAT YOUR COMMENTS ARE PART OF YOUR SERIAL ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA.
ACCORDING TO MY OPINION, A STRONGER "intelligence agencies plus an army, navy, and air force" ARE THE ONLY "WEAPONS" THAT CAN PROTECT AMERICA.
A STRONG, HEALTHY -AS IT IS- DoS TOO.
YOU ALSO WRITE: "If Russian people do not want US missile bases next door to their homes and villages, we should respect their wishes".
WHY???
DO (AND DID THEY EVER) RESPECT USA's WISHES? (THINK OF CUCA CASE)
NO!
YOU ALSO WRITE: "If people in Iran want to be ruled by ayatollahs, we should not be offering to rescue them from their choice".
WHY???
IF YOU SEE A CHILD THAT IS IN DANGER, YOU WILL LET IT DIE?
BESIDES, IRAN CAN CREATE MANY OTHER "IRANS". AND ALL THESE A TYPHOON? AGAINST USA.
Nevertheless, I understand that you love Iran as long as Russians deal and collaborate with them.
May I ask you something?
What do you love more?
U.S.A. ?
or Russia, Iran and China?
Posted on Mon Jun 09, 2008
@ Zharkov in U.S.A.
Zharkov, if that's your real name, you love Russia, Iran and China and you hate AMERICA.
YOU WRITE:
"We have the world's most expensive intelligence agencies plus an army, navy, and air force to forewarn and protect us from attack. National security disappears when we make mutual defense treaties that get us involved in foreign civil wars, foreign revolutions, and foreign election disputes.
Our national security should not depend so much on what happens in other countries. Nothing in our federal constitution makes it America's job to prevent or direct revolutions in weaker nations in Africa, Latin America, or Asia.
If people in Iran want to be ruled by ayatollahs, we should not be offering to rescue them from their choice. If Russian people do not want US missile bases next door to their homes and villages, we should respect their wishes, out of common courtesy if not policy, unless we are prepared to accept the same treatment from them".
EVEN A KID UNDERSTANDS THAT YOU DO NOT LOVE USA.
EVEN A CHILD UNDERSTANDS THAT YOUR COMMENTS ARE PART OF YOUR SERIAL ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA.
ACCORDING TO MY OPINION, A STRONGER "intelligence agencies plus an army, navy, and air force" ARE THE ONLY "WEAPONS" THAT CAN PROTECT AMERICA.
A STRONG, HEALTHY -AS IT IS- DoS TOO.
YOU ALSO WRITE: "If Russian people do not want US missile bases next door to their homes and villages, we should respect their wishes".
WHY???
DO (AND DID THEY EVER) RESPECT USA's WISHES? (THINK OF CUCA CASE)
NO!
YOU ALSO WRITE: "If people in Iran want to be ruled by ayatollahs, we should not be offering to rescue them from their choice".
WHY???
IF YOU SEE A CHILD THAT IS IN DANGER, YOU WILL LET IT DIE?
BESIDES, IRAN CAN CREATE MANY OTHER "IRANS". AND ALL THESE A TYPHOON? AGAINST USA.
Nevertheless, I understand that you love Iran as long as Russians deal and collaborate with them.
May I ask you something?
What do you love more?
U.S.A. ?
or Russia, Iran and China?
Posted on Mon Jun 09, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
I suppose we are lucky that Switzerland does not have the kind of foreign policy that America now has, or it would be telling us how to run our elections and trying to overthrow the Clinton loss in the primaries.
America was founded to be a neutral nation and advised by its first president to avoid unnecessary foreign entanglements, advice which today proves both accurate and brilliant in its simplicity.
The Korean Conflict, Vietnam Police Action, and Iraq Invasion, involved no formal declaration of war, no national security risks to American citizens within US borders, but participating in those unconstitutional wars got them killed.
We have the world's most expensive intelligence agencies plus an army, navy, and air force to forewarn and protect us from attack. National security disappears when we make mutual defense treaties that get us involved in foreign civil wars, foreign revolutions, and foreign election disputes.
Our national security should not depend so much on what happens in other countries. Nothing in our federal constitution makes it America's job to prevent or direct revolutions in weaker nations in Africa, Latin America, or Asia.
If people in Iran want to be ruled by ayatollahs, we should not be offering to rescue them from their choice. If Russian people do not want US missile bases next door to their homes and villages, we should respect their wishes, out of common courtesy if not policy, unless we are prepared to accept the same treatment from them.
The ideal rule in a nuclear age is the Golden Rule, and America should apply it more frequently.
Posted on Mon Jun 09, 2008
I suppose we are lucky that Switzerland does not have the kind of foreign policy that America now has, or it would be telling us how to run our elections and trying to overthrow the Clinton loss in the primaries.
America was founded to be a neutral nation and advised by its first president to avoid unnecessary foreign entanglements, advice which today proves both accurate and brilliant in its simplicity.
The Korean Conflict, Vietnam Police Action, and Iraq Invasion, involved no formal declaration of war, no national security risks to American citizens within US borders, but participating in those unconstitutional wars got them killed.
We have the world's most expensive intelligence agencies plus an army, navy, and air force to forewarn and protect us from attack. National security disappears when we make mutual defense treaties that get us involved in foreign civil wars, foreign revolutions, and foreign election disputes.
Our national security should not depend so much on what happens in other countries. Nothing in our federal constitution makes it America's job to prevent or direct revolutions in weaker nations in Africa, Latin America, or Asia.
If people in Iran want to be ruled by ayatollahs, we should not be offering to rescue them from their choice. If Russian people do not want US missile bases next door to their homes and villages, we should respect their wishes, out of common courtesy if not policy, unless we are prepared to accept the same treatment from them.
The ideal rule in a nuclear age is the Golden Rule, and America should apply it more frequently.
Posted on Mon Jun 09, 2008
Page 1 of 1 pages