Archive for the ‘International Concerns’ Category
Will the real life story of incredible bravery, and the extreme courage of warriors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods be lost just because of Machiavellian politics ?
Don’t miss the real story of these two brave men who had no obligation to protect the Libyan embassy or the ambassador, yet they gave their lives to do so!
Will the real life story of incredible bravery, and the extreme courage of warriors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods be lost just because of Machiavellian politics ?
Click here to read the real story: The REAL story….
When American coaches and Olympic officials whine about Chinese children starting training young in state facilities, they are an embarrassment. We send professional athletes to basketball, we have athletes who come from wealthy families, we have the advantage of food and supplements and a healthy lifestyle, and lots and lots of facilities. How many Chinese rural schools do you think have a track? How many Chinese neighborhoods or schools do you think have a pool? Each win is an individual achievement, it’s still individual accomplishment, no matter who wins the gold. And that’s what the Olympics are all about. They are the ultimate in self-reliance, self-worth, and, yes, free enterprise. Stop whining, it’s un-American.
When you wonder why we think it’s so important Iran doesn’t get the bomb, you need to refresh your memory, or if you weren’t born then, to take a hard look at what the bomb is all about:
This From Delanceyplace.com:
In today’s excerpt – the hydrogen bomb, first tested in 1952, was 750 times more powerful and destructive than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki just seven years earlier. The Russians had stunned the Americans by developing their own atomic bomb by 1949 — much sooner than the world expected — and President Harry Truman authorized the development of the hydrogen bomb as a means of staying ahead in the arms race. Operation Castle Bravo was a subsequent, more powerful 1954 test made on the Bikini atoll in the Pacific Ocean. (In a move laced with superficial irony, Frenchman Louis Reard named a new bathing suit he designed in 1946 the “bikini” in reference to earlier U.S. nuclear tests on the Bikini atoll — he chose the name in reaction to a competitive design called the “Atome” and presumably because of the stir he thought it would create):
“Truman made his decision [to authorize the hydrogen bomb] on the dubious grounds that all these bomb-building decisions were made: If the Russians could build one, the United States had to build one also. (Critics would say that if the United States had enough bombs to create a catastrophe in the Soviet Union — as indeed it did — then it had enough bombs, without building any new ones.) But Truman decided to make the big bomb, and the Americans exploded the world’s first hydrogen bomb at Eniwetok, an atoll in the South Pacific, on November 1, 1952, just two and a half months before the end of Truman’s presidency. This explosion, set off from a control ship thirty miles away, was in an altogether different realm from the atomic bomb; even those who had witnessed atomic blasts were stunned by this explosion. The fireball reached 57,000 feet; the cloud, when it had reached its farthest extent, was about one hundred miles wide. The eruption wiped the island of Elugelab off the face of the planet, leaving only a crater behind, and it destroyed life on the surrounding islands. Human beings who saw it were particularly struck by what happened to birds for miles around: They were incinerated, singed, sick, grounded, struggling to fly. The blast yielded 10.4 megatons of explosive energy, 750 times greater than the explosion that leveled Hiroshima. …
“The … explosion came … just at the end of the Truman administration, not much more than two months before Ike [Dwight Eisenhower] became president. The world was just beginning to assimilate that event when Ike took over. And, as we have seen, in March the Soviets would have new leaders when Stalin died. These new men in the Kremlin would then have their first thermonuclear explosion, in a remote area of Kazakhstan, on August 12, 1953. And the effect on those who saw it would be the same as that of the American explosion nine months earlier: awe and wonder. Those Russians who actually saw the tests found themselves staggered, overwhelmed, awestruck, just as the Americans at Eniwetok had been. Ideologies differ, but the impact of raw physics is universal. The effect of the earlier atomic bombs had not necessarily been so great on those who saw the explosions, but it was on those who actually witnessed the explosions of the vastly more powerful H-bomb. These explosions were so profound as to have a psychological effect; the Soviet scientist Andrei Sakharov said ‘something within you changes.’ Another key Soviet scientist, after seeing the actual effect of a thermonuclear explosion he had worked to produce, vowed to work on it no more.
“The American test code-named Bravo, on Bikini, an atoll in the Pacific, on March 1, 1954, carried the impact to another level; it was the largest blast with which human beings had ever assaulted their earthly habitat to that point, and showed the damage the tests themselves would do. Bravo had been planned to yield five megatons but yielded fifteen. It led to the first human illness and death produced by nuclear weapons since Nagasaki; the radioactive fallout spread hundreds of miles from the huge blast site, and affected some Americans, some Marshall Islanders, and the crew of a Japanese fishing boat, one of whom died. Among those deeply affected by the huge destructive explosion was Georgy Malenkov, for a moment the Soviet leader, himself. The impact was powerful enough to move him to reject, for a time, the received Marxist line that there had to be a war with the capitalist world. Another staggered by the new bomb, reversing previous positions, was the aging Winston Churchill, who noted that it would not take many such explosions to obliterate Great Britain (eight bombs, Harold Macmillan would say repeatedly at a later stage).”
Author: William Lee Miller
Title: Two Americans
Date: Copyright 2012 by William Lee Miller
Pages: 360, 365-366
None of the below comes as a great surprise to me, but it’s interesting:
The Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project conducts public opinion surveys around the world on a broad array of subjects ranging from people’s assessments of their own lives to their views about the current state of the world and important issues of the day.
The United States is the only nation in the survey that approves of drone strikes on terrorist targets — 62 percent approve and 28 percent disapprove. Disapproval is as high as 90 percent in Greece and 89 percent in Egypt, and is at 63 percent in France and 59 percent in Germany.
In 2009, 56 percent of those polled believed Obama would take steps on climate change. Today just 22 percent think he has done so.
As recently as 2009, 46 percent of respondents believed the United States is the world’s leading economic power, with 27 percent choosing China. Today China is favored by 42 percent and the United States by 36 percent.
A majority of respondents in seven of eight European nations polled — the exception is Greece — and those in Brazil, Japan, Russia, and Lebanon say they have a favorable view of the American people. The highest unfavorable ratings are in Pakistan (73 percent), Turkey (69), and Jordan (67), while 40 percent of Mexicans have an unfavorable view of their northern neighbors.
The percentage who say they like American music, movies and television ranges from 79 percent in Spain and 74 percent in Italy to just 19 percent in India and 8 percent in Pakistan. But those percentages rise significantly among respondents ages 18 to 29, topping out at 94 percent in Germany and 93 percent in France, and rising to 24 percent in India.
While 75 percent of Americans have confidence in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the percentage is lower in all European nations — including Greece (12 percent) and Spain (43 percent) — and in China (36 percent), Mexico (27), and India (15). The percentage in Muslim nations is highest in Lebanon (30 percent) and lowest in Pakistan (3 percent).
The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan “fact tank” in Washington, D.C., that provides information on the issues, attitudes, and trends shaping America and the world.
Everybody hates to be told “I told you so,” but “I told you so!” In Oct. 2011 I posted the following: We should have never gone into Iraq with boots on the ground in the first instance. However, we’re there and have been for years; my son was there in Desert Storm. When we leave, pull out, it’s my prediction, as it is in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, that those century old hatreds will flare again, and in a short time, the Middle East mess will revert to something near what it was before we put over four thousand Americans in the ground, and almost thirty thousand wounded and maimed. Just as we made room for Iran in Iraq, we’ve helped make room for the Muslim Brotherhood in the aforementioned countries. Does out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire ring true here, and at the cost of billions of U.S. dollars…again. That’s the result of stay-in, or pull out.
Remember this was written 10/24/11
Don’t Worry Baby, I’ll Pull Out
by L. J. Martin
I think the Obama pull out ploy is about the same as you promised your girlfriend when you were in college.
Realistically, we might, or we might not; but in the case of Iraq, the pull out might have serious long-term consequence just as staying in might have. You can’t be a little bit pregnant, and staying in as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq and are now doing in the Congo (even though, of course, we again say we won’t stay), will result in long-term consequence. The pull-out? A ploy to get re-elected, of course. However, I don’t really give a damn why, so long as we get out, pull out, at least so far as “out” means not having boots on the ground.
Pull out will come back to bite the president on the butt worse than would staying in. I’d like to have been a fly on the wall of the oval office while Obama and the Obamites hashed over which was the worst of the two evils, staying in or getting out? I bet you one thing: the fate of the average soldier with his/her boots on Iraqi soil didn’t enter into the decision, only the political fate of those in the room….
Anytime we place our young men and women at jeopardy in a foreign land we risk their lives and limbs for a no-win situation, because we Americans refuse to win. Did we take enough Iraqi oil to repay ourselves for “liberating” Iraq. Of course we didn’t, that would be at least breaking even, if not winning. And we’ll pull out several billion dollars later, dollars borrowed from China to squander in Iraq.
Since America first engaged in a “limited war,” a “police action” as we did in Korea, and put our young men and women on the line without the full faith and force of the United States behind them, we’ve forsaken them. As a youth of twelve, imbued with only a dollop of common sense, I was sickened by the decision not to go into China and attack those crazy trumpet blowing doped up troops who were gathering to attack our boys on Pork Chop Hill and a thousand other snow covered barren rocks. Think Vietnam. America lost her will to win with Korea, and it’s permeated our foreign affairs since. As far as I’m concerned there is no “police action,” and the United States has no place or right to become the “police” of another country. I was taught that you don’t slap an adversary; that only angers him. If you decide that fighting is the only way, you put a straight right to his jaw and drop him before he has a chance to hurt you. And street fighting or international conflict, it should be the same rationale. Then you pull out.
God knows we have enough to police at home, and limited resources, even if we did have a right to become the police of another country. Am I nationalistic? You bet your sweet ass I am, and I don’t think the sweet ass or the leg or arm of one American boy or girl is worth sacrificing to bring peace to the dope dealers of Afghanistan or the oil barons of Iraq. Besides, it’ll never happen. You can’t force democracy on a people who have a century’s old hatred for each other, predating the staining of Christ’s robe by his blood. Freedom and friendship have to have a deeper beginning than a patched together government.
Since Iraq was formed–three different colors of clay patted together by kindergarten mentalities–it’s a Rubik cube that will never be solved; it’s been a mess that required a despot without a smidgen of humanity or conscious to hold it together since it was formed at the end of WW1. You had to be willing to fling your adversaries, indiscriminately, off a five-story building if you wanted peace…but settling for peace via fear, not cooperation. Centuries before this artificial coalition of “countrymen” were asked to get along, they’d been at war with each other. Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, all with alliances with their own people (think tribe) across those artificial borders; tribes in Jordan to the west, Syria to the northwest, Turkey to the north, and Iran to the east, will never (yeah, I know, never say never) become one people in spirit as we have in the U.S. (at least I hope we have, however, now that our president wants class warfare I’m not sure). They, Iraqis, don’t think of each other as human, and therein lies the problem. You’re from another tribe; you’re a bug to be stomped upon, or gassed as Saddam did, with a smile on his face and horrid, twisted, agonizing grimaces on the face of his over six thousand helpless victims.
Sunnis and Shia Muslims, right here in my home town, university students, won’t be in the same room with each other. However, Iran, the biggest threat in the world to the U.S., with a majority of Shia Muslims, is waiting in the wings for us to abandon our foolish occupation of that country, and those oil fields will soon be fueling the world domination desires of the radical Muslims of Iran. And I fear there’s not a damn thing we can do about it, short of a strike inside the borders of Iran to take out their capacity to strike us first. Again, from the view of an old street fighter; you take an adversaries threat seriously. And Iran has threatened time and time again and has just tried to cause us the worst kind of embarrassment, and the probable resulting world wide (at least Muslim world) assault on Americans and our embassies, by assassinating the Saudi ambassador only a few blocks from the White House. But I still say, pull out, but be prepared to go back in with our technical superiority.
All we’ve accomplished by seeing Saddam’s neck snapped at the end of a hemp rope is to make room for Iran. One despot down, another to fill his sandals, or more likely his tasseled Gucci loafers. At least we got rid of another bug before the pull out.
We should have never gone into Iraq with boots on the ground in the first instance. However, we’re there and have been for years; my son was there in Desert Storm. When we leave, pull out, it’s my prediction, as it is in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, that those century old hatreds will flare again, and in a short time, the Middle East mess will revert to something near what it was before we put over four thousand Americans in the ground, and almost thirty thousand wounded and maimed. Just as we made room for Iran in Iraq, we’ve helped make room for the Muslim Brotherhood in the aforementioned countries. Does out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire ring true here, and at the cost of billions of U.S. dollars…again. That’s the result of stay-in, or pull out.
Should we strike when threatened? Of course we should, but our technical expertise is such that we can do so from a control room on American soil, and should, if it proves a strike is necessary. Losing a million dollar drone is better than losing the limb of any American soldiers, and in the long run probably costs less, not that you can value the loss of a soldier’s limb, or life. And if there’s collateral damage, so be it.
The libs will say, and have been saying, “but you kill the innocent when you strike from afar.” Yes, you do, it’s the price a people, a country, pays for allowing themselves to be ruled by a despot, for allowing your government to have evil intent against it’s neighbors, and in this ever diminishing world your neighbor might be considered to be one across an ocean. It’s a small world these days. If a people don’t want to suffer the consequence of having rulers who are evil and who risk being attacked by the U.S., then get rid of those rulers. It’s a tough ol’ world out there. And when we pull out, there’ll be the loss of thousands and thousands of Sunnis and more thousands of Kurds. I hope and pray I’m wrong, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
And as much as I love our military, you can’t trust the military mentality. To quote a line from my favorite movie, Master and Commander: “Let’s get them before, God forbid, peace breaks out.” Few medals or accolades or promotions are won by the military in peacetime. Sure they want to stay, fighting is their job, and they want to do their job. God bless them. Pull out is the same as retreat, and those colors don’t run.
I don’t want to see an Iraqi or Afghan child (or the child of any country) injured, but I’ll see them all injured before I see injury to my wife, my sons, or my granddaughter or grandsons. So, I guess I’m as tribal as any Iraqi or Afghan. And very proud to be nationalistic.
Pull out or stay in, we wouldn’t have to have made the decision, had we only gone in with technical expertise in the first instance. It’s time to turn inward.
I’ve long been in favor of legalizing casual drugs in this country. All we’re doing is supporting the drug cartels and the world’s largest dope dealer, the Afghanistan presidential family. Milton agrees:
“It’s a moral problem that the government is making into criminals people, who
may be doing something you and I don’t approve of, but who are doing something
that hurts nobody else. Most of the arrests for drugs are for possession by
Now here’s somebody who wants to smoke a marijuana cigarette. If he’s caught,
he goes to jail. Now is that moral? Is that proper? I think it’s absolutely
disgraceful that our government, supposed to be our government, should be in
the position of converting people who are not harming others into criminals, of
destroying their lives, putting them in jail. That’s the issue to me. The
economic issue comes in only for explaining why it has those effects. But the
economic reasons are not the reasons.”
– Milton Friedman
(1912-2006) Nobel Prize-winning economist, economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan, “ultimate guru of the free-market system”
Source: America’s Drug Forum interview (1991)”America’s Drug Forum” (1991)