Archive for the ‘Asia’ Category

VIDEO – BILL WHITTLE – PRESIDENT FAILURES SMART DIPLOMACY

Monday, May 9th, 2016

Share

KRAUTHAMMER – DEFY AMERICA, PAY NO PRICE

Saturday, January 9th, 2016

 

 Opinion writer January 7, 2016 
If you’re going to engage in a foreign policy capitulation, might as well do it when everyone is getting tanked and otherwise occupied. Say, around New Year’s Eve.
Here’s the story. In October, Iran test-fires a nuclear-capable ballistic missile in brazen violation of a Security Council resolution explicitly prohibiting such launches. President Obama does nothing. One month later, Iran does it again. The administration makes a few gestures at the U.N. Then nothing. Then finally, on Dec. 30, the White House announces a few sanctions.
They are weak, aimed mostly at individuals and designed essentially for show. Amazingly, even that proves too much. By 10 p.m. that night, the administration caves. The White House sends out an email saying that sanctions are off — and the Iranian president orders the military to expedite the missile program.
Is there any red line left? First, the Syrian chemical weapons. Then the administration insistence that there would be no nuclear deal unless Iran accounted for its past nuclear activities. (It didn’t.) And unless Iran permitted inspection of its Parchin nuclear testing facility. (It was allowed self-inspection and declared itself clean.) And now, illegal ballistic missiles.
The premise of the nuclear deal was that it would constrain Iranian actions. It’s had precisely the opposite effect. It has deterred us from offering even the mildest pushback to any Iranian violations lest Iran walk away and leave Obama legacy-less.
Share

VIDEO – MARCO RUBIO ON WORLD EVENTS

Friday, January 8th, 2016

Share

WAR CLOUDS ON THE HORIZON? VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

Friday, December 5th, 2014

 

         
December 4, 2014 
War Clouds on the Horizon?
A large war is looming absent preventive American vigilance.
By Victor Davis Hanson

The world is changing and becoming even more dangerous — in a way we’ve seen before.

 

In the decade before World War I, the near-hundred-year European peace that had followed the fall of Napoleon was taken for granted. Yet it abruptly imploded in 1914. Prior little wars in the Balkans had seemed to predict a much larger one on the horizon — and were ignored.

The exhausted Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires were spent forces unable to control nationalist movements in their provinces. The British Empire was fading. Imperial Germany was rising. Czarist Russia was beset with revolutionary rebellion. As power shifted, decline for some nations seemed like opportunity for others.

The same was true in 1939. The tragedy of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 was not that it had been too harsh. In fact, it was far milder than the terms Germany had imposed on a defeated Russia in 1918 or the requirements it had planned for France in 1914.

Instead, Versailles combined the worst of both worlds: harsh language without any means of enforcement.

The subsequent appeasement of Britain and France, the isolationism of the United States, and the collaboration of the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany green-lighted Hitler’s aggression — and another world war.

We are entering a similarly dangerous interlude. Collapsing oil prices — a good thing for most of the world — will make troublemakers like oil-exporting Iran and Russia take even more risks.

Terrorist groups such as the Islamic State feel that conventional military power has no effect on their agendas. The West is seen as a tired culture of Black Friday shoppers and maxed-out credit-card holders.

NATO is underfunded and without strong American leadership. It can only hope that Vladimir Putin does not invade a NATO country such as Estonia, rather than prepare for the likelihood that he will, and soon. (more…)

Share

WHEN THE U.S. ABDICATES, DISASTER USUALLY FOLLOWS

Sunday, August 24th, 2014

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
WHEN THE U.S. ABDICATES, DISASTER USUALLY FOLLOWS
By

Philip TerzianMr. Terzian, literary editor of the Weekly Standard, is the author of “Architects of Power: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and the American Century,” (ReadHowYouWant

Aug. 21, 2014
The gradual disintegration of Iraq has prompted any number of backward glances: At President Obama and his policies; at the stewardship of Iraq’s now ex-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ; at the forces of religion and tribalism. My own backward glance is to January 2008, and the early stages of the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. At a town meeting in New Hampshire, candidate Sen. John McCain was asked to comment on President George W. Bush‘s assertion that American troops might have to remain in Iraq for 50 years.

“Maybe one hundred,” Mr. McCain replied. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping, and motivating people every single day.”

All hell broke loose in the media. Democratic candidates then-Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama swiftly condemned what was widely regarded as a gaffe. On CNN Mr. McCain felt obliged to clarify. “It’s not a matter of how long we’re in Iraq,” he explained, alluding to our military presence in Japan, Germany and South Korea, “it’s if we succeed or not.”

 cat

Sen. John McCain (R., Az.) while speaking at a town hall meeting in Salem, N.H., in 2008. Getty Images

In retrospect, Mr. McCain was correct: He predicted that setting a timetable for withdrawal would mean “chaos, that means genocide, that means undoing all the success we’ve achieved.” This is now happening. But the press consensus, then as now, was that the American people were war-weary and a President McCain would perpetuate Mr. Bush’s “failed” policies. (more…)

Share

STUMBLING TOWARD DAMASCUS – JOEL KLEIN

Friday, September 13th, 2013

 

http://swampland.time.com/category/in-the-arena/

Obama and Syria: Stumbling Toward Damascus

The President’s uneven Syria response has damaged his office and weakened the nation. It’s time for one more pivot

Send to Kindle
President Barack Obama walks along the colonnade of the White House from the residence to the Oval Office to start his day on September 10, 2013 in Washington.
Kristoffer Tripplaar / CNP / AdMedia / Sipa USA

President Barack Obama walks along the colonnade of the White House from the residence to the Oval Office to start his day on September 10, 2013 in Washington.

On the eve of the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Barack Obama made the strongest possible case for the use of force against Bashar Assad’s Syrian regime. But it wasn’t a very strong case. Indeed, it was built on a false premise: “We can stop children from being gassed to death,” he said, after he summoned grisly images of kids writhing and foaming at the mouth and then dying on hospital floors. Does he really think we can do that with a limited military strike—or the rather tenuous course of diplomacy now being pursued? We might not be able to do it even if we sent in 250,000 troops and got rid of Assad. The gas could be transferred to terrorists, most likely Hizballah, before we would find all or even most of it. And that is the essence of the policy problem Obama has been wrestling with on Syria: when you explore the possibilities for intervention, any vaguely plausible action quickly reaches a dead end.

The President knows this, which makes his words and gestures during the weeks leading up to his Syria speech all the more perplexing. He willingly jumped into a bear trap of his own creation. In the process, he has damaged his presidency and weakened the nation’s standing in the world. It has been one of the more stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever witnessed. The failure cuts straight to the heart of a perpetual criticism of the Obama White House: that the President thinks he can do foreign policy all by his lonesome. This has been the most closely held American foreign-policy-making process since Nixon and Kissinger, only there’s no Kissinger. There is no éminence grise—think of someone like Brent Scowcroft—who can say to Obama with real power and credibility, Mr. President, you’re doing the wrong thing here. Let’s consider the consequences if you call the use of chemical weapons a “red line.” Or, Mr. President, how can you talk about this being “the world’s red line” if the world isn’t willing to take action? Perhaps those questions, and many others, fell through the cracks as his first-term national-security staff departed and a new team came in. But Obama has shown a desire to have national-security advisers who were “honest brokers”—people who relayed information to him—rather than global strategists. In this case, his new staff apparently raised the important questions about going to Congress for a vote: Do you really want to do this for a limited strike? What if they say no? But the President ignored them, which probably means that the staff isn’t strong enough.

(MOREIn Prime Time, Obama Struggles to Reason With Nation Over Syria) (more…)

Share

THE CITIZEN OF THE WORLD PRESIDENCY

Sunday, August 18th, 2013

 

COMMENTARY


The Citizen of the World Presidency

In 2007, early in the improbable presidential candidacy of Barack Obama, the young first-term senator began a series of foreign-policy speeches that seemed too general to provide a guide to what he might do if elected. Aside from making it clear he was not George W. Bush and would get out of Iraq, the rest read like liberal boilerplate: “We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on a flawed ideology….The conventional thinking today is just as entrenched as it was in 2002….This is the conventional thinking that has turned against the war, but not against the habits that got us into the war in the first place.” In 2008, he visited Berlin and told an enraptured crowd: “Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen—a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world…the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together.”

In Obama’s fifth year as president, it is increasingly clear these vague phrases were not mere rhetoric. They did, in fact, accurately reflect Obama’s thinking about America’s role in the world and foreshadow the goals of the foreign policy he has been implementing and will be pursuing for three more years. Obama’s foreign policy is strangely self-centered, focused on himself and the United States rather than on the conduct and needs of the nations the United States allies with, engages with, or must confront. It is a foreign policy structured not to influence events in Russia or China or Africa or the Middle East but to serve as a bulwark “against the habits” of American activism and global leadership. It was his purpose to change those habits, and to inculcate new habits—ones in which, in every matter of foreign policy except for the pursuit of al-Qaeda, the United States restrains itself.

 I

In the beginning came “engagement.” In his first State of the Union speech in February 2009, Obama told us that “in words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun.” A few days later he delivered a speech about the Iraq war and said again that “we are launching a new era of engagement with the world.” There would now be “comprehensive American engagement across the region.” In his first speech to the United Nations General Assembly, in September 2009, he repeated the phrase: “We must embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interests and mutual respect….We have sought, in word and deed, a new era of engagement with the world.” (more…)

Share

WHY THE REAGAN DEMOCRATS DEPARTED

Monday, July 22nd, 2013

 

HUMAN EVENTS

Why the Reagan Democrats Departed

Why the Reagan Democrats Departed

On Nov. 3, 1969, Richard Nixon, his presidency about to be broken by massive antiwar demonstrations, called on “the great silent majority” to stand by him for peace with honor in Vietnam.

They did. Within days Nixon’s approval surged to 68 percent. The ferocious Republican partisan of the 1950s had won over millions of Democrats.

Why? Because sons and brothers of those Democrats were doing much of the fighting in Vietnam. If Nixon was standing by them, they would stand by him.

In 1972 Nixon would win 49 states. Ronald Reagan, backed by his “Reagan Democrats,” would win 44- and 49-state landslides.

Yet since Reagan went home, Democrats have won the popular vote in five of six presidential elections. The New Majority is history. The Reagan Democrats have departed. What happened?

Answer: For a generation, when forced to choose between Middle America and corporate America, on NAFTA, most-favored nation for China, and free trade, the GOP establishment opted to go with the Fortune 500. In the GOP the corporate conservative rides up front; the social, cultural and patriotic conservatives in the back of the bus.

Consider who has benefited most from Republican-backed globalization.

Was it not corporate executives and transnational companies liberated from the land of their birth and the call of patriotism?

Under the rules of globalization, U.S. corporations could, without penalty or opprobrium, shut their factories, lay off their U.S. workers, erect new plants in Asia, produce their goods there, and bring them back free of any tariff to sell to consumers and kill the U.S. companies that elected to stay loyal to the U.S.A. (more…)

Share

IF ONLY OUR FOREIGN ENEMIES WERE REPUBLICANS – VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

Tuesday, June 25th, 2013

THIS ARTICLE GETS MY VOTE FOR BEST ARTICLE OF THE YEAR !!!  Nancy

 HTPP://PJMEDIA.COM/victordavishanson
– –

If Only Our Foreign Enemies Were

Republicans

 

Posted By Victor Davis Hanson        June 25, 2013

I cannot recall, in the last five years, Barack Obama ever identifying the Iranians, Hezbollah, or the late Hugo Chavez as among our “enemies,” in the fashion that he once urged Latino leaders to punish conservatives at the polls: “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” If only the president would treat those who don’t like the United States in the same manner that he does those who do, he might bring great clarity to his now listless foreign policy. Indeed, why waste his rich vocabulary of teleprompted invective on fellow Americans, when there is an entire world out there that wishes the United States ill?

Imagine if Obama declaimed of the Iranians in Tehran that “those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values,” [1]  in the manner he once attacked John McCain for calling for border security in 2008. Could not a worldly Obama at least go after the intolerant Saudis for spreading Wahhabi-hatred worldwide and for sending subsidies to radical Sunni terrorists, in the detailed way he once deconstructed rural conservative voters of Pennsylvania [2]? He might have taken apart these dogmatic religious absolutists in the following manner: “It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” All such invective seems to sum up current Saudi society far better than it does the people of Pennsylvania. Could not the president finish by noting that their madrassas encourage divisions and discourage cooperation, just as he boldly lectured an Irish audience about the problems with Catholic parochial schools [3]?

As far as these hyper-rich Persian Gulf sheikdoms go, could not the fearless Obama urge these “fat cats” to share their riches with poorer countries, in the manner he once sermonized to Americans in no uncertain terms: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”?

When Obama deals with the Palestinians, could he not say of them, as he once did without hesitation of the Republican Congress, “Even though most people agree … I’m presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind-meld [4] with these folks and convince them to do what’s right”? Of the Gaza flotilla incident that was used against ally Israel, Obama at least could offer one of his accustomed blunt retorts like “there is no there there,” as he did to his own domestic critics of Benghazi. Or better yet, he could have flipped it off as a “sideshow.” (more…)

Share

THE CHINESE, CANADIAN OIL AND THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE

Monday, March 11th, 2013

 

A Chinese oil company this month bought a small but significant player in the Canadian oil sands, the third-largest deposit of accessible oil in the world and the source of more than a quarter of U.S. oil imports. The sale of Nexen Inc. to the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company for $15.1 billion was the largest Chinese overseas acquisition ever and continues a patient, strategic Chinese campaign to secure energy assets in North America.

Also this month, the U.S. State Department issued its latest environmental report card on the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring more of that oil-sands crude from Canada to Nebraska and on to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Americans have a love-hate relationship with Canadian oil, as thousands of anti-Keystone demonstrators in Washington recently reaffirmed. The Chinese are clearly not so conflicted.

What these events made obvious is that if people think Canadian oil will stay in the ground if we just don’t build Keystone XL, they are wrong.

National oil companies like CNOOC, which is 70 percent owned by the People’s Republic of China, already control more than 80 percent of the world’s oil reserves. Of the 20 percent that remain open to market-based development, 60 percent are in Canada, almost all in the oil sands region of Alberta.

That fact has not escaped the attention of China, whose rapid growth has been fueled by quantum leaps in oil consumption.

Until 1993, China was self-sufficient in oil. Today it has to import almost 60 percent of the oil it consumes, and it is the world’s second-largest oil user after the United States. By 2035, the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects China to import 75 percent of its oil needs.

This voracious thirst for petroleum has driven the Chinese to sign long-term oil contracts with countries such as Venezuela, another traditional U.S. oil supplier, and aggressively explore opportunities in energy-rich and investment-friendly Canada.

As one Canadian energy executive who has worked closely with Chinese oil companies explained, China has piles of cash locked in U.S. treasury notes that it regards as declining assets. Investing this cash in energy resources abroad is a no-brainer, both for their intrinsic value and for the technological expertise Chinese companies can gain. (more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories