It feels like the presidential election did not end until now and the result is not what people thought it would be on election night. Neocons never gave up on their conspiracy theory that Trump won with helps from Russia and pressed on until they have now finally won in the sense that they have been able to force Trump to go along with them and start a war in Syria.
Initially, I thought if the Russia Trump connection debate and investigation are ignored, nothing will happen. Now I feel the need to ask questions concerning this debate and investigation. Can we find any voters who regret that they did not vote for Hillary Clinton because of what they got to know about Hillary and the Democratic Party during the election? Why is it better that voters are less informed of the candidates? Did Russia interfere in the disclosure of any information concerning any candidate?
The playing up of the “Russia Trump connection” is purely political, in some way similar to the insistence by Trump on proof of Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States.
That being said, Trump changing his position on Syria is not all due to the fact that he has been harassed by neocons on his connection to Russia. He has always tried to be popular. And now that he is surrounded by neocons, he must be thinking that starting a war in Syria is popular.
A Pandora’s box seems to have been opened by the US invasion of Iraq. So now America is in a panic. What to do?
Although it was the actions by the US that have resulted in the current situation in Iraq, another unilateral US invasion of Iraq will not solve the problems. “Two wrongs do not make a right” applies here. However, mistakes can be corrected by doing the right thing the second time around.
First of all, we should be clear that it is no longer an American problem even though it resulted from American actions, and that the US should not interfere for the sake of keeping Iraq under American control. Trying to keep a country under control by another country is a major contributor to many conflicts in the world.
The US should be involved only to help Iraq, only as a world leader, and only through the UN. The US should lead the UN to find consensus on how to help Iraq. A lot of Americans do not trust the UN because it seems like a constraint on the US. However, for the US to lead, she has to lead by example. If any country who does not want to be restrained by the UN can just bypass it, there will be no world order, conflicts will be everywhere and forever.
Simply asking for help from Iran is not a good idea. Iran is the one who has more influence on the current Iraqi government. What is needed in Iraq is a balance of power. Without it, laws are difficult to enforce and so peace is difficult to achieve.
Leave everybody some space so we can all live. Do not just think of what you are legally entitled to and have no consideration for others’ needs. Or else there will be endless fights. Who does not fight for their survival?
The current conflict between China and Vietnam in the South China Sea is an example. China claims 90% of the South China Sea while Vietnam claims 80%. How are they going to be both satisfied? Not to mention that there are several other nations that need to use the South China Sea, too. Why do they both want to dominate? Concession is a must here.
Countries who are willful often make the mistake of not going to the UN before they start a conflict. Vietnam did not go to the UN before she invaded Cambodia. So even though in hindsight, Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia probably saved many lives, enough of countries were bothered by the invasion that it hurt Vietnam for quite some time. The US did not get approval from the UN before she started the war in Iraq. So now, at the very least, people are wondering what if the US had not gone around the UN. China did not go to the UN before moving an oil rig into an area in the South China Sea that is in dispute. Conflicts and riots have resulted from this action by China. China did not go to the UN when she used force and killed to take over islands in the South China Sea in 1974 and 1988. As a result, there have been disputes over those islands since then.
There are several advantages in going to the UN before starting a conflict. One, it shows a nation’s confidence in the righteousness of what she is about to undertake. Two, it shows the nation’s respect for other nations. Three, it helps the nation win support from other nations.
By the way, when there are only two parties involved, a dispute exists when one party disagrees. When one party disagrees, the other party can not deny that a dispute exists. So Japan can not deny that there is a dispute over the Senkaku Islands (the Diaoyu Islands), and neither China nor Vietnam can deny that there are disputes over the Paracel Islands and the Sparty Islands.
by Fourth of July on Jul.10, 2010, under Posts>Opinions>Politics>World Affairs>Wars>Afghan War>Posts>Opinions>Politics>Immigration & Globalization>Immigration>Immigration Reform>Posts>Opinions>Politics>World Affairs>Wars>Iraq War>Posts>Opinions>Politics>The Economy
“The Greenland Norse lived on an island that was surrounded by fish … oceans of fish … but they refused to eat fish. Fish was taboo for the Greenland Norse. The winters got colder and colder, killing the crops and livestock in Greenland until the remaining Norse starved … even though fish were packed gill to gill off their shores.
There were other people in Greenland during those cold winters — the Inuit. They had no problem eating fish. They lived while the Norse died.” – from 5 Fixes America Needs Right Now by Sean Brodrick on uncommonwisdomdaily.com.
I think it is important for Americans to realize that things need to be changed.
I am listing this article under “Immigration Reform” because illegal immigration is mostly about unauthorized employments, which is one kind of underground economy. I don’t know why the author did not mention it.
Concerning the war in Afghanistan, the former Republican Senator said, “Force feeding democracy for eight years in Afghanistan, we are really trying to force a change in culture. When we are done and gone, President Karzai has got to live with the Afghans, and his antics against the United States are for survival. We ought to realize after eight years that we are creating more terrorism than democracy. The war in Afghanistan is not necessary.” This is a surprise to me. I thought that Republicans are all for wars.
Concerning the economy, he said, “But the CEOs of Corporate America are not interested in coming back from China and producing domestically for less profits. Wall Street, the big banks, Corporate America, and their entities, like the Business Roundtable and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, will fight the President and Congress to keep their off-shored profits flowing. This business crowd furnishes the contributions for campaigns.” This is another surprise to me. I thought Republicans are pro business and so would side with “this business crowd”.
“President Obama can’t get by four years keeping the country AWOL in the trade war. He can’t keep the government on a credit card for $1 trillion a year. President Obama has met his Rubicon. Is he serious as a candidate for contributions or is he serious about being President of the country? Time is of the essence.”
Maybe he represents a different kind of Republicans that are less beholden by special interests, even compared to Democrats.
“The most obvious way in which military success can turn into defeat is by imposing vast human and material costs on the victor.”
“Furthermore, as the loser of a war often seeks revenge for its defeat, the military victor frequently finds that its troubles are only beginning.”
“In addition, war — whether victorious or not — frequently undermines democracy and civil liberties.”
“Moreover, military victory can easily lead to arrogance and aggression — a kind of imperialist hubris.”
“Even worse, people can easily transform a victory secured by larger, better-equipped armies into a victory for moral superiority… More striking yet is the fact that this kind of inflamed nationalist rhetoric was such a commonplace in U.S. political life that no one seemed to find anything strange about it.”
“Of course, a case can be made that it is better for a nation to win a war than to lose it. But perhaps it is time to learn from the world’s tragic, blood-stained history that there is a third alternative: using our intelligence and creativity to resolve conflicts without war.”
Read the complete article by Dr. Lawrence Wittner here: “Afghanistan: In War, Winners can be Losers“.
I think the last one is the most important one. By using military forces to achieve our goals, we are enforcing the believe that people are entitled to whatever they can get by force, which is the law of the jungles.
I can’t believe that the American ruling class are so immature that they think that it is more important to kill the enemies in Afghanistan than to build Afghanistan so that there will not be enemies there. Read this article “Biden’s Standing In White House In Question After Afghan Decision” and you will see that from the Vice President down on, everybody thinks this way, and the President is listening to the Vice President in this regard. It is bad enough that they do not want to get out of Afghanistan yet. It is much worse that they do not know what to do to get out of there in the future.
How is it possible not to build Afghanistan so that there will not be more people who want to fight America in the future? Those fighters come from the ordinary Afghan people. As long as Afghanistan remains corrupt and poor, there will be an endless supply of those fighters. Are they prepared to kill all Afghans?