Links: A. Calls for the implementation of the Minsk Agreement.
B. Right wing protests Poroshenko in Kiev.
Both Kiev and Moscow are very interested in giving the impression of support for the Minsk negotiations. The discussions, which include the Ukraine, France, Germany and Russia, evolved after the failure of the Minsk Protocol, a 5 September 2014 agreement to halt the war in the Donbas Region. The Minsk Protocol included twelve main points, but within the first few weeks, both sides had violated the agreement. By January 2015, it was acknowledged by all parties concerned that the Minsk Protocol was a failure, and that negotiators had to return to Minsk and begin again. On 11 February 2015, the leaders of Ukraine, Germany, France, and Russia agreed to a new package of measures which for all practical purposes, revived the Minsk Protocol. As opposed to the first agreement, it appears at this early stage that both parties are interested in at least giving the appearance of compliance. As an addendum to the Minsk II agreement, both parties (Ukraine and the Donbas separatists) agreed to a heavy weapons withdrawal that includes tanks and certain "previously excluded" lighter weapons. On June 21, monitors for the Organization for the Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) reported that both Ukrainian and separatist forces had begun removing the proscribed weapons from the front lines, even though the addendum had yet to be actually signed. Although the intention of the addendum was to reduce the intensity of the fighting in southeast Ukraine, the separatist almost immediately issued a declaration that they will retain armor around the key cities of Donetsk and Debaltseve. It is apparent that the separatist will utilize a well-worn strategy of continually moving heavy weapons and firepower from one location to the next, to give the impression that they are abiding by the agreement. In reality, as long as the armor and heavy firepower are present in Donbas, they can be maneuvered into position to fire on Ukrainian targets within a day's notice (and in most instances, less).
Not surprisingly, the separatists will agree to whatever particular parts of the agreement that suits their military and political objectives. While Ukrainian President Petro Poroschenko bends over backwards to demonstrate to his European supporters that he is willing to negotiate with the separatists (and the Russians), regardless of the continual violation of previous agreements and the brutal destruction of a civilian passenger airliner by an SA-11 missile fired by Russian Buk missile launcher, he faces mounting disapproval in his own capital. The Right Sector Movement (RSM), the political movement which led the demonstrations that eventually removed Poroschenko's successor, has become increasingly more active and vocal in their opposition to the manner in which Poroschenko is handling this crisis. Poroschenko must be very careful how he maneuvers around this pot-hole, because the RSM, which contributes volunteers to actively fight alongside the Ukrainian Army, is very popular in western Ukraine. One issue that receives a great deal of attention in Ukraine, is the fact that Poroschenko continues to refer to the crisis as an anti-terrorist action (!) as opposed to an actual war. Poroschenko has also been opposed to calls in Parliament (supported by RSM and the majority of Ukrainians) to institute and economic blockade of Donbas, and he does not support the various volunteer military units that have sprung up in support of the Ukrainian Army. All of these measures would be seen by the European "friends of Ukraine", as being inflammatory and not in the spirit of de-escalation, so its obvious from where Poroschenko is currently receiving his marching orders. And you can't blame Poroschenko for taking direction from the leaders of nations that haven't been to war in over five decades, at least not declared. He is being advised by honor graduates of the Neville Chamberlain "sacrifice anything and everyone for peace in our time" school of diplomacy. It should come as no surprise; this is how Europeans think in 2015. Considering the devastation of two World Wars, I certainly understand their wish to avoid aggravating the situation. But dangerous times call for courageous leadership. This is the time and place for the United States to act as the leader of the European delegation, and start dealing with Putin directly. Since the entire planet recognizes that he is calling the shots for the separatists, why to we continue to avoid dealing with him directly?
At present, we in the United States are without a President who is willing to utilize both our diplomatic and military resources appropriately and aggressively, in defense of international freedom and security. Since 2008, the United States has basically been adrift internationally, occasionally reacting to important events, but always the last one to show up at the party. The establishment of ISIS in Iraq is a direct result of the rash removal of U.S. forces in contrast to the phased-out, long-term withdrawal schedule preferred by the Pentagon. And Ukraine is obliged to cling to the coat tails of Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande because our government is preaching the same, defeatist diatribe as they are (and they're closer). If I could only remember the number of Democrats who have argued against long-term sanctions at one time or another (Cuba comes to mind); and now these same Democrats watch Vladimir Putin and the Russian people totally ignore the sanctions regime in-place against Russia, and call for.....continued sanctions! Putin will eventually swallow Ukraine piece-by piece. Why? Because its in his nature; he is a megalomaniac, and like true megalomaniacs, he won't stop until HE IS STOPPED. When we made the point in favor of aggressive and appropriate diplomatic and military action, we were recognizing that the United States and our European partners have the opportunity to persuade Putin to climb back into his box. We must show that we are determined to protect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine, and this can be accomplished by providing all supplies and military equipment that the Ukrainian military requests. Would you like a chuckle? If the Iranian nuke treaty is approved, we will then be able to sell F16s and Abrams tanks to Iran, but no to Ukraine! We can also influence Putin's decision-making by returning U.S. military forces to Europe, but in new locations, possibly, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Romania? The threat of a missile-defense shield for eastern Europe is another issue that annoys Putin (and that we have sacrificed for absolutely no political gain). We have military options in dealing with both Putin and ISIS; now all we need is the motivation and the backbone.
2016 can't come fast enough.
Showing posts with label Barrack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barrack Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Saturday, December 20, 2014
In One Fell Swoop, Rand Paul Has Lost Me
Link: Rand Paul Supports Relations With Cuba
Politics can be very unpredictable. This morning I woke up, believing that Senator Rand Paul would most likely be my choice for the GOP nomination for President in 2016. President Obama normalizes relations with Cuba, Rand Paul supports Obama's actions, and I'm through with Senator Paul. It wasn't just Paul's announcement that he supported President Obama. What really changed my mind were Paul's comments regarding the issue.
The link that I have included provides all of the comments from Senator Paul which have caused me to rethink my support. Rand Paul claims that sanctions on Cuba have failed. What, exactly, did Paul expect the sanctions to achieve? Our diplomatic and economic non-involvement with Cuba has to do with the foreign and domestic policies of the government in Havana, not some effort to create a democracy. The United States has the same sovereign right to chose its trade partners as does every other member of the United Nations. If we chose not to trade with Cuba, then that is our business, and Cuba is free to find other, more sympathetic regimes with which to carry on trade. Rand Paul also claimed that U.S. sanctions on Cuba hurt the Cuban people. Absolute HORSE SHIT. Its crap like that which makes me question how I could have ever supported this man for political office. Cuba is what it is because of the repressive, leftist/fascist rule of Fidel Castro, not because of the United States. Not surprisingly, Havana has an expensive, elite neighborhood, with mansions and all the trappings of wealth. Who lives there? the cronies and sycophants of Castro, that's who. Socialism in the best circumstances will eventually collapse upon itself, and in a poor, underdeveloped nation with very little industry or infrastructure? People are never really given the opportunity to better their lives. It's impossible to generate wealth when what little the government receives is stolen or spent on military escapades in South America and Angola. Tell me, Senator Paul, as an American, is it my fault that Castro chose to pay for Cuban Mig fighters and tanks in Angola instead of food on the tables of Cuban families? I have grown to expect President Obama to blame the American people for the ills of foreigners, but hearing it from Rand Paul was really disappointing. Newsflash: endemic poverty in Cuba is not the fault, or the responsibility of the United States.
On Thursday, during a radio interview, Rand Paul commented that, “When we first opened up trade with China we were thinking it was a bad idea. But you know over time I’ve come to believe — and many conservatives have come to believe — that trading with China is actually the best way to ultimately defeat communism, and it makes us less likely to fight.” Lets take a look at this picture, shall we? Since President Richard Nixon went to Beijing in 1972 (and threw Taiwan right under a speeding bus), and we have become progressively more economically involved with China, communism has somehow suffered? Not according to reality, Senator Paul. The Chinese economy, with our assistance, has become an international monster that has a special taste for all things American. The Chinese have made an art form out of buying up our debt, not to mention millions of acres of real estate all over the United States. Since relations with the United States improved, the Chinese military has greatly improved its offensive capacity and its missile delivery systems. Much of that missile technology came from the United States. And a quick look around the current Chinese political environment, the Communist Party is just as much an immoveable object as it always was, and the Red Army has become much more active in espionage and international banking. As for the Chinese government's dedication to the basic principles of Communism, I only have to look at Tibet and the more western provinces to remind myself what the Chinese government really thinks about open, political dialogue. Basically, the Chinese still do not enjoy the freedom to worship as they please. The education system is tightly controlled by the government, textbooks are total propaganda, and teachers are almost as left-wing as they are in American schools. Also, it is highly discouraged (some would say illegal), to have more than a certain, approved number of children. The political system does not allow for dissent, nor does the average Chinese citizen get to participate in a representative electoral process. The government controls the media and all aspects of the internet. So how, exactly, have we been "defeating" Communism with our economic and diplomatic embrace? I don't see it. No doubt a growing middle-class exists in China, but it is a segment of the population that does not question authority. The truth is, Senator Paul, that we have enabled the Chinese Communist Party to become even more entrenched and powerful by forgoing economic and political isolation. The mouthpiece of the Party continues to look for opportunities to threaten and insult the United States. This China that Senator Rand brags about is Kim Jong-Un and North Korea's lifeline. China could shut down Kim Jong-Un and free the people of North Korea in a heartbeat. But they won't. Let me tell you what China WILL do. The Chinese government will export nuclear technology to terrorist states, and also create an elaborate system of spying using Chinese citizens studying at U.S. Universities who just happen to have contracts for research projects with the U.S. Department of Defense. And spying at the laboratories in New Mexico is another example of Communist China's love for Democracy.
Lets move away from the criticism of Rand Paul and continue the discussion of Cuba. Today, President Obama gave away the kitchen sink without getting anything in return. Just last month, the Cuban regime was denounced for continuing to illegally jail Alan Gross, a U.S. Aid worker who was in Cuba to assist the poor. That government, which jails protesters, refuses to reform, controls all aspects of the lives of the Cuban people, and embraces any political movement that expresses anti-American sentiment, shouldn't exist in our sphere of national security, let alone gain diplomatic recognition. Cuba has not had a real election in over 60 years, and the government that has been squatting in Havana all that time, has been recognized by the Obama Administration. Would Obama have recognized apartheid South Africa? To be honest, if this decision had been debated in Congress and vetted through our tried and trusted legislative system of checks and balances, and passed a vote, I wouldn't complain. I might express my disagreement, but I would continue to be proud that our system was still functioning as intended. Instead we have one man making a decision that used to be important enough for full Congressional consideration. How far is this going to go? First immigration Amnesty, now normalizing relations with Cuba. What's next? Returning Texas, New Mexico and Arizona to Mexico?
Politics can be very unpredictable. This morning I woke up, believing that Senator Rand Paul would most likely be my choice for the GOP nomination for President in 2016. President Obama normalizes relations with Cuba, Rand Paul supports Obama's actions, and I'm through with Senator Paul. It wasn't just Paul's announcement that he supported President Obama. What really changed my mind were Paul's comments regarding the issue.
The link that I have included provides all of the comments from Senator Paul which have caused me to rethink my support. Rand Paul claims that sanctions on Cuba have failed. What, exactly, did Paul expect the sanctions to achieve? Our diplomatic and economic non-involvement with Cuba has to do with the foreign and domestic policies of the government in Havana, not some effort to create a democracy. The United States has the same sovereign right to chose its trade partners as does every other member of the United Nations. If we chose not to trade with Cuba, then that is our business, and Cuba is free to find other, more sympathetic regimes with which to carry on trade. Rand Paul also claimed that U.S. sanctions on Cuba hurt the Cuban people. Absolute HORSE SHIT. Its crap like that which makes me question how I could have ever supported this man for political office. Cuba is what it is because of the repressive, leftist/fascist rule of Fidel Castro, not because of the United States. Not surprisingly, Havana has an expensive, elite neighborhood, with mansions and all the trappings of wealth. Who lives there? the cronies and sycophants of Castro, that's who. Socialism in the best circumstances will eventually collapse upon itself, and in a poor, underdeveloped nation with very little industry or infrastructure? People are never really given the opportunity to better their lives. It's impossible to generate wealth when what little the government receives is stolen or spent on military escapades in South America and Angola. Tell me, Senator Paul, as an American, is it my fault that Castro chose to pay for Cuban Mig fighters and tanks in Angola instead of food on the tables of Cuban families? I have grown to expect President Obama to blame the American people for the ills of foreigners, but hearing it from Rand Paul was really disappointing. Newsflash: endemic poverty in Cuba is not the fault, or the responsibility of the United States.
On Thursday, during a radio interview, Rand Paul commented that, “When we first opened up trade with China we were thinking it was a bad idea. But you know over time I’ve come to believe — and many conservatives have come to believe — that trading with China is actually the best way to ultimately defeat communism, and it makes us less likely to fight.” Lets take a look at this picture, shall we? Since President Richard Nixon went to Beijing in 1972 (and threw Taiwan right under a speeding bus), and we have become progressively more economically involved with China, communism has somehow suffered? Not according to reality, Senator Paul. The Chinese economy, with our assistance, has become an international monster that has a special taste for all things American. The Chinese have made an art form out of buying up our debt, not to mention millions of acres of real estate all over the United States. Since relations with the United States improved, the Chinese military has greatly improved its offensive capacity and its missile delivery systems. Much of that missile technology came from the United States. And a quick look around the current Chinese political environment, the Communist Party is just as much an immoveable object as it always was, and the Red Army has become much more active in espionage and international banking. As for the Chinese government's dedication to the basic principles of Communism, I only have to look at Tibet and the more western provinces to remind myself what the Chinese government really thinks about open, political dialogue. Basically, the Chinese still do not enjoy the freedom to worship as they please. The education system is tightly controlled by the government, textbooks are total propaganda, and teachers are almost as left-wing as they are in American schools. Also, it is highly discouraged (some would say illegal), to have more than a certain, approved number of children. The political system does not allow for dissent, nor does the average Chinese citizen get to participate in a representative electoral process. The government controls the media and all aspects of the internet. So how, exactly, have we been "defeating" Communism with our economic and diplomatic embrace? I don't see it. No doubt a growing middle-class exists in China, but it is a segment of the population that does not question authority. The truth is, Senator Paul, that we have enabled the Chinese Communist Party to become even more entrenched and powerful by forgoing economic and political isolation. The mouthpiece of the Party continues to look for opportunities to threaten and insult the United States. This China that Senator Rand brags about is Kim Jong-Un and North Korea's lifeline. China could shut down Kim Jong-Un and free the people of North Korea in a heartbeat. But they won't. Let me tell you what China WILL do. The Chinese government will export nuclear technology to terrorist states, and also create an elaborate system of spying using Chinese citizens studying at U.S. Universities who just happen to have contracts for research projects with the U.S. Department of Defense. And spying at the laboratories in New Mexico is another example of Communist China's love for Democracy.
Lets move away from the criticism of Rand Paul and continue the discussion of Cuba. Today, President Obama gave away the kitchen sink without getting anything in return. Just last month, the Cuban regime was denounced for continuing to illegally jail Alan Gross, a U.S. Aid worker who was in Cuba to assist the poor. That government, which jails protesters, refuses to reform, controls all aspects of the lives of the Cuban people, and embraces any political movement that expresses anti-American sentiment, shouldn't exist in our sphere of national security, let alone gain diplomatic recognition. Cuba has not had a real election in over 60 years, and the government that has been squatting in Havana all that time, has been recognized by the Obama Administration. Would Obama have recognized apartheid South Africa? To be honest, if this decision had been debated in Congress and vetted through our tried and trusted legislative system of checks and balances, and passed a vote, I wouldn't complain. I might express my disagreement, but I would continue to be proud that our system was still functioning as intended. Instead we have one man making a decision that used to be important enough for full Congressional consideration. How far is this going to go? First immigration Amnesty, now normalizing relations with Cuba. What's next? Returning Texas, New Mexico and Arizona to Mexico?
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Please Excuse The Tinest Bit Of Politics
Links A. Will Hillary Clinton Run In 2016?
B. Romney Looking Like A Candidate For 2016
C. Another Bush Eyes The Oval Office
The 2016 election began the moment Mitt Romney conceded the 2012 race to Barrack Obama. The Republican power-brokers (who appear to exclusively be Members of Congress) were quoted all over the media about the need to find "new blood" and "fresh faces" to lead the GOP into this new century. I agreed; because of reasons not unrelated to tradition and loyalty, Republicans always seem to chose the candidate who has "put in the time". In 2012 Mitt Romney's candidacy and eventual nomination as GOP standard bearer seemed predestined, even with a couple grumbles from Rick Santorum. A month before the actual election, it appeared that Mitt as in the driver's seat. All the polls showed Romney in the lead, and he avoided any terrible missteps in the less-than-inspiring final debate. Not only did Romney lose, but he lost every single battleground state (except maybe Florida; I can't remember how Florida finally ended). So as 2014 comes to a close, who is on top of all the major polls for the 2016 Republican nomination? Why Mitt Romney, of course. I don't mind Romney and I believe he would make a decent President, but what I do mind is his obvious belief that the United States cannot survive without a President Romney. Why else would someone run for the office three consecutive times (you will recall that before John McCain got hot, Romney was leading the GOP race in 2008)?
And if Romney were to decide against running in 2016 (fat chance), who else is making noise on the Republican side? Jeb Bush. As if the name "Bush" is all America needs to regain the edge. I'm sorry, but I'm not ready for another Bush. I like some of the younger Bushes who seem to have their own ideas and ambitions, but enough time hasn't passed for me to jump back onto that Bandwagon. I like Jeb as much as I like Mitt, but it just ain't gonna happen. I will not support a Bush for the Republican nomination in 2016 (unless Barbara decides to run). Rick Santorum is another face that refuses to go away. I prefer Rick to Mitt and Jeb, but he has about as much chance as Osama Bin Laden's corpse of getting elected President in 2016. I mean no disrespect, but I can't support a candidate who is so polarizing that the Democratic nominee would win in a landslide (and I like the fact that Santorum does not run away from his Catholic faith). I'm hearing Beltway rumors that Mike Huckobee is considering a run. Oy Vey! Thank goodness for Chris Christie, who I don't particularly support, and Rand Paul, who I like, for bringing a bit of variety into the conversation. Rick Perry? Rick missed his opportunity in 2012, and Ted Cruz isn't quite ready for prime time.
On the Democrat side, I've heard three names mentioned repeatedly: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden (snicker). In plain English, the nomination is Hillary's for the asking, and ask she will. Her syncophants have lately tried to spread the idea that Hillary may not run, either for medical or unrelated personal reasons. Give me a break. Hillary has been running for President ever since Bill left office. Hillary wants to be President because she craves authority; its a large part of her nature. She believes that she is more intelligent than most people and therefore deserves to be in a decision-making position. Unfortunately for Hillary, she was a terrible Secretary of State, with a degrading and compromising treaty with Russia (New Start Treaty) as her only achievement. I can't imagine the "Hillary 2016" tour is going to highlight Clinton's diplomacy vis-a-vis Vladimir Putin as reason to trust her foreign policy acumen, and we haven't even gotten to Benghazi. Elizabeth Warren, the darling of the left-of-left modern hippies that appear to be all that's left of the Obama base, will probably run in order to keep her name and future options fresh. Biden may run out of vanity alone, but everyday he seems to morph into an even larger baboon, and I can't imagine the Democratic power-brokers allowing Joe to make a complete ass of himself (anymore than usual, that is).
The point of this post is to release a bit of steam that has been collecting in my gizzard regarding the persons who appear to be running for President in 2016. For the life of me, I just don't understand why certain politically prolific persons refuse to retire. In the old days (pre-1990), people would run for President once, maybe twice, and then just drift away with dignity and manners. Today, we have a new breed of politicians who will hold on for life to whatever bit of power the electorate has seen fit to bestow. Jeez, how I'm sick of the same old faces delivering the same old platitudes. At least the GOP has a few new names on the list. I can't imagine what the Democrats would do without Hillary.
B. Romney Looking Like A Candidate For 2016
C. Another Bush Eyes The Oval Office
The 2016 election began the moment Mitt Romney conceded the 2012 race to Barrack Obama. The Republican power-brokers (who appear to exclusively be Members of Congress) were quoted all over the media about the need to find "new blood" and "fresh faces" to lead the GOP into this new century. I agreed; because of reasons not unrelated to tradition and loyalty, Republicans always seem to chose the candidate who has "put in the time". In 2012 Mitt Romney's candidacy and eventual nomination as GOP standard bearer seemed predestined, even with a couple grumbles from Rick Santorum. A month before the actual election, it appeared that Mitt as in the driver's seat. All the polls showed Romney in the lead, and he avoided any terrible missteps in the less-than-inspiring final debate. Not only did Romney lose, but he lost every single battleground state (except maybe Florida; I can't remember how Florida finally ended). So as 2014 comes to a close, who is on top of all the major polls for the 2016 Republican nomination? Why Mitt Romney, of course. I don't mind Romney and I believe he would make a decent President, but what I do mind is his obvious belief that the United States cannot survive without a President Romney. Why else would someone run for the office three consecutive times (you will recall that before John McCain got hot, Romney was leading the GOP race in 2008)?
And if Romney were to decide against running in 2016 (fat chance), who else is making noise on the Republican side? Jeb Bush. As if the name "Bush" is all America needs to regain the edge. I'm sorry, but I'm not ready for another Bush. I like some of the younger Bushes who seem to have their own ideas and ambitions, but enough time hasn't passed for me to jump back onto that Bandwagon. I like Jeb as much as I like Mitt, but it just ain't gonna happen. I will not support a Bush for the Republican nomination in 2016 (unless Barbara decides to run). Rick Santorum is another face that refuses to go away. I prefer Rick to Mitt and Jeb, but he has about as much chance as Osama Bin Laden's corpse of getting elected President in 2016. I mean no disrespect, but I can't support a candidate who is so polarizing that the Democratic nominee would win in a landslide (and I like the fact that Santorum does not run away from his Catholic faith). I'm hearing Beltway rumors that Mike Huckobee is considering a run. Oy Vey! Thank goodness for Chris Christie, who I don't particularly support, and Rand Paul, who I like, for bringing a bit of variety into the conversation. Rick Perry? Rick missed his opportunity in 2012, and Ted Cruz isn't quite ready for prime time.
On the Democrat side, I've heard three names mentioned repeatedly: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden (snicker). In plain English, the nomination is Hillary's for the asking, and ask she will. Her syncophants have lately tried to spread the idea that Hillary may not run, either for medical or unrelated personal reasons. Give me a break. Hillary has been running for President ever since Bill left office. Hillary wants to be President because she craves authority; its a large part of her nature. She believes that she is more intelligent than most people and therefore deserves to be in a decision-making position. Unfortunately for Hillary, she was a terrible Secretary of State, with a degrading and compromising treaty with Russia (New Start Treaty) as her only achievement. I can't imagine the "Hillary 2016" tour is going to highlight Clinton's diplomacy vis-a-vis Vladimir Putin as reason to trust her foreign policy acumen, and we haven't even gotten to Benghazi. Elizabeth Warren, the darling of the left-of-left modern hippies that appear to be all that's left of the Obama base, will probably run in order to keep her name and future options fresh. Biden may run out of vanity alone, but everyday he seems to morph into an even larger baboon, and I can't imagine the Democratic power-brokers allowing Joe to make a complete ass of himself (anymore than usual, that is).
The point of this post is to release a bit of steam that has been collecting in my gizzard regarding the persons who appear to be running for President in 2016. For the life of me, I just don't understand why certain politically prolific persons refuse to retire. In the old days (pre-1990), people would run for President once, maybe twice, and then just drift away with dignity and manners. Today, we have a new breed of politicians who will hold on for life to whatever bit of power the electorate has seen fit to bestow. Jeez, how I'm sick of the same old faces delivering the same old platitudes. At least the GOP has a few new names on the list. I can't imagine what the Democrats would do without Hillary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)