Foreign Policy or Road Kill?

It is apparent that although then candidate Obama evinced an obvious dislike for war in the name of nation building, somewhere along the line after being awarded the Nobel Peace prize, his views vehemently altered - in particular pertaining to areas of Africa and Middle Asia. The query for me is does the present administration have any concern for Americans or even comprehend the concept of national security with regards to foreign policy, now given our interest of military conflict with Syria? I know the Obama administration considered action before since it is on the record that in July of 2012, Syrian rebel lobbyists reported that the Obama Administration had told them they would not be able to intervene in a seriously way until after the November election. Even so what is the policy, outside of Assad must go?

With respect to Syria, the only benefit I imagine is that such would show support for Israel and that our intervention would give the US government a chance to topple Iran’s only ally in the region. With Obama’s strong words and recent reconsideration of the “staged” red line, the only thing America has been doing has been using the CIA to smuggle other nations’ military assets into Syria.

Not to mention that what President Obama calls the Free Syrian Army (FSA) is mainly comprised of Syrian military deserters and criminals, al-Qaeda insurgents, Salafis and jihadists. It has been estimated by US intelligence sources that about 80% of the units recognize their spiritual leader Sheikh Adnan Al-Arouri dwelling in Saudi Arabia. To date thousands of these FSA have been killed and documented to have come from more than 20 nations including the United States and in Europe.

Data indicates that hose fighters who are from Syria, come from mainly the southeastern region near Dayr Al-Zawr on the Iraqi-Syrian border, the northwestern region of Idlib near the Turkish-Syrian border, and Dar'a in the south near the Jordanian-Syrian border. Areas that a 2007 West Point study described as “regions” that “ now serve as the epicenter for a similar Libyan-style uprising, with fighters” defined as "pro-democracy" "freedom fighters." More importantly, is that it is these very regions that serve as the points of entry for the majority of foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia via Jordan, and from Libya via Turkey, or through Egypt and/or Jordan.

The Obama Administration has to know all of this. We have seen car bombs that have killed at least 20 people in a Damascus suburb that was an act of terrorism aimed at Syria's civilian population , the vast majority of which are Christians to Druze, from Shia'a Muslims to moderate Sunnis, whom are being specifically targeted by Israel, US and Saudi backed Wahhabi indoctrinated terrorists.

We have seen beheadings, mass hangings and executions of Christians, Alawites, and Shia’a that only support secular insurrection more than fighting for Democracy. The Obama Administration has even given Syrian Al Qaeda operatives a political front in Doha, Qatar. Its US-Qatari appointed leader, Moaz al-Khatib, has been revealed as not only involved with Western oil corporations, but also has declared on Al Jazeera his intentions of establishing an "Islamic state."

The Obama administration has spent the past year in secret talks and have helped piece together this group of folk aimed at building a new Syrian opposition leadership structure that it wishes can win the support of minority groups still backing President Bashar al-Assad. In the meantime, the tiny gas-rich state of Qatar (Sunni) has spent as much as $3bn supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government for the past 2 years. This is the methodology that was used in Libya. Just as in Libya, in Syria, the West, despite acknowledging the existence of Al Qaeda in Benghazi, Libya, is using these militant Islamic networks to send fighters to Iraq, in route to Syria. This, after these same Libyan Islamist were implicated in an attack that left a US ambassador dead on September 11, 2012.

Again, the Libyan example applies directly to Syria. Libya is suffering the aftereffects of a western manufactured conflict, which killed tens of thousands of people. Two years after the Arab Spring uprising ousted Gadhafi, Libya’s central government the bloodshed has not stopped; recently a senior judge was killed in the town of Derna, and at least 27 people in the southwestern town of Sebha during a confrontation between protesters and the members of a pro-government militia called Libyan Shield. Then there is the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

The LIFG is a known terrorist organization which is sending fighter and weapons on a massive scale into Syria. In November of last year the Telegraph reported that “Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, "met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey, and admitted that he was sent there by "Mustafa Abdul Jalil, then interim Libyan president.

In all reality and simplest terms, the foreign policy of the Obama Administration is more road kill than policy. As it stands, all across middle Asia, Obama policy has turned a major portion of the region into a vast hub for terrorist and Al Qaeda in particular. Regardless if it is Libya, Eastern Lebanon, Southern Turkey, Iraq, Egypt and now Syria. For unlike the narrative promulgated in Western mainstream outlets, objectively speaking those who support Al Qaeda - the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia seem to be the biggest fans of state-sponsored terrorism.

All that has been done is to shield the hypocrisy of the US policy in Middle Asia. We charge the leadership of Libya and Syria as being despotic and autocratic regimes but hold the hands of the autocratic leadership, guilty of equal atrocities in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Bahrain. The only difference is that the hands we hold are Sunni, and the ones we vilify are Shia’a. Washington has stated that weapons will not go into the hands of Salafist jihadis although it is impossible to stop this from happening. Our policy is really just fueling a sectarian war between Sunni and Shai’a. The governments of the West have decided to partner with with Sunni Muslims against both the Shiite and Christian minorities the most volatile of region of the world today. Last September Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan stated, “What happened in Karbala 1,332 years ago is what is happening in Syria today.”

What US foreign policy fails to realize is that the main differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims is that Shiite’s are secular and accept the existence of other religions, their women may participate in society by being employed, driving, voting, and hold political office, their acceptance of alcohol consumption, and their openness to democratic-type elections.

I do not understand this, it is as if the US government and present administration view outcomes and practice as monolithic. This includes the complete ignoring of the flame fanning by Israel, who may be behind the recent car bomb that exploded in the heart of Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah’s southern Beirut. A perfect cloak knowing that many will think that it is a response to Hezbollah fighting alongside with Assad in Syria and that many will see it as extremist spreading the war in Syria throughout the region. What many in mainstream media and politics forget is that most Sunni and Shiite are moderates and nowhere as violent as portrayed – another factoid often abrogated from conversation.

The same can be said about the claim about Syria using chemical weapons. A good start for a false flag if you want sympathy and desire to start a war, but you cannot ignore all the evidence of Al Qaeda using and making chemical weapons from Iraq, even on video in Syria. And don’t give me that false flag is conspiracy shit. History has shown that the Gulf of Tonkin incident (or the USS Maddox incident) never occurred and that Hitler burned his own Parliament for example. But because of Israel, America is at incessant war with Shiite run nations like Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and support Sunni backed nations like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Egypt which continue to outlaw freedom for women, openly persecute Christians and Jews, do not allow their citizens to vote in free elections, and are now calling for a “Global Jihad” against all Jews, Christians and Shiites. Even Alawites, who associate themselves with Shiite Muslims, are ordered to be “killed on sight” by the US supported FSA and all leading Sunni religious and political leaders.

The US has no stable policy objective in Syria and surrounding areas openly discussed outside of Assad must go, all again to benefit Israel over US national security. Maybe this is why Seymour Hersh wrote in 2007 that "To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda." -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007).

No common sense policy would have US at war against Al Qaeda while at the same time they are our allies.

Gold Digging: Will Mali be Obama’s Afghanistan?

When I think of Mali, or any part of West Africa, I often say to myself, I had a ball when I was there in 1992 and 1993. At the time I was living in Owerri, in Southeastern Nigeria. And if you have ever seen the Sahel, what sticks out from a geo-political locution is that it runs from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea.

But the country, inclusive of the history of the Dogon and those who inhabit the Mopti river region of that great historic place, may be the location of America’s next war of western imperialism and neocolonial fervor. To top it all off, it will be carried out via the instruction of the first African America President in the history of the United States.

It seems that Obama drone wars will have to find a new country to target since the US will be ending its occupation of Afghanistan soon. And since the Administration’s war on terror has not ended, the obvious next place to send US and UN troops is Africa, specifically Mali. Now I know we have US troops in the Congo, Uganda, Somalia and several other nations, but I have an inclination that Obama will be in this West African nation soon.

All of this would have been unnecessary if the administration had not taken the actions via the UN it did in Libya. In fact, Mali was a stable democracy for the last few decades until we destabilized. Not only did it lead to arms from Libya flooding the northern region of the nation, it also leads to the influx of al-Qaeda affiliated Islamists in the North.

Some would say that I am making this entire up. However, I would say that they have not been reading or paying attention or worse, they do know evaluate historical actions that would make the suggestion that the Obama Administration would be supportive of Western military forces in Mali. The US in concert with the UN has conducted armed interventions (with support from Obama). We saw such in Libya where via the UN; Obama although in direct violation of the US constitution, never consulted congress to overthrow the leader of a sovereign nation. Even though it required supporting militarily, Islamic fundamentalist militants and Al Qaeda and resulted in the — ethnic cleansing and lynchings of thousands black Africans.

We also saw such when the Obama Administration and the UN aided in the violent overthrow of the President of the Ivory Coast although the nations highest court that he had won the election. He was subsequently replaced by a UN hand-picked Muslim central banker. This too resulted in the death of thousands most of which were Christians.

We are already hearing the administration and UN drop little hints about al Qaeda having set up in northern Mali, right next to Boko Haram in Nigeria. Not to mention the Islamic Maghreb, al Shabab in East Africa. Especially if the story is being laid out by Robert Fowler of the UN. In addition, Last year the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution “determining that the situation in Mali constitutes a threat to international peace and security.” The resolution also noted that the UN was ready to deploy an “international military force” to invade the country if such is seemed necessary.

Stranger is that this is all coming from the urging really, of the Obama State Department – that is the ideal of invading Mali - to prop up the interim government. The Obama administration has also been increasing military aid to leaders of ruling countries around Mali in preparation for the upcoming intervention. Not to mention that last year, President Obama ended all of Mali’s trade privileges with the US, citing backtracking from democracy in the annual assessment of benefits conferred by the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) program. Funny, the way I see it, taking the limited benefits they had under the prior arrangements will only punch prospects for democracy farther away. Especially given he approved such with the South Sudan, who is in conflict with Sudan. Mali only exported about $7 million from precious stones, gold, art and antiques, while imports from the U.S. exceeded $40 million. But that’s right; the South Sudan has the plentiful Abyei oil region.

Funny, Mali used to be Africa’s democratic success stories, now it may be the next Somalia, or even worse – Afghanistan. If the President does involve US military forces in Mali, it will be a tacit confession that his actions in Libya failed and really served to undermine international peace and security., It will reveal to history that his Libyan interventionist policy was his biggest foreign policy mistake and that helping Africa is the farthest thing from his policy perspectives when compared to the old imperialistic agenda of raping the continent of all its natural resources while killing million via war, starvation, poverty and drought in the process.Yes Mali may be Obama's Afghanistan and all because there is gold in them their hills. Afterall, Mali is Africa's third largest gold producer after South Africa and Ghana. Mali produced 53,7 t of gold in 2009.

US and Obama Administration Fight against Palestine Entrance to UN is Palpable Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is a noun that in essence means to act on the stage and to purport to be what one is not or to believe what one is not.Its modern form is a combination of Greek and old French.This is the best word I can use to illustrate the position of the United States and the Obama administration with respect to their blatant efforts to block a vote on the addition of Palestine to the United Nations.

I find it awkwardly detached and unusual for this administration in particular, given a fitted and able discernment of the President’s address at the American University in Cairo. During that address he stated, “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

These were words stated by President Barack Obama during his address to the American University at Cairo some two minutes into his address. It took him some six more pages before he said, “it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

This threat to veto the vote may serve to destroy any attempt for a desire to serve two terms for the President and worse, increase future attacks against the US by radical fanatics. Obama’s cabal, under the auspices of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in concert with Tony Blair- special envoy to the region, and EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton, has manifested itself in a last ditched effort of brinkmanship to block the Palestinian Authority desire for a vote in the United Nations General Assembly to recognize an independent state of Palestine. The result will be a diplomatic and political disaster for the president, the democrats and any effort to win a second term at the executive level. Especially since by all accounts, the resolution will pass by a large margin, without support from the U.S., and a few other nations. Strange since it was it was Obama who, in his Sept. 23, 2010, to the General Assembly, originally raised the goal of admitting to the UN by September 2011.

Obama continues to say that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is one of his highest priorities, yet he has made less progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace than any administration since the early 1970s.

This sets a major problem in motion for Obama and his plans to seek re-election if the Jewish vote turns against him, especially given the recent special elections in New York’s 9^th district in which a republican won for the first time since the turn of the century. The loss in Tuesday’s special election for the seat formerly held by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) may “send a message” to President Obama concerning his administration’s stance on Israel. This was not from a republican but rather Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.). Not to mention that it was former mayor Ed Koch (D) called on voters to back the Republican businessmanin order to send a message to Obama about his Israel policy. Mayor Koch disagrees with Obama's view that Israel's pre-1967 borders should be the baseline for Middle East peace talks. Thus, the administration’s insistence on trying to persuade Israel to stop building settlements, without success in concert with the aforementioned equals an effrontery to the American Jewish community.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) has indicated his concern regarding the Palestinian Authority's (PA) bid for the United Nation’s (UN) to recognize their statehood. Barrasso wants the U.S to immediately stop funds it to the PA annually as well as the UN if statehood is recognized. Then there is Sen. Marco Rubio, republican from Florida says if the vote in the United Nations to create a Palestinian state is successful, it would set back the Middle East peace process and would only add to the regional turmoil and instability.Not only is the concern by republicans and the pro-Zionist lobby problematic, but similar concerns have been brought to fruition by Arab states. Saudi Arabia has expressed outrage for Palestinians by many members of Congress, a congress that in voice supports what has occurred in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia but against such in Palestine

Not only has the President been unsuccessful in his efforts to broker a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, now he seemingly has lost one of his major political allies. The concern is after dealing several defeating blows to terrorism through the deaths of major Al Qaeda leaders, he may be stoking the flames for more attacks from individuals who take his flip flop on the issue of Palestinian statehood as a reason to slash out against the United States again.

The veto in the UN may help save Obama a major voting constituency, however, the question remains, how will this be perceived in the Arab world and if winning an election by any means necessary is more important than ensuring our safety from future terroristic attacks in the future?

Somalia: Another Fine Mess

Halfway around the world, another fine foreign policy mess is manifesting its head thanks to Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Why, because in the name of emotion in the form of terror, American-backed warlords in Somalia have free reign to destroy a nation from its infrastructure to its government in a vain effort to persecute the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), who they consider terrorist affiliates of Al Qaeda. A group that once held warlords at bay, who established order, stopped the open dealing of drugs and even allowed Freedom of speech.

That is until the United States intervened and made Somalia into another front in the global "War on Terror." Now the country has returned to the mess prior to US intervention of individual clans battling for their piece of the Somalia pie. This due to our inefficient and faulty foreign policy. The United States and U.S. policy makers never did have a valid and viable understanding regarding the troubles confronting Somali society. Yet this was not enough for the United States, as part of the international community, under the auspices of Somalia humanitarian operations to make things even worse. True, US efforts assisted in debilitating starvation and saving many lives, we couldn’t stop there and decided to wave our magical military wand and engender a backwards slide into disorder and anarchy.

After all of our wasted economic support in this effort, now what we thought we were attempting to prevent is coming to fruition – a mad dash and violent battles by warlords and tribal clans to collect as much land as possible. We have engenders more instability and corruption in the nation. It is like we never thought what could occur if all of the Islamic insurgents were to be defeated and left the region.

The failures in Somalia reflect U.S. foreign policy at its best – inept and destructive. Yet we still appear to have not learned from the lessons of Somalia. In theory, American interest in the Horn of Africa region dates back to the Cold War when both the Soviet Union and the United States competed to gain allies and influence in Africa and elsewhere throughout the world. Consequently, it was another comedy of errors that reflected more on our self-centeredness than trying to get a nation to solve its own problems internally. Why, because in the US ignorance of the tribalism of Somali culture was a major shortcoming before and during our intervention in the African nation. We entered Somalia in December 1992 under the guise of stopping the starvation of hundreds of thousands of people. Although it succeeded in this mission, the chaotic political situation eventually demonstrated a poorly organized nation-building operation in that merely increased hostility toward us and our interest as a nation.

Today it is estimated that more than 20 mini-states comprise Somalia. What was holding the nation together prior to our intervention exist no longer and it has become a country fragmented and although we attempted to end starvation, we have only made human suffering in the drought-stricken country worse. Moreover, this blunder is off the radar of main stream media for some reason or another. Maybe we really don’t ot didn’t have the humanitarian intrest of Africans in our heats in the first place. I think the adamantine Laural and Hardy said it best, “this is another fine mess you’ve gotten us into.

Obama’s Arabian Dreams (Nightmares)

I heard it mentioned during his state of the union address, how Obama alluded to Tunisia and Egypt in a backhanded way - saying we support democracy everywhere people call for such This is safe and as some would say “all good” but do we really? Specifically the Obama administration or is it just rhetoric promulgated in the kvetching of votes for an upcoming election?

I can’t answer that but it is my perception that America does not and what we see occurring in the Arab world places new definition to the biblical statement of “a measure of wheat for a penny” and how this single sentiment in addition to the US position in the region can topple a government. Sure we saw turmoil in Turkey, Ireland, Brittan and France but these homogenous democratic governments saw disruption based on falling economic systems. In North Africa and the Arab world what we are observing is a function of food and despotism, totalitarian rule and the simple desire to provide for one’s family and live as a free thinking individual. This is completely different from what we observed in Europe.

In fact it could be argued that we, America has created this monster and it may reflect bad about how we go about democracy building around the world. We take the approach of overthrowing an established government and then installing our own and call it nation building. The problem is that true nation building can only occur from the citizenry. WE have created a monster, all these years, we have stood by and support tyrants who never supported democratic rule for our own purpose of a so-called peace with Israel or our war on the emotion terror.

Zine el Abidine Ben Ali had ruled for 23 years before he had to flee Tunisia. Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt for three decades. Hypothetically if a take-over occurs, it will prevent Mubarak from handing power down to his son. I figure the US believes the hype regarding the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) that they possibility they may fill the leadership void. After all, we all know Hamas is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim brotherhood.

Again, we have created this problem and the unfortunate thing is that Obama via consequences will have to deal with new threats to stabilization in the region. If Egypt falls then there will be no peace in Israel. More dangerous is what will happen if Yemen falls. In Sana, at least 10,000 protesters led by gathered at Sana University and thousands more in other parts of the small Arab nation. And more gathered elsewhere, participants, lawmakers and activists reached by telephone said. Many carried pink banners and wore pink headbands. The situation in Yemen is a lot more dangerous than in any other Arab country. If it becomes unstable, being the new foundation for al Qaeda, it may become another Somali. And just yesterday, we saw massive protest in Amman, Jordan.

All in all America politics is seeing the outcome of its mis-directed approach to foreign policy and it is a shame that it has to manifest during the watch of Obama. For years US foreign policy in the Middle East and Arabian Peninsula has pushed, unwittingly in our special rakish way, what we say we do not desire – Arab radicalization. And we did this by ignoring our own values and democratic principles. We ignored the Palestinian problem, supported for years unconditionally the oppression of citizens by autocratic rulers via our interest in a war on terror and an artificial peace for Israel. Now we have what we created, folks that hate us even more since all these places are run for now by Western supported leaders.

dickhead

I consider myself and equal opportunity offender. Not that such is my attention (not intention) , but it is rather likely that what ever I write, type or say will offend some one. Politically, this is true for black folks, white folks, gays, republicans and democrats. However, I have never seemed to offend thinking minded folks who are objective and take side with information as opposed to a person (as many of the current Obama supporters do this day).

But like I say I call it as I read it. Didn’t see Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s address to the National Press Club but I did read the transcript. Like wise with respect to the President’s address in Egypt. But the latter is not important, I just want to straighten out some things regarding why I consider politicians as not being honest and trustworthy. True, I think the love America, but at times I cannot tell if they love it equally as more as they enjoy capitalism, avarice or fame.

I can astutely suggest this with respect to Dick Cheney. First it is obvious that he is talking out the side of his neck and unlike me, who attacks the policy positions of all Presidential administrations; he is attacking the man and the party. In his recent address to the National Press club, the former Vice President said that “We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country, things we didn't know about al-Qaida. We didn't know about al-Qaida's plans.”

Blind, more like ill informed and even when they had the information they ignored it. Can say at least the current administration tries to stay informed. He added that “the broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch.” Cheney even passed the buck saying “You know, Dick Clarke. Dick Clarke, who was the head of the counterrorism program in the run-up to 9/11. He obviously missed it. The fact is that we did what we felt we had to do, and if I had to do it all over again, I would do exactly the same thing.”

Dick Cheney has spoken about Obama relentlessly. But this is the man who said that Sadaam Hussein and Al queida were connected at the hip when we knew, even before the Bush administration took office, that there was no meaningful relationship between Sadaam Hussein and Al queida with respect to 911 at least. I mean the former head of the Counter terrorism program, Richard Clarke begged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for an” urgently" high-level National Security Council review on al-Qaeda via memo on January 25, 2001. But as we know he was refused and Vice President Cheney states that he does not recall, suggesting to me he as Vice President did not think it was a threat or important to be informed about terrorist – a claim that he currently directs toward Obama.

In addition, Clarke, on September 4, 2001, warned the administration, via memo of information regarding plans of an attack by al-Qaeda in a memo in which he wrote” ''to imagine a day after a terrorist attack, with hundreds of Americans dead at home and abroad, and ask themselves what they could have done better.''

Dick Cheney is one of the problems with politics. They don’t read shit, depend on experts to formulate policy, yet don’t have the time to read what said experts place on their desk. I don’t mind talking about policy, but it is disingenuous for this man to when he slept on the job and got us in the mess. Obama can't help if he better informed and smarter than Cheney, its just a fact. I just want to ask him, in the words of Kate Nash, “why are you such a dickhead?”

Playing the Muslim Card

I just read the transcript of The President’s interview with Al-Arabiya TV (link on left side bar under news section). I had written another post called escargot instead of apple pie, but I guess i will post it another time. First, folk rocked that shit, never before has an American President been able to say to the world, especially the Muslim and Arab world that I have lived in Muslim countries, or that members of my family are Muslim. And yep, folk here use Muslim and Arab separate because they are not the same albeit most US citizens don’t understand or know that they are; just like messenger RNA is different from transfer RNA. Arabs are a group of people from the Middle-East and North Africa. Muslims are people who practice and abide by the Muslim religion. Some Arabs are Muslim, but some Arabs are also Jews and Christians.

It was definitely a clear paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1957) for he specifically attempted not to alienate Arab and Muslims from being partners in the problem at hand.

At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprise if he addressed the Muslim world in some place like Lebanon, Indonesia or Jordan to lay his cards on the table. In Memphis we call this a Mac move. First he attempted to broaden the discussion beyond the Israeli-Palestine Theater to the entire region inclusive of Israel. In addition, he also put the heat to Al Qaeda say in essence, what are you contributing

I give the Presidents big props on this, speaking directly to the nations of Asia that traditionally we in the west, especially back up in this camp, have historically turned a blind eye to. He spoke of respect and may have stated or said the word more than a dozen times in his interview. Only time will tell if playing the Muslim card will, work, but he did, and played it like he was sitting at a table playing in the world championship of poker. Now he may have received a D plus on his economic proposals to date, or a C minus on his quick Executive orders to close Gitmo for example, but he gets at least a 90 on this, from my narrow minded understanding of things and history and events and foreign policy.

Now true it could be smoke and mirrors. He still says that he will keep Israel as a fundamental alli of the United States, and his attempt to disenfranchise Al Qaeda by playing to Muslim and Arab moderates as being out of touch and preferring to destroy as opposed to build, may be tested. Also, the Israelis may be a source of consternations for they may prefer hegemony over peace, and with an election coming up, may put Bibi Netanyahu in office – which won’t broker well for what the President has spelled out for the region. But none the less – this tactic was trump tight. I’m just mad that he was not as lucid regarding the economy and my loot. Hats off to you folk, again, you rocked that shit and it took balls. Now fortify them balls and do something to stimulate the retail sector and business with annual earnings under $250,000.

War of the worlds

The lethal attacks last week in Mumbai got me to thinking a little more on the future prospect for peace in Southeastern and central Asia. I have always felt that if there was any chance of a big jump off in the region, it would be the threat garnished by the three nations with nuclear armaments: Israel, India and Pakistan.

Now I know most folks feel that these attacks were the result of a terrorist group that may or may not be affiliated with al Qaeda., but on a lower level, I cannot see such. The Mode of Operandi was almost Navy seal like and seems to have a military feel on the surface for me, but I have not really studied it that in depth. But what I have studied is the history of consternation between India and Pakistan, which for me is the center of what is or may be jumping off in months or years to come.

India has the second fastest growing economy in the world only behind China and historically, has had problems with its Islamic Neighbor with which they share a common border. They have a somewhat lengthy history starting back in 1947 and in the near recent times in 1965 when the Second Kashmir War fought between the two nations over the disputed region of Kashmir. In 1965, India crossed the boarder and attacked Pakistan, which as I have always regarded as a major source of instability since past history informs us that both have threaten to pulverize each other, even if that meant using nuclear weapons.

I don’t want to get to deep on this, however, I would like to offer some food for thought, namely that I feel that the tensions are running deep for these nation states, and since both are very major players in our presupposed war on terror, something may need to be done if we are sincere about stomping out Bin Laden’s folk. What I feel will happen is that Pakistan will begin amassing troops along the border of India, which means they will be taking troops away from its border with Afghanistan and reduce their efforts to rid the region of al Qaeda and the Taliban. India has not seen so much destruction in its financial capital since March 12, 1993, when a series of 15 bombs exploded across the capital, killing 257.

So to make things short, this is a very dangerous situation, and all of this history is the result to me of the British in the region, and over the state of Jammu and Kashmir. H.G. Wells wrote a tale called War of the Worlds and I’m sure many of you have read the story. Although what we see between India and Pakistan doesn’t involve aliens, an alien culture started this via colonialism. Let’s just see how this plays out. Because I wouldn’t be at all surprised if India preemptively attacked their nuclear rival adopting the Bush doctrine for themselves

U promised me a rose garden folk

Book is out: Click on cover to right to order: DIRT BEHIND MY EARS: ESSAYS AND SATIRE FROM THE DIRTY
Addiction is a very serious disease (yep disease). Just like depression and/or cancer, it disables the body in various fashions and can be stimulated prior the consumption of any substance such as cocaine and alcohol, or via disruptions in cyclic AMP pumps or varying levels of naturally occurring chemicals in the body such as enzymes and neurotransmitters.

Now I know a many of bloggers have touched on a few speeches recently, in particular the one delivered by Barack Obama. However, it was really something I could not attend to since it was based on old news, albeit I was asked to consider writing about it by some of my fellow bloggers. I did not for it would have been a short brief; one that would have advocated that he listened to School House rock too as a child.

Today, our recovering addict in chief, President George W. Bush, addressed the Pentagon in honor (if it can be considered a celebration) of our fifth year anniversary of our invasion and occupation of Iraq. To me considering such as an anniversary is like celebrating the coming of the plague.

In his first speech, in 2001, which I have only read and not heard, he made several statements that stuck out like a hard dick. He made a few statements that stuck with me. The first was “One by one, we are eliminating power centers of a regime that harbors al Qaeda terrorists.” Moreover he added that “Enemies of America have now added to these graves, and they wish to add more.”

This time, he did the same, and like an addict, it appeared as if he was intentionally misleading or even lying to the America public. He said that "The tasks that remain in Iraq - to bring an end to sectarian conflict, to devise a way to share political power and to create a functioning government that is capable of providing for the needs of the Iraqi people - are tasks that only the Iraqis can complete.''

I find this strange since first, the sectarian conflict hat he speaks of did not start till expost facto our invasion and next because the violence that is sectarian, has been mainly promulgated by our policy – namely of paying insurgents and militias that are apart of Awakening Councils, to protect each neighborhood. Now Iraq may as well be like Compton, California, where each block is maybe controlled by some set of Crips or Bloods. In Iraq, especially Baghdad, each neighborhood is controlled by their own militias, who we pay, like sects, to war against each other neighborhood.

Mr. President also suggests that: “…for the terrorists, Iraq was supposed to be the place where al-Qaida rallied Arab masses to drive America out. Instead, Iraq has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al-Qaida out. In Iraq, we are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his terror network. And the significance of this development cannot be overstated.''

This too is strange since the CIA and his own military and other assorted advisors admitted that Al Qaida was not operating in Iraq when Sadaam was in power. In particular given that they wanted to see his form of government abrogated and replaced with a theocracy – meaning he was a thorn in the side of Al Qaida and observed as their enemy, an infidel. And again, the only way one could say that Arabs are working with the American military is to say that the 1) assist with maintaining the roughly 2hr of continuous electricity the have a day when before the war it ran uninterrupted and 2] that accepting payola from the US military, to use insurgent groups to protect their neighborhoods and battle with other neighborhoods is considered the definition of working together with the US military.

For a person that doesn’t live in or visit Iraq regularly, it is unintelligible to cognize how he can make such a denouement. As a scientist, I can’t use a single indicator to mark such a consummation. For it appears to me that the only one he is using is the number of death, or the reduction of deaths thereof. The killer was the catch phrase of how it ended up being “The battle in Iraq has been longer and harder and more costly than we anticipated” – like I am supposed to believe he gave this war serious ideation in the first place – LOL.

To me, they only difference from the first speech and this one today was that back then, by his side, well almost was his distant cousin of the executive office, Senator Hillary R. Clinton. In addition, I guess today he was trying a wag the dog and remove all of the attention from the fucked up economic position his deficit spending war-mongering ass has facilitated. All in all, I just know he said we would triumph and that I have yet to get the rose garden he promised. And mean while, Mr. 100 year war - John McCain (albeit he is ld enough to have been in the war between France and England), is in Israel, campaigning, like the a state in the US.