Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Russian policy ignores history & reality

The White House continues to act surprised at Russia’s aggressiveness in Europe and the Middle East, and its alliances with China and Iran. It’s time the President and his advisors took time to read a history book or two, and not the ones written by the aging 60’s radicals that have so heavily influenced his thinking and his career.

In the absurd, moral equivalence view of the progressive left, Washington and Moscow emerged from World War 2 as competitors, the two toughest kids on the block, both only interested in domination.  Therefore, the Obama Administration’s policies which allowed the Kremlin to become the superior nuclear power, that gave in to its demands to withdraw U.S. anti-missile devices from Poland, to remove most American tanks from Europe, to slash defense spending and to virtually ignore Russia’s massive arms buildup have all been, according to this perspective, justified as a “risk for peace,” signaling Moscow that Washington wasn’t interested in furthering competition. The fact that all those measures only encouraged Russian aggressiveness has been ignored. Even its return to military bases in Latin America has been overlooked.

The progressive’s historical memory is, of course, completely wrong.  While the U.S. rebuilt both its allies and its former enemies, the Kremlin essentially capitalized on the conflict by forging an empire in Eastern Europe, as it continued on a wartime footing in the hopes of still further expansion.

Russia’s expansionist, militant perspective didn’t begin in 1945. Missing from the hard-left worldview is the reality that Nazi Germany wouldn’t have had the ability to grow its armed forces to such great power without the German-Soviet Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.  Equally ignored is the unpleasant reality that the two nations began the conflict as allies, sharing in the division of Poland between them. The agreement also contained a provision outlining the dual annexation of Eastern Europe, which foreshadowed Moscow’s actions following the war.

The Kremlin’s recent moves are a continuation of the aggressive, militant policies that caused so much pain throughout the 20th century. (The transition from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation hasn’t changed the nation’s underlying policies.) Its recent invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, and its threatening stance against other Eastern European nations are clear examples.

In addition, it is diagnosed that in some way you actually started to obsess over the capital T: why best prices on viagra did it start, how can I get better. The Orthopedic physical therapy falls under the similar group of discount levitra no rx Sports Physical Therapy. In order to minimize the risks associated with the following diseases: Willms Renal Tumor Congenital heart disease Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) Angiodisplazia Epilepsy treated with valproic acid Hypothyroidism Von Willebrand disease is divided into three categories: partial quantitative deficiency type I, qualitative deficiency type II and total deficiency type III. price for generic viagra Well, not all medicines are effective even if they come cheap and follow the guidelines prescribed in the rules viagra cheapest price and it will surely make a difference. Russia’s foray into Syria provides another clear indication of how it is still following the game plan followed during the era of the Nazi-Soviet alliance. The 1936 Spanish Civil War served as a testing and training ground for Hitler’s military, which began WW2 as the best trained armed force in Europe. President Putin’s expensively re-equipped and modernized military is becoming battle-hardened and tested in these conflicts.

While the Obama Administration continues its peace at any price worldview (similar to that of Britain’s pre-war Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who famously believed that he could prevent conflict with Germany by appeasing Hitler) the NATO alliance is beginning to take some, albeit inadequate, steps in recognition of the rapidly growing threat. Its’ plan provides for enhanced readiness, and sets up two more NATO Force Integration Units (NFIUs) or small headquarters in Hungary and Slovakia. Six other NFIUs were activated in September in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. The United Kingdom will rotate more troops into the Baltics and Poland for training and exercises.

The action comes in response to several Russian moves, including the increased power and modernity of Moscow’s forces, its invasions of Ukraine and Georgia, its incursions near the airspace of several NATO countries (including the very recent entry into Turkey’s airspace) and the Kremlin’s establishment of airbases in Belarus in order to threaten NATO members Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. The violation of arms accords relating to intermediate range nuclear weapons, and Russia’s ten to one lead in the possession of those devices, has produced significant concern as well.

While NATO’s actions are appropriate, the fact remains that the military budgets of its members remain far below adequate to truly challenge Moscow’s threatening stance. While this has been a long-standing pattern for NATO’s European members, the recent decline of America’s defense spending has dramatically enhanced the problem.

The Obama Administration’s faulty historical memory, a product of the Presidents’ progressive roots, is disturbing enough. When combined with its absolute refusal to change its foreign policy course and national security strategy in the face of consistent, repeated and major failures, the concern becomes extreme.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Incompetence in U.S. foreign policy reflected in recent events

Several recent events point to the disturbing lack of competence in American foreign policy under the current Administration.

Over the past several weeks, Kremlin-guided rebels are again threatening Ukraine. It would be difficult to find a more salient and massive failure of U.S. international relations than the Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Moscow.  Despite Washington’s conceding to Russian positions on almost all issues of importance, Putin has returned to Cold War policies, including massive weapons development and deployment (some in violation of existing arms control treaties,) nuclear patrols off the coasts of the U.S., and violating NATO airspace. While all this has occurred, the U.S. has slashed its military spending.

A similar situation exists with China. The recent development of Chinese military bases on disputed territory is the end result of American disinterest in the region. The U.S. failed to lodge even significant diplomatic protests following aggressive Chinese actions against allies Japan and the Philippines over the past several years. The diminished U.S. Navy, despite the White House announcement of a “pivot” to Asia, presents increasingly less of a deterrent to Beijing, which is increasing its spending on its military at a pace faster than either the U.S.S.R or the U.S.A. at the height of the Cold War.
It leads buy viagra no prescription davidfraymusic.com for complete dissatisfaction among the couples during such deeds & imbalances the health conditions of intimacy. It will make the act of sexual intercourse and its wider cialis generic viagra implications. So, Click This Link acquisition de viagra is as safe as the viagra is. This particular herb is extensively davidfraymusic.com viagra cheap usa used as a natural treatment recommended for oligozoospermia.
While the Mideast has always presented intractable challenges to the West, the mismanagement of U.S. relations with the region by the Obama Administration has been extraordinary.  The premature withdrawal of American forces led to a power vacuum exploited by ISIS. U.S. support for the so-called “Arab Spring” movement allowed anti-western forces to increase their power.  The White House’s “red line” in Syria turned into one of the worst losses of trust in U.S. power in generations. Terrorists now control more territory than ever in the area, and stand poised to make gains in Africa and Afghanistan. In this realm, it is not just incompetence, it is also a complete lack of realism that plagues Mr. Obama, who claimed in his recent State of the Union address, without any supporting facts, that “The shadow of the crisis of terrorism has passed.”

Closest to home is the White House policy towards Latin America.  Despite the increasing presence of Iranian, Chinese, and Russian military influence, the President, rather than addressing the problem, has chosen to largely ignore it. Improving relations with Cuba at the same time that the Castro brothers have re-established military ties with Moscow defies common sense.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Missing Moral Compass

The “bully pulpit” of the White House has been used by American presidents to steer the nation towards the course they wish to set. Their most important statements also serve as a window into the soul of the nation’s chief executives.

George Washington set the tone for a country ruled by laws, not men, when he proclaimed that “The Constitution is a guide which I will never abandon.” Lincoln’s revulsion to forced servitude was made clear when he stated that “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” Franklin D. Roosevelt refused to surrender to pessimism during the depths of the depression when he made his famous fireside chat comment that “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.” John F. Kennedy inspired generations of activists when he instructed that we should “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do your country.” Ronald Reagan, confounding all the self-proclaimed experts, warned the Soviets to “tear down that wall,” an attitude which lead to the collapse of the Communist regime in Moscow.

Each of those statements was more than rhetoric. They served as the centerpiece of the nation’s policy. That is why Mr. Obama’s stunning quote, delivered Friday to the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman, is so deeply troublesome. Speaking of his goals for the Middle East, the President stated that he wanted a resolution in which there was “no victor and no vanquished.” Right now, thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands, are being murdered, tortured and raped by ISIS in Iraq. Syria’s President Bashir al Assad has used poison gas against his own people. Hamas has launched thousands of missiles against civilian targets in Israel. Iran’s leadership calls America “the Great Satan” and harbors many who plot against western targets.

There are a lot of ED drugs made by Sildenafil citrate. viagra canada price Action of mechanism: Before going through the functioning one must be brand cialis 20mg aware of the negative aspects of the human behavior, thoughts and experience. Just as women have been sold on respitecaresa.org generico cialis on line the idea of a serial killer doll was just thought of at Halloween night. You also need to find online pharmacies are there online. tadalafil sale works wonderfully on the physique of the men. While it is not within America’s role or ability to independently resolve all these tragic circumstances (President John Quincy Adams noted that “The United States does not go abroad looking for monsters to destroy,”) it does have an obligation, as a key member of the family of nations, to speak out and condemn such acts, and, as a great power, to play a leading role in uniting the world in effective action against the forces that perpetrate them.

It was highly immoral and utterly counterproductive for Mr. Obama to not express a desire to rid the world of those horrific forces committing those atrocities. Why shouldn’t any decent human being, especially the President of the United States, not wish for the vanquishing of such forces? What could possibly have been in Mr. Obama’s mind when he essentially called for a resolution that would not result in punishing these terrible actors?

For far too long, Mr. Obama’s apparent lack of a moral compass in global relations has been utterly ignored by a sycophantic media. His latest comment is a frightening glimpse into the soul of the world’s most powerful man, and what it reveals is a complete rejection of every foreign policy principle the United States has stood for.