The idea the USA has a right to enter a country because Wall Street has designs on it, is old world. I don't know anyone in my world that believes Americans troops end conflict and violence. We also don't believe USA intervention keeps American safer, including the Obama drones.
I strongly support providing help for a country to build their sovereign strength with their own military, however, too many country's asking for that level of help have citizens with divided loyalties and/or religious bias.
The USA is at it's best when humanitarian missions are carried out. When citizens realize their government can provide help to them, they then turn to their government for help with their lives. If they don't find a friendly government in their lives there will ultimately be citizens moving in opposition and not always in peaceful methods.
April 21, 2016
By Mark Landler
Clinton singled out, (click here) as she often would, the United Nations climate-change meeting in Copenhagen the previous December, where she and Obama worked together to save the meeting from collapse. She brought up the Middle East peace process, a signature project of the president’s, which she had been tasked with reviving. But she was understandably wary of talking about areas in which she and Obama split — namely, on bedrock issues of war and peace, where Clinton’s more activist philosophy had already collided in unpredictable ways with her boss’s instincts toward restraint. She had backed Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, before endorsing a fallback proposal of 30,000 (Obama went along with that, though he stipulated that the soldiers would begin to pull out again in July 2011, which she viewed as problematic). She supported the Pentagon’s plan to leave behind a residual force of 10,000 to 20,000 American troops in Iraq (Obama balked at this, largely because of his inability to win legal protections from the Iraqis, a failure that was to haunt him when the Islamic State overran much of the country). And she pressed for the United States to funnel arms to the rebels in Syria’s civil war (an idea Obama initially rebuffed before later, halfheartedly, coming around to it)....
We now have a Small Arms Treaty. (click here)
And while the pivot (click here) of the USA to the Pacific and Asia is seen as an accomplishment; it was done with the TPP already rolled out as a real sales pitch for Wall Street and ultimately unspoken military protection. TPP is hostile to unions, hence the middle class of the USA, the majority of the country's population.
I have always been grateful for Secretary Clinton's unquestionable bravery in burgeoning democracies that place leaders in the path of danger. Secretary Clinton can be counted on as an important advocate.
January 13, 2016
By Bruce Wallace
Longtime Myanmar (click here) observers have watched the changes happening in the country over the past five months–the government dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, reform of labor laws and opening press freedoms, the halt to construction of a wildly unpopular damn, the recently-announced ceasefire with the Karen National Union–with very cautious optimism....
The wars the USA have entered in the past since WWII have proven to be a huge burden fiscally with little to no return. Senator John McCain knows fully well the advances made by Vietnam since the war was done so with humanitarian initiatives, not the war.
Currently, the USA is the only foreign military in Afghanistan. The Brits may have sent some jets and pilots within the recent year, but, all the other NATO allies have left for the most part. Australia is back home and I believe New Zealand finished their commitment.
There is a stark reality Hawks don't account for and that is the far larger citizen deaths when the USA believes it can assert it's entitlement to act with it's military.
AND.
There is this odd dichotomy of military actions. The Hawks, like Lindsay Graham and John McCain actually believes if the USA military was deployed after the chemical weapons were removed, Syria would be better off. If that were true then why didn't the Congress write a new AMUF? Additionally, why didn't the USA Congress expect to move into Rwanda for the same reason, not enough Muslims to hate?
Osama bin Laden is dead and it is proven fact he was the person behind the 911 attacks, he bragged about it and why it was so successful. When does it end? The Americans have done their part and it needs to come to an end and now!
I just don't buy the arguments that aggression and killing makes us safer. I am sure the military sees it that way, but, why do they spend real monies on failures such as the F35?
The military can't have it both ways. They can't be spending trillions on war machines and expect the country to support this supposedly important deployment of the USA military. Nothing the USA military, either with their trillion dollars machines, it's procurement or their deployments makes sense. and I really don't think it makes us safer. I think the opposite is true and the American taxpayers are asked to fund bogus expenses.
Seven years after President Obama took office we are stuck with the same mess he started with, that is the military, not the President. I want to know who is Commander and Chief and able to handle the military, their hideous procurement system and any acts of violence!
The USA military is the tail wagging the dog and it's draconian excuse for jobs in state districts.
The USA is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. I want our strength at the UN used to aggressively pursue the Non-Proliferation Treaty and not exclusively defined as Israel's insurance carrier.
I strongly support providing help for a country to build their sovereign strength with their own military, however, too many country's asking for that level of help have citizens with divided loyalties and/or religious bias.
The USA is at it's best when humanitarian missions are carried out. When citizens realize their government can provide help to them, they then turn to their government for help with their lives. If they don't find a friendly government in their lives there will ultimately be citizens moving in opposition and not always in peaceful methods.
April 21, 2016
By Mark Landler
Clinton singled out, (click here) as she often would, the United Nations climate-change meeting in Copenhagen the previous December, where she and Obama worked together to save the meeting from collapse. She brought up the Middle East peace process, a signature project of the president’s, which she had been tasked with reviving. But she was understandably wary of talking about areas in which she and Obama split — namely, on bedrock issues of war and peace, where Clinton’s more activist philosophy had already collided in unpredictable ways with her boss’s instincts toward restraint. She had backed Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, before endorsing a fallback proposal of 30,000 (Obama went along with that, though he stipulated that the soldiers would begin to pull out again in July 2011, which she viewed as problematic). She supported the Pentagon’s plan to leave behind a residual force of 10,000 to 20,000 American troops in Iraq (Obama balked at this, largely because of his inability to win legal protections from the Iraqis, a failure that was to haunt him when the Islamic State overran much of the country). And she pressed for the United States to funnel arms to the rebels in Syria’s civil war (an idea Obama initially rebuffed before later, halfheartedly, coming around to it)....
We now have a Small Arms Treaty. (click here)
And while the pivot (click here) of the USA to the Pacific and Asia is seen as an accomplishment; it was done with the TPP already rolled out as a real sales pitch for Wall Street and ultimately unspoken military protection. TPP is hostile to unions, hence the middle class of the USA, the majority of the country's population.
I have always been grateful for Secretary Clinton's unquestionable bravery in burgeoning democracies that place leaders in the path of danger. Secretary Clinton can be counted on as an important advocate.January 13, 2016
By Bruce Wallace
Longtime Myanmar (click here) observers have watched the changes happening in the country over the past five months–the government dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, reform of labor laws and opening press freedoms, the halt to construction of a wildly unpopular damn, the recently-announced ceasefire with the Karen National Union–with very cautious optimism....
The wars the USA have entered in the past since WWII have proven to be a huge burden fiscally with little to no return. Senator John McCain knows fully well the advances made by Vietnam since the war was done so with humanitarian initiatives, not the war.
Currently, the USA is the only foreign military in Afghanistan. The Brits may have sent some jets and pilots within the recent year, but, all the other NATO allies have left for the most part. Australia is back home and I believe New Zealand finished their commitment.
There is a stark reality Hawks don't account for and that is the far larger citizen deaths when the USA believes it can assert it's entitlement to act with it's military.
AND.
There is this odd dichotomy of military actions. The Hawks, like Lindsay Graham and John McCain actually believes if the USA military was deployed after the chemical weapons were removed, Syria would be better off. If that were true then why didn't the Congress write a new AMUF? Additionally, why didn't the USA Congress expect to move into Rwanda for the same reason, not enough Muslims to hate?
Osama bin Laden is dead and it is proven fact he was the person behind the 911 attacks, he bragged about it and why it was so successful. When does it end? The Americans have done their part and it needs to come to an end and now!
I just don't buy the arguments that aggression and killing makes us safer. I am sure the military sees it that way, but, why do they spend real monies on failures such as the F35?
The military can't have it both ways. They can't be spending trillions on war machines and expect the country to support this supposedly important deployment of the USA military. Nothing the USA military, either with their trillion dollars machines, it's procurement or their deployments makes sense. and I really don't think it makes us safer. I think the opposite is true and the American taxpayers are asked to fund bogus expenses.
Seven years after President Obama took office we are stuck with the same mess he started with, that is the military, not the President. I want to know who is Commander and Chief and able to handle the military, their hideous procurement system and any acts of violence!
The USA military is the tail wagging the dog and it's draconian excuse for jobs in state districts.
The USA is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. I want our strength at the UN used to aggressively pursue the Non-Proliferation Treaty and not exclusively defined as Israel's insurance carrier.
