tagged w/ US Foreign Policy
-
Aijaz Ahmad: What would a rational American foreign policy look like? Part Two
Based in New Delhi, Aijaz Ahmad is The Real News Network's Senior News Analyst; Senior Editorial Consultant, and political commentator for the Indian newsmagazine, Frontline. He has taught Political Science, and has written widely on South Asia and the Middle East.Aijaz Ahmad: What would a rational American foreign policy look like? Part Two... more
-
-
Aijaz Ahmad: Start with the question, why does the US have to be the most powerful country on earth? Part One
Aijaz Ahmad: The United States economy is stagnant and faces the possibility of a real Depression. Its currency has lost a quarter of its value on global markets in three years. No country in the entire history of humankind has ever owed as much money to foreigners as the US does today, and this debt rises by about a billion dollars a day. Its military expenditures are higher than those of the next twenty countries combined. It's time to question basic assumptions about US foreign policy.Aijaz Ahmad: Start with the question, why does the US have to be the most powerful... more
-
-
Excerpt:
India's Communist parties will tomorrow decide their strategy on support to the government over the country's nuclear agreement with the U.S.
India will soon approach the International Atomic Energy Agency for a safeguards agreement for the deal, the Press Trust of India reported today, citing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The process will move very fast, Singh told reporters.
The Communist parties, which oppose the deal, had set today as the deadline for a clarification from the ruling coalition on approaching the global nuclear regulator as part of steps to complete the accord.
* * * * *
I'd love to see Bush's face when he learns or learnt this - he is the one who made a generous offer to India to help it develop its nuclear program. India is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and neither is Israel. Iran is a signatory and has not broken that treaty. The USA is also a signatory, and has broken it several times.
See also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4764826.stm with regard to Bush's nuclear deal with India in 2006.Excerpt:
India's Communist parties will tomorrow decide their strategy on... more
-
-
This is totally outrageous. The USA does NOT have jurisdiction beyond its borders, neither does it have sovereignty beyond its borders. The Bush administration must have either bribed, blackmailed or issued dire threats against Gordon Brown and the leaders of most of the European Union countries to obtain their cooperation in something which is totally illegal and against the constitutions of all those countries. I am hopping mad...This is totally outrageous. The USA does NOT have jurisdiction beyond its borders,... more
-
-
How do Iranians react to threats of attack?
Triita Parsi talks about the effect of threats on Iranian public opinion, and on how vitally important it is to negotiate. He underscores the fact that an attack on Iran would unify the country with its leadership and hasten its efforts to develop a nuclear bomb.
How do Iranians react to threats of attack?
Triita Parsi talks about the effect of... more
-
-
Seymour Hersh: The secret war in Iran (part 3 of 3)
Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military intelligence and congressional sources. In his recent article "Preparing the Battlefield," Seymour Hersh, investigative journalist and famed author for The New Yorker, says that the leadership of the Democratic Party has authorized spending over $400 million in support of a presidential finding that greatly expands the use of secret operations inside Iran, including perhaps the use of lethal force. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program. "This president has read it this way: anything that has to do with the military, even if it's intelligence collection by the military, is part of warfare, preparing the battlefield," Hersh tells The Real News Network. "And they don't have to tell Congress anything." In this three-part interview with Paul Jay, Hersh says that a Gallup poll suggests that most Americans would rather the nation talk to Iran rather than go to war, in light of the current conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem lies in getting more public support. "So one of the things the special operations troops are doing is trying to escalate the amount of incidents inside Iran, trying to get more stuff going, more terrorism, more bombings, more internal disturbances, and hopes, maybe, in the fantasy football world in the vice president's office, in hopes that the Iranian government would crack down on the minorities big time" which would not only mean bad press for them, but give America a vehicle for going in.Seymour Hersh: The secret war in Iran (part 3 of 3)
Late last year, Congress agreed... more
-
-
Seymour Hersh: The secret war in Iran (part 2 of 3)
Seymour Hersh writing in The New Yorker: A Gallup poll taken last November, before the NIE was made public, found that 73 per cent of those surveyed thought that the United States should use economic action and diplomacy to stop Iran’s nuclear program, while only 18 per cent favored direct military action. Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to endorse a military strike. Weariness with the war in Iraq has undoubtedly affected the public’s tolerance for an attack on Iran. This mood could change quickly, however. The potential for escalation became clear in early January, when five Iranian patrol boats, believed to be under the command of the Revolutionary Guard, made a series of aggressive moves toward three Navy warships sailing through the Strait of Hormuz. Initial reports of the incident made public by the Pentagon press office said that the Iranians had transmitted threats, over ship-to-ship radio, to “explode” the American ships. At a White House news conference, the president, on the day he left for an eight-day trip to the Middle East, called the incident “provocative” and “dangerous,” and there was, very briefly, a sense of crisis and of outrage at Iran. “TWO MINUTES FROM WAR” was the headline in one British newspaper. The crisis was quickly defused by Vice-Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of US naval forces in the region. No warning shots were fired, the Admiral told the Pentagon press corps on January 7, via teleconference from his headquarters, in Bahrain. “Yes, it’s more serious than we have seen, but, to put it in context, we do interact with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and their Navy regularly,” Cosgriff said. “I didn’t get the sense from the reports I was receiving that there was a sense of being afraid of these five boats.” Admiral Cosgriff’s caution was well founded: Within a week, the Pentagon acknowledged that it could not positively identify the Iranian boats as the source of the ominous radio transmission, and press reports suggested that it had instead come from a prankster long known for sending fake messages in the region. Nonetheless, Cosgriff’s demeanor angered Cheney, according to the former senior intelligence official. But a lesson was learned in the incident: The public had supported the idea of retaliation, and was even asking why the US didn’t do more. The former official said that, a few weeks later, a meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. “The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,” he said.Seymour Hersh: The secret war in Iran (part 2 of 3)
Seymour Hersh writing in The... more
-
-
After reports of Israeli military exercises as rehearsals for an attack on Iran, and about US administration and Congress sanctioning covert operations against Iran, the Iranian Foreign Minister dismisses the idea saying that Israel is in too much internal turmoil to "resort to such craziness." He adds that the US is in no position to "take another risk in the region." Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff says "opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us."After reports of Israeli military exercises as rehearsals for an attack on Iran, and... more
-
-
Barack Obama discusses his views on US foreign policy and the issues facing us in this election.Barack Obama discusses his views on US foreign policy and the issues facing us in this... more
-
-
The authors of 'The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy' said Thursday that the special-interest group is leading the charge for attacking Iran and damaging US interests.The authors of 'The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy' said Thursday that... more
-
-
lecoke
-
added this
-
3 years ago
- |
-
"Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has urged France to distance itself from America, comparing the US to a 'frightening monster'.
"How can one be such a shining example of democracy at home and a frightening monster abroad?'' Putin said in an interview with French newspaper Le Monde in Paris released on Saturday.
"France, I hope, will continue to conduct an independent foreign policy,'' said Putin.""Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has urged France to distance itself from... more
-
-
Tethic
-
added this
-
3 years ago
- |
-
Commentary in the Financial Times: "The next president of the United States has a golden opportunity to make a fresh start in foreign policy, to rebuild America’s prestige and restore its reputation in the world, dragged through the mud over the past eight years by George W. Bush.
If that president turns out to be John McCain, the Republican candidate who is pushing national security as one of his strongest suits, will this – as his likely Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is implying – amount to a third Bush term?..."Commentary in the Financial Times: "The next president of the United States has a... more
-
-
This is a very similar scenario to the Judith Miller scandal...remember...Cheney leaked false information to Miller. NYT publishes...the next morning Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld are on national TV citing what...the New York Times...
Now we have a repeat but hopefully everyone hasn't forgotten where the falsehoods spread by Cheney took us last time. The New York Times has run a story with lots of unamed sources. A few hours later John Bolton appears on FOX saying striking Iran "is really the most prudent thing to do".
The "paper of record" has a growing record of pandering, lies, deceit and complicity in the deaths of millions...a mouth piece for the administration, who in turn sends a lackey to quote the paper...same as the last time, different country to conquer.This is a very similar scenario to the Judith Miller scandal...remember...Cheney... more
-
-
jimmyp
-
added this
-
4 years ago
- |
-
Indian politicians from all parties have joined in criticizing US President George W. Bush’s remarks that blamed India for the global food crisis. Although the ruling Congress party has joined the chorus, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has questioned Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s silence on Bush’s remarks. The BJP plans to raise the issue in Parliament today.
At a seminar on global economy in Missouri, Bush was quoted by the media as saying: “There are 350 million people in India who are classified as middle class. That’s bigger than America. Their middle class is larger than our entire population. And when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food, and so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up.”
Follow the link for the complete text. President Bush's statements blaming India for food shortage irk Indians. India is a net exporter of food. Bush may have a less than perfect understanding of cause and effect with regard to the food crisis.
Indian politicians from all parties have joined in criticizing US President George W.... more
-
-
jimmyp
-
added this
-
4 years ago
- |
-
Excerpt:
All in all, the White House needs terrorism as its blanket excuse for intervention. Since ISI is both strongly CIA-influenced, as well as riddled with al-Qa'ida, it is not only that the Bhutto assassination could not plausibly have been organized without the ISI, it is also ISI which carried out American orders.
If the plan works, the weakening or even collapse of the state of Pakistan will create a new battlefield badly needed by the White House. The "War on Terror" (as the War on Islam is often termed), like most wars, needs expansion or it collapses. If you project an "Enemy", you also need the "Enemy" to be successful at times.
Don't be surprised if al-Qa'ida suddenly has nuclear weapons.
Without success for the Enemy, you may no longer be sufficiently able to instill fear in the people and have them follow you.
The White House needs the destabilization of Pakistan to continue the "War on Terror". Ms Bhutto's execution is one big step towards that goal. Excerpt:
All in all, the White House needs terrorism as its blanket excuse for... more
-
-
Now that Obama is the likely Democratic nominee (and future president) we must scrutinize his positions, particularly his foreign policy.
Obama wrote an essay in Foreign Affairs in which he advocated for preemptive (i.e. aggressive) war, increased military intervention, unilateral action, increased "defense" spending, and increased "nation building."
The endorsement of aggressive war stands out as most disturbing. America led the post-WW II world in rightly denouncing Nazi aggression as "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
This election is about answers. Look beyond the rhetoric. Regardless of who is elected, we must--at least--ensure that aggressive war is never an option.Now that Obama is the likely Democratic nominee (and future president) we must... more
-
-
"WHY WE FIGHT, won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival, it is an unflinching look at the anatomy of the American war machine, weaving unforgettable personal stories with commentary by a whos who of military and beltway insiders. Featuring John McCain, William Kristol, Chalmers Johnson, Gore Vidal, Richard Perle and others, WHY WE FIGHT launches a bipartisan inquiry into the workings of the military industrial complex and the rise of the American Empire. Inspired by Dwight Eisenhowers legendary farewell speech (in which he coined the phrase military industrial complex), filmmaker Jarecki (THE TRIALS OF HENRY KISSINGER) surveys the scorched landscape of a half-centurys military adventures, asking how and telling why a nation of, by, and for the people has become the savings-and-loan of a system whose survival depends on a state of constant war. The film moves beyond the headlines of various American military operations to the deeper questions of why why does America fight? What are the forces political, economic, ideological that drive us to fight against an ever-changing enemy? Frank Capra made a series of films during World War II called WHY WE FIGHT that explored Americas reasons for entering the war, Jarecki notes. Today, with our troops engaged in Iraq and elsewhere for reasons far less clear, I think its crucial to ask the questions: Why are we doing what we are doing? What is it doing to others? And what is it doing to us?""WHY WE FIGHT, won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival, it is... more
-
-
I'm with the Beehive Design Collective; we use art to educate people about today's issues.I'm with the Beehive Design Collective; we use art to educate people about... more
-
-
BBC: The US is to spend $1m (£490,000) to help governments in Central America and Mexico combat violent criminal gangs.BBC: The US is to spend $1m (£490,000) to help governments in Central America... more
-
-
khsing
-
added this
-
4 years ago
- |
