Category: foreign politics

OBAMA’S UNITED NATIONS AMBITIONS

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

I do understand that differing opinions are natural; I concede the need for a variety of opinions. I am convinced that in order to achieve the ‘best efforts’ in defining of a problem-solution, differing opinions are indispensable to any prudent discovery. When the topic of discussion is political in nature, divergence of opinions will enable disagreements. Clearly, I comprehend the obviousness of inevitable disagreement; such to and fro are fundamental to the process of logical deduction.

Respective of my previous paragraph, understanding that I am a conservative by thought and action, I was shocked to my core when I heard and then read Obama’s speech at the UN. Emphatically, that speech, literally and in spirit, put me on Mars and Obama on Venus. The President of the United States actuates his behavior like a Harvard professor of political philosophy instead of the leader of the free world. He speaks with the confidence that all of us Americans reside in a protective impenetrable sphere wherein attack by a hostile power is impossible. The basis of Obama’s international policy seems captured in the world as he wishes it was, instead of the world that exists; Russia and China will eat his heart and Iran will settle for the scraps.

I have a hard time accepting the liberal-progressives’ belief that the UN is a viable foreign policy tool. Are Obama and cohorts so naïve, so blatantly innocent and childlike in their Liberal-Progressive belief system that they will actually depend on the UN to facilitate US foreign policy initiatives? Have they no empirical sensibilities?

Possibly, Obama merely believes that the separation between Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran is nothing more than a grandiose misunderstanding; maybe it is a simple matter of idiom or semantics, some cultural misinterpretation or something to do with George Bush’s legacy. Admittedly, I am mystified by the Obama administration’s intentions… I do ask myself if my conservative prospective is acting as an intellectual blocking mechanism. I cannot see the Obama foreign policy intent or incentive as such policies interface with the United Nations. Is my inability to see the Obama policy as projected by his administration because I am blinded by my own ideological beliefs?

It is a reasonable guideline of prudence to sophisticate the contextual of an argument when the final sum of the argument could effectuate an at-all-cost result. If Obama has his way, Israel is on its own. The United States will not go to its aid if Iran transcends its covert attack on Israel in favor of an overt attack on its territory. Such an attack will surely follow an Israeli military attempt to blow up Iran’s nuclear facilities; hence Israel will not attack. Iran will have the weapon of mass destruction and eventually, by means direct or indirect, Israel will suffer its effect.

Obama’s general political philosophy and political ideology will enable our enemies; America, the once stalwart defender of all international transactions, the shining light of a once mighty contra to Russian interest, will unilaterally cede its power; all of this will come to form because Obama’s Liberal-Progressives believe in the interest of moral righteousness over sensibility.

The UN is a cabal of misfits, a loose confederation of usually disharmonious, self-dealing affiliates, whose only interest – other than the persistent pleadings of contrived contrarian’s posing as nation-states – is the perpetuation of the nonsensical and farce. Obama should feel especially welcomed.

IDEOLOGICAL COMPLIANCE

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

I wonder if the defining difference between conservative and liberal is as advertised. Wherein, the one considers limited government the ideal; while the other thinks the contrary; or the belief in unlimited government power and influence? If we track the political behavior of both ideologies, the evidence appears to be that when these differing ideologies utilize the venue of political parties, they seem in commonality with the overt-purposeful enlargement of government. The reputed diametrically opposed political ideologies have embraced identical results; these results of governing are exampled in the quantity of government’s enormity; the magnitude of government’s expansive legal authority, as well as government’s insatiable appetite for the swelling of its tax base.

Certainly, the Obama administration has brightened the difference between ideologies that create political ideals. As the song goes, “I can see clearly now,” without a doubt has stepped up the blue-in-blue and conversely in response the red-in-red really shines. I have some reason to hope that the Republicans learned their lesson and will govern with conservative principles — but then, I have been disappointed before. By gosh, when I see the Democrats and their policies, I am frighten to my bone.

I voted for Republicans because the alternative was overtly contrary to my sensibilities. I certainly have supported, with cash and means, political entities that I thought supported my political ideals; however, I did so with the expectation of less rather than more. Regretfully, I have never been disappointed.

History has documented many, many instances of office holders that served this nation honorably; nevertheless, the contrary is just as true. Withstanding history and its conclusions, today’s current events are very troubling.

Congress by its vastness with its complex ambiguity of endless rules, regulatory departments, agencies, and powerful committees, has purposefully distanced itself from the people. The elected offer cash rewards to those that pay no income taxes; the concept of taking from the wealthy is an economic disaster in the wait; the proposed tax increase (elimination of the Bush tax cut, among others), imposed on the small business, will abate fiscal viability and impair growth. The printing of currency is diluting the value of the US Dollar. Our foreign policy is childlike in its deployment. Obama and Clinton act as if goodness and friendliness beget goodness and friendship; they behave as if our national interest would be served if only we listened, apologized, and contritely requested.

The Rubicon is before us. Will the Obama functionaries achieve their objective on healthcare? Will Cap & Trade pass the Senate? If the socialists cross the Rubicon, Rome will not recover; civil unrest will define congressional debate. Conservatives, moderates, and libertarians will not simply sit on their hands.

THE PRICE IS TREASURE AND BLOOD

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Conflict is a steadfast behavioral intrinsic of humankind. The understanding and acceptance of that reality is an essential precursor in the drafting of any foreign policy or diplomatic overture. This nation’s foreign engagements must be enacted with the unhindered eyesight of a realist that sees the world as it is; not as if an idealist, a dreamer, or a Pollyanna might wish it to be. Peace has proven to be an illusion. Indeed, if peace was stated as the goal of this nation’s policy, instead of initiating peacefulness, one encourages hostility. The very concept of creating peace requires the proponent of such a policy to lay down the sword and shield; the requirement of peace as a policy goal inherently requires the acceptance of vulnerability and trust. Such a positioning for America is an exercise in self-destruction, as well as entertaining the populous with the dangerous mirage of hopefulness instead of coping with reality.

What is critical for America as to its engagement in any armed conflict is winning. America must remain committed to the unmitigated goal of absolute unadulterated victory. Anything less than victory once engaged prompts eventual re-engagement or worse; a perfect example is the present no-win scenario with North Korea.

In 1950 the United States lead United Nations force into Korea to defend South Korea from the invasion of its Northern brethren. Notice, I said defend instead of offensively invading North Korea. The United States decided to push the bully back instead of smashing him over the head with a two-by-four. This tit for tat / paddy cake approach to ruthless aggression cost thousands of deaths. The tri-party nations of China, Russia, and North Korea united to invade South Korea; the surprise attack swept through all opposition; imagine, just five years after the end of WWII, war had raised its ugly head once again.

The fighting was horrific and damning; dead and wounded were numerous. But, as usual it was the common people who suffered the most. As the war took form, no end to the fighting seemed in sight. The United States lost its interest and elected a president who pledged to end the war. This president did not pledge victory; he pledged that the conflict would end. True to his word the conflict did indeed end. It ended with North Korea intact. We know that not conquering North Korea was a monolithic strategic mistake. The result of our willingness to accept less than victory was the catalyst for a continuance of counter-party belligerence; as a nation we lost sight of the opportunity to really end the war and we have been paying that price in gold and blood ever since.

There should not be a nuclear armed North Korea but because of our indulgence in seeing the world as we wish it to be congress and the executive office checked into Disneyland; an armistice was agreed upon at the price of victory and now North Korea threatens America and its interest with nuclear destruction.

It is said by those who seem to know all things that regarding North Korea there are no good options. Is Iran next? Will America ever accept its role as the leader of the free world? America and its allies are the only guarantor of democratic principles, unobstructed international trade, and many freedoms we hold common. America is the armed counter to the potential of Russian or Chinese aggression.

There is a nuclear armed madman running a country…and America allowed it to happen.

The Challenge For America

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

I have three fundamental guidelines for measuring America’s security:

(1) The recognition that America’s super power strategy is lethal as long as America maintains its worldwide distribution of military forces.

(2) The executive branch of America’s leadership must not allow the concept of unlimited – toothless – diplomacy to supersede its willingness to exercise military might.

(3) America does not unilaterally disarm. My definition of unilateral disarmament is exampled by spending less on defense instead of more; additionally, and just as important, is the budgeting for future weaponry. Such would include missile defense inclusive of acknowledging at the highest level of the federal government the necessary constancy of advancing of armaments in the air, on land, and sea. A strong combat-experienced armed force is the first line of an insuperable defense. From a domestic prospective the American military is the precursor guarantor of our nation’s education, health, and welfare, or any other concerns of domestic importance.

I believe that America with its democratic allies/affiliates is the only democratically inspired force of arms left standing. Only America has the resource to counter the ever present threats of terrorism, as well as subjugating or thwarting the plots and actions of international criminal enterprises. But most importantly, the super-power utility of American leadership represents dire martial consequences to any nation or rogue sponsored enemy that contemplates an overt military act upon any of the democratic republics or their collective interest.

Respective of America’s capacity to deliver dire martial consequences, if the president is unwilling to act convincingly to guarantee and protect America’s interest, American power is negated and mute. I do fear this Obama degreed period of liberal enlightenment that seemingly embodies a passionate policy to error on the side of empathic wistfulness. In my opinion, Obama resides in a world as he wishes it to be rather than the world as it really is. These are dangerous times… The Obama persuasion is not a lethal weapon. The North Koreans, Iranians, Syrians, and the terrorist they blatantly sponsor are not impressed by our president’s rhetorical magic. Instead, they are impressed and prodded, singularly, by the lethal use of power.

As far as I recall, before the first spear was sharpened and eventually fitted with a tipped instrument, man has plotted, planned, and with intense contrivance configured the various methods and means of gaining superiority over rivals. Today the means and methods have changed, but not the strategic reasoning nor the original motivation. Dominance of one nation over another, as historically documented, is fleeting. For one reason or another, throughout time, the most powerful have evolved into the less than the most powerful. From the greatest of Egypt’s pharaohs to the numerous, once all-powerful peoples that settled within the Tigris-Euphrates Valley of Abraham’s time to Victoria’s England, categorically the strongest, most glorious of nations have been destroyed, the fearful belittled to helplessness, and the free enslaved.

America cannot allow itself to fail…America must remain virile and committed to maintaining an international all-powerful role. The martial principle of “all-powerful superiority” as the ultimate of foreign policy strategies are in fact the only reliable option.