April 13, 2012

CHILL FOLKS:     Teopodong, Teapodong ... sounds like the same 'ol song. But yes,
North Korea did attempt to fire a rocket into space, however, it's believed it failed to exit Earth's  atmosphere.

The #MustacheChickenLittle (#JohnBolton) neo-cons types, are crying fowl that North Korea has fired a rocket that was purported to have contain a satellite. However, Western powers, including the U.S., mobilized their military tracking systems to dissect the signature of the North Korean "Teapodong" scud rocket.  But, the excitement and hubris from Western powers went to pot, when the Teapodong scud rocket sputtered from the launch pad and soon thereafter - fell apart.  Nonetheless, Western powers will demand from the #UN to issue condenmation for this perceived military provocation.

Clearly, this act by North Korea is simply a little-show for its own public consumption and not a credible military threat to any Western power or North Korea's Asian neighbors.  The issue here is an intolerance by Western powers to not allow unfriendly regimes build their own technology.  Have you ever witnessed a young child throw a tantrum? If left alone or not pay attention to such silly act, the child is more likely to stop.  Give it attention and the tantrum will proliferate.

Should North Korea or Iran have the right to build long range missiles? Ideally, all military missiles should be destroyed and all nations with mighty technology should be role models for rouge nations by destroying all military weapons which threatens mankind.  Therefore, we should not be so hypocritical in pointing the finger at other nations, while Western powers, including the US, harbor unlimited offensive military weapons.

PEACE

Jospeh Chez

STATUS QUO ANTE PREVAILING IN US FOREIGN POLICY. DID SOMEONE FORGET TO PUSH THE RESET BUTTON?

By
Joseph Chez

The attempted terrorist attack on Xmas day is of course regrettable and troubling. However, we should be asking ourselves why such animus towards the United States of America continues? Did we not get another leader that promised change and the resetting of American foreign policy? Today, the hostilities in the Middle East continue and we are in constant panic at home because of attempted terror attacks on the country. I therefore argue, that having voted for change, there seems to be a disconnect somewhere. Perhaps, the reset button has yet to be pushed?

“We will not rest until we find all who were involved and are held accountable” is what President Obama said in a response to Al Qaeda’s claim for the Xmas day attempted terrorist attack on the U.S. bound passenger plane. Interestingly, the President’s warning to the terrorist was given with much bravado and unyielding determination. In fact, it was reminiscent of the same bravado given by former President George W. Bush as he addressed a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001- in which he unequivocally gave a stern warning to the 9-11 culprits and gave his “justice will be done” speech. So what’s wrong with this picture? Certainly, it is not what we say in repudiating the terrorist acts or warning the enemy for what it may do in the future, but simply, the bravado in our responses which is simply chest beating – which does nothing to resolve the core issues between our national security and the terrorist’s grievances. Thus, responding in a cowboy-swaggering behavior does little to inflict fear on the enemy and in the end, does not provide significant security for the country. Further, such assurance of finding “all involved” and holding them accountable is rather a tall order to fulfill, given that in the last nine years, the prime suspect and mastermind of the 9-11 attack, Osama bin Laden, has yet to be found. Further, the ones currently held in detention, the majority have been released (or about to be released) due to unfounded ties to terrorism. We therefore must ask, is the military option the answer to our national security, or, is it the cause of our problem?

Further, why carry on with the same unilateralism and preemptive militaristic mentality - which prevailed during the Bush Administration? Was it really necessary to start a clandestine war in Pakistan which now is in full bloom? Was it necessary to preemptively make strikes in Yemen this last week – which of course set a course of events in motion on Xmas Day – as claimed by Al Qaeda? Will Somalia be next? And how many generations will the war on terror continue into the future?

On November 4, 2008, the majority of the Americans people, who had concluded that the Bush policies on the war on terror were ill-fated and counter-productive, decisively and prudently chose a new national leader in hopes of changing the course of the country. President Obama was thus elected, as he had promised a new beginning in terms of foreign policy, inter alia. However, many now question why President Obama’s promises have fallen short and change has been mistranslated to mean, more of the same, as during the Bush Administration.

We should not forget that during the eight years of the Bush Administration, the model for the war on terror became of global reach and its doctrine was one which promulgated a practice of unilateralism and preemption - against any and all which we deemed a potential enemy. President Obama on the other hand, began with extending a hand to the world, especially the Muslim world, and promised better relations. And yet, the aggressive military campaign that prevailed during the Bush Administration continues - unabated. Moreover, President Obama appears to have taken the baton from Bush and expanded the global U.S. military reach and has created a whole new war theater, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. This last week (Dec. 17) the U.S. launched cruise missile strikes against what was believed to be Al Qaeda training camps, in Yemen. But then again, just across the Gulf of Aden, is Somalia – another Al Qaeda stronghold. And last but not least, the young terrorist that attempted to blow up the Northwest Airline, Flight 252 on Dec. 25th, originated from Nigeria –another of many radicalized Muslim African regions. So where do we stop?

We therefore must conclude that our nation’s state of affairs under President Obama’s Administration is status quo ante, same as before. And as he stated today, that “We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat extremist who threaten us, whether they are from Afghanistan, or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. Homeland.” Thus, we must presume that the war on terror will continue, using Bush’s terminology - way into the event-horizon.

But hold on Mr. President, did you not mean to push the reset button, thus changing the course of events and pave the way for peace? Or, did you mean to reinvent yourself while in office and deceive those who placed so much hope in you to become president? With all due respect Mr. President, you are taking us further into a path of self destruction. Yes, we can stop. Yes, we should take a big breath and reflect. Let’s take this opportunity to stop all hostilities and you will find that the kinetics of war will stand down. Further military responses will only cause an untold number of attacks on the country and perhaps around the world. The alternative may be that we continue to live under further fear of terrorist attacks as well as live under the heavy hand of domestic security. What more are we to expect; more personal intrusion, cavity searches for everyone, at every public gathering, and are we to also embrace even more erosion in our civil liberties? No Mr. President, I did not vote for that.

Already, the political right in the country is publicly calling for no further political correctness, which is code for – just tell it like it is- and perhaps call for the internment of anyone who does not look Anglo-Saxon. There is historical precedence for this you know. Even more frightening, is the neo-cons who are calling for the expansion of the war on terror – to reach Yemen, Somalia, Iran, N. Korea and beyond. Thus, are we prepared for what may result from failure to reset? Mr. President, I distinctly remember not voting for the status quo. I voted for Change.

PRESIDENT OBAMA REPEATEDLY "PUNKED" THIS WEEK BY NEO-CONS.

By Joseph Chez
Sept. 25, 2009

President Obama was elected overwhelmingly by the American people who voted for CHANGE in our foreign policy. However, the opposition has been working diligently and ferociously to co-opt President Obama’s efforts to RESET our government’s policies.

One must wonder why, when world leaders came to the United Nations for talks on climate change this week, much of the conversation in the U.S. media turned to none other than the “specter” of Iran’s nuclear threat on our nation and our allies. Moreover, what appears not coincidental is that out of the blue, up to four separate terrorist plots were uncovered this week, and the media has been having a hay-day with the conspiracies. Yet, two or three of the plots were actually “FBI sting operations” entrapping would-be terrorist. The other, conceivably a potential terrorist, had been under surveillance for quite some time by the FBI and so far, that individual has only been charged with lying to a federal officer. So the question is, why bring the issue of terrorism during this week? Why set red flags and even place the nation’s public places under high alert?

Also this week, General Stanley Mc Chrystal, the top US military commander in Afghanistan met with the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, to make his case for a considerable surge in troops for Afghanistan. Keep in mind however, that such meeting is out of the ordinary as it does not follow chain of command. In fact, General Mc Chrystal had already submitted his assessment report of the war in Afghanistan to the Secretary of Defense last month. Further, it should be noted that the White House had urged the Pentagon not submit Gen. Mc Chrystal’s assessment to the White House until other options were considered by them. And yet, the report was leaked to the media nonetheless. Not surprised, Republicans on the Hill have therefore been raising the anxiety levels and have been painting President Obama as ambivalent on the security issue.

To top it off this week, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu also appeared before the UN General Assembly and reminded the world of the historical plight of the Jewish State, but he also sounded the alarm from the imminent nuclear threat to the free world by the tyrannical state of Iran. Coincidentally, today’s revelations of a second Iranian nuclear-enrichment facility came from intelligence sources from the UK and France and this raised the anxiety that Iran, indeed, is working on weapons of mass destructions. But wait a minute! Let’s not forget that faulty intel was passed on to the U.S. government by the Brits back in 2002, which coincidentally, became the “smoking gun” and the corner stone for laying the ground work for the invasion of Iraq. Incredibly, this new information is not entirely new, as the CIA has been aware of it for some time. But nevertheless, President Obama felt obligated to stand in solidarity with France, Britain and Israel and assumed the role as the pseudo leader of the new coalition against Iran. Regrettably, President Obama sternly pointed out to Iran, that it was breaking rules that all other nations must follow. He further gave a clear warning, that if Iran did not come clean by October 1, 2009, there would be consequences. Really Mr. President? Now that you’ve drawn a line in the sand (quick sand that is), what will you have the nation do if Iran does not comply? Have you considered the consequences? Whether we actively stop Iran and bomb its facilities, or if these theatrics will only embolden Israel to attack Iran, yes Mr. President, will you allow haste to overtake reason? Do you realize that residual neo-cons remaining in the Pentagon from the former administration, Republicans at the hill, and AIPAC are setting you up (punked) to finish up what they left undone? Please remember that the American people wanted to stop their madness and voted for CHANGE?

Mr. President, before we can make a case before the world against Iran, we first must understand whose interest we are serving. Would it be in our interest to go to war again? Does the industrial-military complex stand to gain from this project, or is AIPAC’s influence simply too much to overcome? I am certainly not an apologist nor sympathetic for the Iranian regime, but Mr. Ahmadinejad does have a point when he argues, that they have the right to pursue a nuclear program just like any other nation, whether it’s the US, the UK, France or Israel. In law, there is a legal maxim which states that, in like circumstances, the law applies the same.

In closing however, I have to remind our President that the neo-con’s agenda is not ours and they must not be allowed to take the reigns of your administration, for they had their turn and their smoking gun was only a hoax.

We must not waiver in the pursuit for peace Mr. President.

U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE UMBRELLA FOR US AND EUROPE FIZZLES AND NEO-CONS LAMENT

U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE UMBRELLA FOR U.S AND EUROPE FIZZLES AND NEO-CONS LAMENT

By
Joseph Chez

September 17, 2009

Today, President Obama announced that the missile defense umbrella that was to be set up for the protection of our European allies and for the homeland will not be put into place due to cost-saving measures and the understanding that present U.S. capability is enough to deter the threat of any missile attack from Iran.

However, to the discredit of the Bush Administration, it must be pointed out that one of his greatest misdeeds was his attempt to make a case that Iran’s nuclear pursuit would ultimately lead to a major threat to Europe and to the United States of America. Thus, his administration argued, that the imminent threat of a missile attack from Iran warranted placing a missile defense umbrella for the defense of Europe. His concern and reaction was reminiscent of the case made before the United Nations during the “smoking gun” of Iraq. Nonetheless, he initiated the plan and rallied support from European allies for this endeavor. To no one’s surprise, most NATO members were skeptical of the perceived threat from Iran and this proposal even placed NATO at odds with one of its own members – the US. Further, notwithstanding the economic and diplomatic ties Europe and Russia had mended since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Bush Administration was hell-bent with his missile defense plan for Europe. It should also be noted that the Bush Administration was chuck-full of neo-cons who believed that after the US had defeated the Soviet Union, the United States of America stood alone as the leader of the free world - unchallenged. However, for Putin’s Russia, Bush’s attempt to minimize Russia did not go unnoticed or unchallenged. Thus, the proposed missile shield for Europe instead became a major thorn in Russian, NATO, and US diplomatic relations. Needless to day, the specter of another cold war thus became too real once again.

Certainly, the Russians were not surprised or amused, but were instead determined to confront any attempt by the United States to place nuclear ballistic missiles butt-up to their fence with the West. True, Russia had lost a mighty empire and for military purposes, Russia was seen militarily impotent. Notwithstanding, Russia responded by threatening to change the directional coordinates of its missiles to be directed towards Europe itself. Russia was certainly a wounded bear, but the Kremlin remained unyielding in its defense; armed and dangerous. Still, the Bush Administration pushed for the missile defense system despite the protracted recriminations. Much to the displeasure of the Bush Administration, Germany openly broke ranks and adopted a “Moscow first” policy approach. Thus, a profound difference in foreign policy threatened the formidable NATO alliance and the Siberian chill was once again felt - akin to another cold war era. In fact, aging “bear” airplane bombers began flights hugging US costal waters. Moreover, arms reductions talks (START) between the US and Russia were placed in jeopardy.

Undeterred, the Bush Administration continued with its plans and coaxed poor Eastern European countries to house the proposed missile defense batteries. Some of the poorest eastern nations salivated at the prospect of infusion of American dollars into their economies, but a deal was struck with Poland and the Czech Republic – whose location incidentally bordered Russia.

Yet, a fundamental questioned remains; whether the Bush Administration’s assertion of an imminent missile attack on Europe or the US, by a crazed-nuclear Iran, was a credible threat or deserving a U.S. missile defense system for Europe, even when European nations were skeptical of the need for such missile defense umbrella?

First, Iran has no real beef with Europe other than being seen as a follower of the US in its attempt to have the UN further impose economic sanctions. So, does it make sense that Iran would threaten Europe or the US with a nuclear missile attack, and would that be prudent and/or a proportional response to economic sanctions? Many experts believed not, as supported by the (IC) intelligence community and the consistent European skepticism of the Iranian threat. Second, the Iranian missile technology is limited in range and rather imprecise. Their indigenous technology is based on scud missile technology provided by the North Koreans and at present, it still lacks precision strike capabilities. In fact, just recently, the Pentagon acknowledged that Iran’s capability was previously overrated and that even though Iran is making progress, it does not pose a significant threat to our nation.

However, the untold story of this foreign policy folly is that neo-cons in the Bush Administration wanted the missile defense shield in Europe for reasons totally unrelated to the security of the United States or Europe. It is no secret that Israel wanted the Iranian nuclear threat to be seen as imminent and real in order to rally sympathy or support for an impending Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is also not a secret that the neo-con soaked Bush Administration also wanted to beef-up our strike capabilities around the world – and this was widely supported by the military industrial complex. But it does not end there; what still remains under the cover of classified information, is that neo-cons from the Vice President’s office of the Bush Administration, then put in place a policy of containment of Russia, in the event Russia was to decide to pose a threat to American oil interest in the former Soviet break-away provinces located in the Caspian Sea, such as Kazakhstan, or Azerbaijan.

But a foot note to history: in 1983 then student at Columbia, Barack Obama, wrote for his campus newspaper in his article, “Breaking the War Mentality” decrying the “military industrial interest.” In the same article, young Barack proposed for the elimination of all global nuclear arsenals. Today President Obama took us one step closer to such desirable dream and RESETING our foreign policy. Regrettably, neo-cons in Congress lamented the termination of the missile umbrella program, but immediately sounded the alarm from the threat of Iran’s potential terror against our nation. Of course, the expected Republican response was piggy-backed by Fox News broadcasting breaking news that Iran had now become capable of building atomic weapons.

Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. once wrote: “He (Richard Nixon) is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.” Today, Nixon’s spirit lives in the Republican mantra.

Bewail ye neo-cons.

IRAQ: SOVEREIGNTY DAY

JUNE 30, 2009 SOVEREIGNTY DAY IN IRAQ

By

Joseph Chez

ALL ROADS LEAD TO BAGHDAD ... so goes the saying. And surely , on the road again, the United States went to war via Baghdad in March 19, 2003. This June 30, 2009 however, American troops have been relegated to the outskirts of Iraqi cities and towns.

Today, Iraq celebrates a day which the Maliki government labeled, "sovereignty day". From the confines of the walled and heavily fortified "green zone", the Iraqi government has declared this day an official holiday. Outside the walled government, the Iraqi people rejoice and celebrate what many say is "Independence Day". Yes, independence day from the American invasion which has lasted 6 years and has caused at least 1, 320,110 Iraqi deaths. But, is the celebration a blessing for the Iraqis or a curse? What does it mean for the United States?

It is an indisputable fact that the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were not to bring democracy to that nation, or to free the Iraqi people from oppression. Instead, the war in Iraq was ill- conceived with sinister plots to make it look like Saddam Hussein was somewhat connected with the 9-11 attack on the U.S. Further, the neo-cons, which were chuck full in the Bush Administration, effectively attempted to make us fear further attack from Iraqi WMD's or the "smoking gun" of nuclear and biological Iraqi weapons - which interestingly enough, never existed. Yes, George W. Bush, Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Condi Rice, Donald Runsfeld, Douglas Feith, James Woolsey, John R. Bolton and the Joe Liebermans will go down in our history as the morons whose ulterior motives mislead the nation.

So yes, the road to Baghdad has been costly. In terms of human casualties, the United States has suffered 4,319 dead U.S soldiers and 31,368 wounded. In US tax dollars, just in Iraq alone, the cost is rapidly reaching the one trillion dollar mark.

On the other hand, one can argue that "Iraqi Freedom" has created a democratic government - NOT. For despite elections that have taken place and a semblance of decreased violence, the American supported government will cease to exist once we have exited the country. Civil war will ensue and in the end, a strong "caliphate" will again control the fractured nation. And needless to say, American control or influence will cease to exist. So what was the point. I see, the neo-cons can celebrate the alleged liberation of Iraq, while the Iraqis today, celebrate the exiting of foreign invading forces from their cities.

In sum, the event horizon is upon us and the sobering facts become undeniable.

Lesson: before we get on the road, we should know its history, its potholes, and where it may lead us to.