Tag Archives: foreign policy

NATO and Ukraine Explained in 4 Minutes…

Over the past few months we have been hearing about that dastardly Vladimir Putin. An important fact is being ignored. He would never have invaded Ukraine without the excuse that US policy has been giving him for 25 years. This video delves into that ignored history, with a fair amount of swearing, and just a dash of assault…

You can find more videos like this by following @robbolaw on twitter.

( -)-(- )Comments Off

The real Ukrainian and Venezuelan revolutions


We see a great happening in the Ukraine and Venezuela right now. Revolts to leadership the people believe to be endangering their way of life are massive right now. And in the wake of this event the world is talking of these people and their push for freedom and liberty.

But are they revolts for liberty, against oppressive government, or really just against useless government? see more…

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Can an Anti-interventionist be Secretary of Defense?

President Obama has already tapped John Kerry as his next Secretary of State, a pick that should pass the Senate without issue. However, the “leading candidate” for Secretary of Defense is facing an uphill battle. John Glaser of Antiwar.com writes, “Hagel is an outsider when it comes to his own party in the realm of foreign policy. Hawks have harshly criticized him as unworthy of the position because of his record of opposition to interventionism, military quagmires, sanctions, and for not toeing the line demanded by the pro-Israel lobby.”

While in the Senate, Hagel defended his position by saying, “I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator.”

Glaser adds that Hagel has been brought through the gauntlet by the GOP and conservative pundits because they refuse to forgive him for departing from their interventionist doctrine.

New Hampshire Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte said, “If he is nominated and comes before the Senate Armed Services Committee, I plan to vigorously question him on his prior statements, and [his positions on Israel and Iran], in particular.”

In 2006, when asked about Iran, Hagel replied, “I do not expect any kind of military solution on the Iran issue…. I think to further comment on it would be complete speculation, but I would say that a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option. Iran is a complicated issue.”

Too many elected officials in DC wish to continue the policies of endless war and wish to continue funding foreign governments. They support these policies so much that when someone speak out against them, instead of defending their position, they attack the person speaking out.

Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft says, “He got two Purple Hearts on the front line. That’s about the best recommendation you can get from somebody whose job would be to advise on the use of troops around the world.”

I think it’s about time the Secretary of Defense wasn’t a war-monger seeking to continue the growth of the American Empire. Maybe, just maybe, Chuck Hagel will be able to convince President Obama to halt to drone wars and actually begin bringing troops home from around the globe!

( -)-(- )1 comment

Muslim fanatics attack U.S. embassies on 9/11

When “just another day,” isn’t:

Demonstrators attacked a U.S. consulate in Libya, killing one American, and breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, amid angry protests over a film by a U.S. producer that mocks and insults the Prophet Muhammad.

Egyptian protesters climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and replaced the flag with a black standard bearing an Islamic inscription, in protest of a film deemed offensive to the Prophet Muhammad. Matt Bradley has details on The News Hub.

The movie, “Innocence of Muslims,” was directed and produced by an Israeli-American real-estate developer who characterized it as a political effort to call attention to the hypocrisies of Islam. It has been promoted by Terry Jones, the Florida pastor whose burning of Qurans previously sparked deadly riots around the world. see more…

( -)-(- )9 comments

Gary Johnson: “I have two words for Ron Paul. Thank you.”

The Tampa P.A.U.L. Festival was incredibly receptive to Gary Johnson, who hoped to woo Ron Paul’s Revolution in a fiery speech given at the ad hoc parallel libertarian events going on in Tampa, Florida this week.

In my strategist-tinted opinion, Johnson has easily been the most polished and electable candidate Libertarians have nominated since at least the days of Harry Brown. The fact that he’s been too busy climbing Mount Everest and other peaks when he wasn’t running successful and morally-intact businesses or fixing New Mexico’s government to even amass a closet of skeletons (you know the political vices where they climb some other peaks and ruin government) — well, it’s a nice added bonus to be the only remaining viable candidate talking about ending the military interventionist policies.

For a glimpse of how popular Johnson is becoming, stealthily and without media help, his book “Seven Principles of Good Government” was released at the end of July and has already run out of stock. The Kindle version is of course still available for a jaw-dropping $9.99, but I guess Johnson has to fund a campaign however he can given that most libertarians probably tapped out their political budgets on Ron Paul.

UPDATE: Check out Gary Johnson’s tribute video/commercial to Ron Paul. It would be nice to see Ron Paul give him a pat on the back somewhere along the line after the convention winds have calmed.

( -)-(- )Comments Off

I ran away from sanctions

The US Congress has been considering tougher sanctions against Iran in “response” to Iran’s nuclear program; a nuclear program designed to produce energy, not to produce bombs. Though even if Iran were attempting to build a nuclear weapon, do they have a “right” to nuclear weapons? And who gets to decide?

This question is much more in depth than it may appear; thus giving an answer is much more difficult than may be expected.

Libertarians (and anarchs) generally believe that no groups of people have any more right than any individual. For instance, I do not have the right to steal your car. Thus, no group – regardless of size – has a right to steal your car; though groups known as government claim such an illegitimate right. In a similar fashion, every individual has an inherent right to defend themselves (including their friends, family and others from imminent attack) in any manner they see fit. That includes the right to own any weapon they believe is necessary to defend themselves.

Whether or not this right includes the right to own a nuclear weapon has been the subject of many debates. I believe that, as stated above, no group has more rights than any individual. Therefore, if any group claims the right to own a nuclear weapon, every individual has the same right to own said weapon. Though, I do not believe that anyone could legitimately use a nuclear weapon in a manner purely consistent with self-defense. Any discharge of a nuclear weapon would, no doubt, kill or injure someone not involved in any attack leading up to the supposed self-defense discharge of said weapon.

I realize this doesn’t exactly answer the question, but the subject needs a bit more explanation and historical perspective. Before the “Civil War” began in 1861, James Buchanan was criticized for not doing anything to prevent the southern States from seceding. Buchanan believed that while no State had a right to secede from the Union, the federal government had no right to prevent the State(s) from doing so. I take a similar approach in regards to nuclear weapons. While I believe that every person and group of persons have a right to own any weapon they believe is necessary to defend themselves, and I do not believe that any nuclear weapon can be used in legitimate self defense, I also do not believe that any person or group has the right to prevent anyone else from creating, building or owning such weapons unless the person or group attempts to use the weapon.

One final question that I will not answer: since the U.S. is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in war; why should that government be responsible for deciding who gets to own such a weapon?

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Who gives a shit about foreign policy? Madonna does

Madonna — the reigning queen of pop — launched her latest tour in Tel Aviv, Israel. In the midst of performances steeped in blatant symbolism, she gave a political statement to the packed arena of 32,000.

“It’s easy to say, ‘I want peace in the world.'” Pausing before adding, “But, it’s another thing to do it.”

“If we can all rise above our egos, and our titles, and the names of our countries and the names of our religions.”

Flanked by a squad of sleeveless dancers in berets, the 53-year-old singer’s voice frequently quivered as she spoke of the fundamental ground roots needed for peace.” If we can rise above all of that and treat everyone around us, every human being with dignity and respect, then we are on the road to peace.”

“No matter how many laws we change, no matter how many percentages of land we give back, no matter how many talks, no matter how many wars. If we don’t treat every human being with dignity and respect, we will never have peace,” she said to loud cheers.

Madonna did not name names during the impromptu speech, leaving it anyone’s guess whether she’ll eventually expound upon her latest blond ambitions.

( -)-(- )Comments Off