Obama ve Esad

Obama'nın 4 yıllık Suriye politikası ABD Başkanı Barack Obama'nın dört yıllık Suriye politikasının özünü, askeri müdahaleden uzak durmak ve Beşşar Esed'siz bir siyasi

OBAMA: 3 (NUCLEAR) STRIKES AND HE'S OUT! POTUS WHIFFS ON THE MOST DANGEROUS NUCLEAR WEAPONS ISSUES OF OUR TIME

"OBAMA UNLIKELY TO DROP OPTION OF FIRST STRIKE", "USE OF NUCLEAR ARMS" NYTS, Today, Sept 6, 2016.

Ending his presidential term which he began with a vision of "a world without Nuclear Weapons", Obama has now decided to do nothing at all to forward that hopeful vision!

Instead, he is pulling us backwards into the Cold War by committing our nation and its treasure to the rearmament and rejuvenation, euphemistically called "modernization", of our entire Nuclear Weapons Arsenal.
                                                 


                                                     

After consulting with his current crop of "experts" and "advisers", he has decided that he will NOT officially take the No First Use Pledge.
STRIKE ONE!

He had the opportunity to take our deadly, destructive arsenal off "Hair Trigger Alert" - the "de-alerting" option.
This would have reduced the now perilously high risk of mutual miscalculation, accident, malevolent hacking and other possible inadvertent "launches".
Making it likely for a conventional conflict to quickly escalate (see Ukraine/NATO) into a full-blown Nuclear War. US and NATO Nuclear Warheads and Bombs are stashed in Turkey, Italy, Netherlands and Germany.
STRIKE TWO!

Obama had the opportunity to allow the aging, scandal-ridden ICBM complexes buried "across the American West" to die a natural death in their silos, removing them from our unholy Triad Trinity of ICBMs, Trident Subs and Bombers. He will NOT do so.
STRIKE THREE!


                                               

                                           

He made these terribly misguided decisions after consulting with his "advisers". As noted here before, it has always been a small, unelected, unaccountable group of individuals who have made and are making Life and Death decisions like this for all of us.

There are many experts here and internationally who disagree with Obama's advisers.This includes his former top Nuclear Policy adviser former Gen James E. Cartwright who last month wrote an OP-ED in The Times staking out positions contrary to the President's current crop of advisers. CLICK





                                                                         
                                                                         

                                              




We should be morally outraged by these decisions... or rather no decisions since POTUS has left decades of now irrelevant Nuclear War policies in place.

The Times quotes Andrew Weber former Asst Sec of Defense for Atomic Programs under Obama: "The defense complex is doing a full court press." 
Follow the $! There are Billions to be made from the "modernization" of our Nuclear Arsenal. Already, several military corporations and contractors are locked in fierce competition for the "new" ICBM contract! CLICK


                                                 

  


                                                      

                                                  


But despite these setbacks, it is important to take heart and to continue the struggle to End These Weapons In Our Lifetimes.

Former Sec of Def William J Perry, quoted in the article:
"IT'S THE RIGHT TIME" for a "No First Use Pledge".
Perry is conducting a "Time Is Running Out" campaign for Nuclear Weapons Abolition. 

The Marshall Islands Lawsuits vs. the Nuclear Armed Nations for violating the NPT, Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, are still winding their way through the courts of the world.


                                                    

There is now a Lawsuit vs. the US for providing military aid to a nation (Israel) in violation of the NPT Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty LINK
                                                   

                                                     

                                                     


The "Humanitarian Initiative' has 127 nations aboard calling for an International Convention to Legally Ban Nuclear Weapons.


                                                  

                                                   

 Since their start last May, these Blog Posts have encouraged "Millenials" to take serious note of what is happening.
It is, after all, the World... or lack of one...that you and your children will inherit.

YOU CAN TAKE ACTION! There are numerous Anti-Nuclear Weapons organizations which you can join including: GLOBAL ZERO and ICAN.

As President Obama stated at Hiroshima last May: "Persistent effort can roll back the possibility of a catastrophe."



                                                    

His three decisions, if left unchallenged and unchanged, may well lead us from his "World Without Nuclear Weapons" to A World Destroyed By Them.

WE CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN! ABOLITION IN OUR TIME

CLICK for the Times Front Page Story                                                  

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/science/obama-unlikely-to-vow-no-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons.html?ref=todayspaper

The Fist – President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan – 1 December 2009

The fist must be deployed no matter how much one might personally like the person giving a comment that is based on questionable (or downright bad) history, even in the case of President Barack Obama.  In his speech at West Point outlining the changes in policy Obama intends to implement regarding the United States and its military presence in Afghanistan Obama included the following comment:

“For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination.  Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations.  We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.”

I am afraid that the history of the United States simply does not bear up to this comment when our actions are compared to our peer nations at any point that I know of in our history as a nation, sadly I am no expert but from what I do know of United States history and the history of the various Great Powers in existence and operation during our own history, the breakdown is roughly as follows:

1781 – 1880s:  The United States expands territory under its direct political, economic and cultural control through a policy of continued expansion in a western direction.  These territories are acquired through a combination of diplomatic efforts and the use of military force, during this period as a matter of policy the United States government assumes semi-complete control over the affairs of the various Native American/American Indian groups residing on territory later claimed by the United States government.  Key acquisitions include the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon I of France in 1803.  Acquisition of Florida from Spain in exchange for the cancellation of debts owed by Spain to the United States government/United States government assuming debt owed by Spain to United States nationals, 1819.  United States gaining one half (roughly) of disputed Oregon Territory from Great Britain, 1846.  United States gaining southwestern territories including California, New Mexico, Arizona, and part of Colorado as war concessions from the Republic of Mexico, 1848.

In each of the above cases the United States either used military force or threatened to use military force to gain territory from established, and diplomatically recognized, nations of equal sovereignty.  (In the case of Florida the United States had already in the past sent military forces into the territory and in regards to Louisiana the United States had already engaged in limited schemes to try and spark revolt in the territory from earlier Spanish control.)  In addition to this the United States government through diplomatic pressure and brute military force either subjugated or expelled native tribal groups from their long-standing association with certain territories.  Granted the United States would sign treaties with tribal chiefs or leaders, in some cases making said leaders up from whole-cloth to validate its actions, but this is not that different from the techniques used by European Great Powers in their own territorial gains in Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and Africa.

As well the policy of the United States federal government, as well as that of many state governments during this period was decidedly opposed to the idea of allowing native tribal religions or social structures to survive, it was the policy of many levels of government in the United States to “civilize” native peoples, a war on cultural and religion if ever there was one.

1880s – 1930s: The United States government engages in direct colonial/imperial acquisitions of territory including the annexation of Hawaii in 1900, a sovereign kingdom nation previously recognized by the United States government as well as other national governments, as well as the seizure of former colonial possessions held by Spain after the Spanish-American war of 1898.  These newly gained territories included Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba and the Philippines.  Of these territories the United States still holds Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam.  The Philippines was not granted full independence until after World War II and were not granted Commonwealth status until the 1930s.  In fact the United States was gaining these territories at the same time that the various Great Powers of the world President Obama is probably speaking of, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan, and the United States was gaining these territories using the same methods employed by other Great Powers.  The United States also directly intervened in the internal affairs of many nations in the Caribbean during this same period, using military force to modify or suppress local rebellions in many Caribbean republics or dictatorships.  As well the United States engaged in one of its most brutal and prolonged military campaigns from 1900 through 1904 in the Philippines, suppressing a local uprising that attempted to militarily defeat the United States through irregular warfare and establish an independent Philippine republic.

It was not until the 1930s that the United States, under President Roosevelt, undertook a new direction in its relations with its neighbors in the Caribbean, the Good Neighbor policy, and renounced the use of force to defend United States interests in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America.  However at the same time Great Britain and France had also begun to reduce their use of military force to intervene in colonial affairs.  Which makes our policy not exceptional but instead more of a reflection of the general shift in diplomacy in the 1930s, the recognition by many of the Great Powers of a need to shift their focus from gaining territory through military force to working with local populations and leaders to maintain the empires held, a policy also followed by the United States with our, admittedly, smaller imperial territorial holdings.

1930s – 1940s: The period of the infamous land grabs by Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary, the Soviet Union, and Japan in a bid to redefine the global balance of power militarily, economically, and culturally.  The United States did not engage in such antics but, at the same time the various Great Powers in operation at the time did not recognize territorial changes through the use of arms.  It may be a fine point but the territorial shifts of the 1930s were achieved through diplomacy and consent, the actual seizure of territory by force was, broadly stated, rejected diplomatically and resisted militarily.  Land seized by the Soviet Union is an interesting case, it was not actually seized but instead ideologically loyal puppet states were installed to rule over the territories in compliance with the policies of the Soviet Union.

1950s – 1990s: the United States and the Soviet Union engage in a mutual dance for dominance stretching across a span of forty years roughly and the globe, known collectively as the Cold War.

So overall President Obama your statement does not appear, after analysis, to truly be accurate against the lens of history.  Unless you are speaking of quite ancient empires in which case you are correct but one could also argue the United States had not engaged in such behaviors of rape, conquest, and devastation such as Rome, the Persians, or the Huns engaged in because, in large part, we were not on the scene yet as a nation.