Foreign Isssues and the last Presidential Debate

Soon, the final Presidential debate will come in 2012. It will talk about foreign policy issues. Foreign policy revolves around numerous themes. On this issue, both candidates are most identical ideologically. Mitt Romney may attempt to speak and play up "supposed" differences with the President on foreign policy matters, but both men are mostly unison. Each man supported drone attacks on foreign sovereign nations. Each man has supported the anti-human sanctions against Iran. I can't believe that so-called professing "liberals" just love the sanctions against Iran. These sanctions are starving some people in Iran and harming civilians in their economy. If the sanctions against Iraq (which killed more than 1.5 million Iraqi men, women, and children) are wrong, then these anti-Iranian sanctions are still immoral. Each man faithfully and fully support the nation of Israel. Each man has supported some policy of withdraw from Afghanistan (either sooner or later). Each man follow the agenda of Africom. These are facts plainly speaking. It's a shame that the establishment tries to force people into a corner on this issue. The truth is that peace, apologizing for American sins, and seeking common ground with nations throughout the world is better than a bellicose, extremist foreign policy. Although, you can make the case that Romney is a little more bellicose in his rhetoric about foreign policy. Romney's foreign policy advisers from Senor onward are made up of reactionary neo-conservatives (who see no qualms about attacking Iran under certain circumstances. The neo-cons are responsible largely for the execution of the Iraq War). The euphemisms presented by some people (ranging from democracy, humanitarianism, and freedom) are slick words that mask a sicker agenda. That agenda includes the corporate plunder of the world's resources, the continuation of mercenaries in the world from Xe onward, and to the existence of the murder of men, women, and especially children (with not only drones, but chemical warfare, depleted uranium, torture, and other forms of atrocities). The establishment then allies with puppet states including sellouts of their people among the Saudi monarchy to promote this sick foreign policy reality. Also, the establishment backed military, anti human regimes in Latin America, etc. Mitt Romney will probably try to exploit the murder of Americans in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The truth is that Libya suffered huge war crimes by NATO. The CIA told the President conflicting reports about the whole composition of the Benghazi attack. President Barack Obama will probably talk about the Navy Seals assassinating Osama bin Laden. They may disagree on some details, but they are unison on the fundamental ideals of their interpretation of what American foreign policy ought to consist of. Both men will support the efforts of the rebels in ending the regime of the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Ironically, the President defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary, because he positioned himself as more anti-war than Hillary was. After the 2008 election, President Barack Obama implemented some of the same foreign policy directives as the Bush administration (from rendition to targeted assassinations without due process of law). Mitt Romney has ironically hired many of the same neo-cons that infected the Bush administration into his campaign. The NATO Libyan war killed over 50,000 people and it overthrew Muammar Gaddafi (who was murdered without a trial or due process at all). Today, we see some of the troops coming home and others aren't. American ground troops are near China (in Australia, the Philippines, etc.). The West is competing against the China/Russia hegemon as a means to try to control the Earth's resources (not only in Africa, but in Eurasia or the breadbasket) during the 21st & 22nd centuries. This is why Mitt Romney used silly language in trying to classify Russia as our enemy in the 21st century when the Cold War is over. There has been CIA covert operations in Syria, Libya, Iran, Africa, and other places in the world too. Both parties are responsible for much of the errors of an imperialist foreign policy. That is why many House plus Senate Democrats (not just members of the GOP) voted to authorize the war in Iraq back in October of 2002. Now, the lesson for us to not to be brainwashed by the sick reactionary dogmas of neoliberalism and unending war. We should continue to advocate not isolationism. We ought to promote diplomacy, trade, reasonable negoitations, anti-imperialism at every turn. opposition to genocide & oppression, and we should advocate peace in the world. It's crucial that we should not have a war against Iran and we side with the oppressed of the world. That means that the progressive Muslim voices who seek freedom geninuely in the Middle East ought to be respected. For not everyone in the Arab Spring movement were a bunch of puppets. International cooperation is superior than an extremist neo-conservative ethos as it relates to foreign policy.


There is the Lebanon bombing. Some believe that this event may be the impetus for a possible US/NATO planned sectarian war. Seymour Hersh's 2007 New York article entitled, "The Redirection" proved that some in the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Israel supported some sectarian war (which could overrun the governments of Lebanon, Syria, and Iran). The bombing happened in Beirut. A high ranking security chief Brigadier General Wissam al-Hassan died from the event. He was viewed as "anti-Syrian." Immediately, the establishment blamed Syria for the attack even before all of the evidence have been investigated. This accusation came from the Saad Hairi faction as well. Hariri has no evidence at this point to prove that Syria was responsible for the bombing. Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran all have condemned the bombing. They believe that it was created as a means to provoke a wider sectarian war, which none of these nations will benefit from. The Gulf States, Israel, and America want the downfall of Hezbollah (a Shia faction), Syria, and Iran. One of the covert reasons on why the war on terror existed was because the elite wanted to kill Shia in order to create a token mostly Sunni dominated Middle East. Pro-Western "Lebanon Now" still maintains that Syria is responsible and they conclude that blaming Israel inappropriate when no investigation of the attack. The elite want to destroy the regime of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Hariri omits that much of the movement of the Arab Spring has been Western engineered. Seymour Hersh wrote in 2007 that Hariri was building an armed militant front in northern Lebanon. This is across the border from Homs, Syria. These militants have links to al-Qaeda. They are supported by the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia as a means to prepare for sectarian violence. Homs is still a very powerful stronghold in Syria. The West supports al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Syria and other locations in the Middle East. Harriri has a policy that is driven by Wall Street, London, Tel Aviv, Doha, and Riyadh. When Western and token Sunni traitor factions fund militants in Syria that is in direct violation of the brokered ceasefire. The West wants to motivate Ankara to have a more militant stance against Syria. In an interview in Beirut, a senior official in the Siniora government acknowledged that there were Sunni jihadists operating inside Lebanon. “We have a liberal attitude that allows Al Qaeda types to have a presence here,” he said. He related this to concerns that Iran or Syria might decide to turn Lebanon into a “theatre of conflict.” Like usual, the West is funding the Sunnis in order for them to prosecute the minority Shia factions in the Middle East. Proxies from Moncef Marzouki of Tunisia, LIbyan Prime Minister Abdurrahim el-Keib, etc. provided arms and cash to Syrian terrorists (including they send fighters into Syria as well). Saad Hariri is a rich man and he promotes facilitatation of sectarian violence. So, the violence is being agitated against Sunni and Shia Muslims in a divide and conquer strategy. Anti-Assad clerics have been shot by Lebanese soldiers. Thereby, we can't fall into the trap of Islamophobia or wanting the Middle East to be subjugated by the West. The Sunnis and the Shias should not fall into the trap of a divide and conquer strategy. Assad is not some paragon of virture, but the people of Syria should decide the fate of Syria (not NATO, foreign militants, or other extremists). Hariri may think that this alliance with the West is to protect himself from a Shia threat, but when you work with the enemy, the enemy may fight you.




There are the threats to the social safety net. Both parties want to cut social programs not just the GOP. After the November election, both parties want to make a budget deal. The only difference is the different degree of those cuts by both parties. Yet, each major party wants cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They want to increase the Medicare and Social Security eligibility age, etc.The bipartisan compromise will damage many of our programs. Some support this agenda, because the cuts are small and are necessary because of the deficit. They are willing to cut resources from human lives, because they are more concerned with money than human life. It's blunt and that's the truth. This Simpson/Bowles agenda is the plan to harm society. The supporters of this agenda try to lecture people that the deficit threatens our grandchildren. They are not showing the complete truth. The reality is that the transfer of wealth from public funds and the rest of us to the super rich is a real threat. To handle the debt and deficit, first there must be better growth in the economy and much lower unemployment. This process is a long term approach not a short term austerity approach. This transfer of wealth deals with the theft of Medicare and Social Security resources. Even some cuts to Social Security can be very harmful. Even a small decrease in the Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment will make an increasing downward push on benefit. Corporations will continue to threaten secure pensions by turning them into lumps sums that will fade within the stock market. Raising the Medicare age to 67 is bad. Also, the centrist Affordable Care Act is not comprehensive enough to handle all of the premium charges (since the law is right to not discriminate on pre-existing conditions. On the other hand, private insurance companies can charge premiums three times higher based on age). The ACA though is better than nothing and it's a first step in the right direction. Single payer health care is a better reform policy. That single payer system can save 1 trillion dollars year as even said by Bill Clinton. Congressman John Conyers' universal health care plan and a Medicare for All plan can handle the deficit long term. We can do better than our health being only number 37 in the world. Republicans are not responsible for this alone. Blue Dog Democrats are in some cases are worst since they claim to be for the people, but they want to advocate war, austerity, and oppressive anti-civil liberty laws. The DLC is another group acting as Republicans. The corporate Democrat Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, ended Glass-Steagall, forced single mothers to get low wage jobs without adequate child care, and harbored a reactionary foreign policy. He wasn't as worst as Bush Jr. in many cases, but Clinton wasn't a saint either. He even passed anti-civil liberty laws after the OKC Bombing including the Crime Bill (which permitted the racist War on Drugs). The duopoly of the Rs and the Ds have been battling each other seamlessly, but they are puppets of the oligarchy period. In our election, we have a flip flopping liar being an adherent to Mormonism and the President (who believes that drone attacks and the audacity of the military industrial complex. Is this the audacity of hope?) debating each other. Yet, it's bigger than President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney though. What a choice indeed. It's about an oppressive, racist system (or white supremacy) harming all of humanity beyond the President. I disagree with the brother President on some issues, but the brother President Barack Obama didn't cause slums, he didn't cause the prison industrial complex, and he didn't create the war on terror. The system of oppression existed long before the brother was born in the Earth. We have to put things into context without the hatred from the reactionaries (who slander unfairly the President as a socialist, a Muslim, a communist, etc.). He isn't God, but he isn't the Devil either. So, what we should do is to respect the President as a man. We should allow him to be made accountable for his record, voice our concerns with him on some issues (like war, civil liberties, foreign policy, austerity, etc.). We should make legitimate demands on him to do better (and we ought to continue to promote justice, jobs, and peace irrespective of who wins the 2012 Presidential election). Other voices are correct to point out that the Presidential debates have been controlled by both parties. That is why major third Party candidates aren't in these major debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by the former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. The CPD handles which questions are presented to the candidates, the time, the order of the debates, etc. It is important to vote too. I will vote as I have during the past. You can vote for President Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or a Third Party candidate if you want to. Nevertheless, VOTE.

George McGovern recently passed away. He was famous for his opposition to the Vietnam War. He was a famous politician. He fought in WWII. He worked inside of the government in order to help society. To reactionaries, he was a radical and controversial man. To the rest of us, he was a man that was dedicated to freedom for all people. He served South Dakota in the American Senate. He passed away at the Dougherty Hospice House in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. He was named special assistant to the President and director of the Food for Peace Program (which was led by President John F. Kennedy). In his 1972 Presidential campaign, he believed that all American troops should be withdrawn from Vietnam. "Let us resolve that never again will we send the precious young blood of this country to die trying to prop up a corrupt military dictatorship abroad," he said, to applause, at the Democratic convention in Miami Beach, Florida. He was defeated by Richard Nixon and he only won 17 electoral votes. George McGovern lost the election because of many reasons. His running mate Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri was treated for mental illness. This was found out and forced Eagleton to withdraw. It's a shame that people with mental illness are treated badly, but back in the day, people were ignorant about mental illness. Now, McGovern chosen his new Vice Presidential candidate by the name of Sargent Shriver, who is of course the brother in law of JFK and he was an ambassador to France. He spoke about fighting against the unemployment problems in America. That is why he said that George McGovern wanted every American to have the opportunity to work inside of American society. He tried to use legislation to end the Vietnam War in 1970 and in 1971. McGovern even said that the blood was on the hands of Congress because of the war back in 1970. Alex Wagner brought up a quote of his on her television show on MSNBC. He was unsuccessful to end the Vietnam War earlier, but the Vietnam War finally ended by 1975. As early as September 1963, Senator McGovern questioned the growing U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War. He was concerned about the religious persecution of the Buddhists in Vietnam. He regretted voting for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution since that policy accelerated to escalate the American military involvement in the Vietnam military conflict. Also, he additionally called for a fair, just tax system and for national health insurance. One of his greatest legacies what that sometimes he can outline an unpopular position that is readily accepted today. George McGovern was instrumental in promotion nutrition in the world population. The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program provided school meals for millions of children globally since 2000. He was right to say that we are our brother's keeper. He said a speech on that subject entitled, "My Brother's Keeper." That speech was selected by the National Council of Churches as one of the nation's twelve best orations of 1942. He expressed those words during his sophomore year of college and he won the statewide intercollegiate South Dakota Peace Oratory Contest. He was a very intelligent man by having a Ph.D. and he received magna cum laude from Dakota Wesleyan University. So, he was right on many things. If McGovern was President in 1972 instead of Richard Nixon, could you imagine how America would have changed? You could have seen real universal health care, the immediate end to the Vietnam War, and other reforms in America. Since 1972, the country has changed. Some things are better and some things are worse. Republicans once called its critics as McGovernites. Now, that he has passed, people realize more than he wasn't a super radical, but he wasn't a reactionary either. He represented the end of an era and a beginning of a new one. Since 1973, the war hawks became embolden and the people for common sense suffer and rose up again. He was right to promote help to the hungry, an end to unjust wars, and compassion for the poor or helpless. We know about the American Dream. There are many parts to it. One aspect of the American dream is the opportunity to allow ordinary human beings to achieve extraordinary accomplishments such as legitimately changing society. There is no sin in real change if this change wants to give more real rights to people, if it's the change that can inspire minds, and if it's change that believes in equality for all peoples of the world.

One of the sickest parts of the prison industrial complex is how it promotes kids being in solitary confinement. A new report from the Human Rights Watch group and the ACLU document this reality via their report entitled, "Growing Up Locked Down: Youth in Solitary Confinement in Jails and Prisons across the United States." The report was authored by Ian Kysel. It includes 141 pages of interviews and correspondences with over 125 young people (who experienced solitary treatment in 19 states). The report cites Molly J being placed in solitary confinement. Some children suffer emotional trauma and social degradation when they experience this confinement. Some of them feel less than human. Molly said that her experience was harsh, unreal, and like the worst thing on Earth. No nation in the developed world tortures its children like this overtly. This sick action occurs against children below 18 years old. It's blatant torture. In America jails, some kids spend 22 to 24 hours a day alone. Some of these children in those barbaric condition receive no access to books or other human beings.This isolation an last for days, weeks, or even months at a time. This can damage young people emotionally. Children need healthy human interaction at any age in order for been to transition their life in human development including real rehabilitation. Many children spoke to the ACLU about having fear, anxiety, some cut themselves, and some children have attempted to do suicide. That is why the ACLU and the Human Rights Watch want children to be held not in solitary confinement at all. They want children to not be held in adult facilities, but in separate areas with other kids. The states should ban solitary confinement of the young completely. Young people are still developing emotionally and physiologically. Using that solitary confinement procedure will damage them possible for life. Other people have called for interactive treatment programs and proportional interventions to handling children's problems in a prison. Liz Ryan directs Campaign for Youth Justice. Liz found that 20 states require juveniles to be kept apart from adult prisoners, but most of the nation's 3,000 jails lack the dedicated facilities for children (in that sense, they make kids to go solitary). Many children in solitary haven't been convicted of a crime, because most people in jail are awaiting trial. It's a fact that solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment. It's inhuman treatment. It's a throwback of barbarism from some of ancient man. Also, as Cynthia McKinney said, we are not free yet. We may live in a country with some enmities, but we are not free. We are not free when torture is abundant in the prison industrial complex. We are not free when unjust bombing campaigns exist worldwide. We are not free when materialism and narrowmindednesss plague the minds of brainwashed individuals. We can never be free until real freedom and real justice are sent to all people without limitations or preconditions.

By Timothy