The pros and cons of worldwide net activism

I also posted this at the Northwest Progressive Institute Advocate. I serve as Senior Policy Analyst for Technology for the Institute.

As new tools of civic and civil protest evolve – as in Iran, where protesters are using social networks to keep the rest of the world apprised of the response to that country’s recently held elections – they present both new opportunities and new challenges for freedom of speech.

Protesting using Twitter

Twitter has been singled out as the key communication platform for protesters and those watching them since last week’s election. It has enabled people around the globe to read real time accounts of the happenings.

It has also enabled people around the globe to participate in the protest in ways some have never seen before.

Such armchair activism has included setting up proxy servers to help Iranian tweeters get around government blockades of the site.

Another example was the attempted DDOS attacks on Iranian web servers from abroad (DDoS stands for Denial of Service, a method of hacking that involves sending lots of web requests every second with the hopes of overloading a web server and rendering a website unusable/unavailable).

Principally, the inclusion of non-Iranians in these protest efforts is a good thing. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. However, these particular actions raise serious ethical and legal questions that must be thought through.

As interested activists and citizens, we must be prudent in our actions to ensure they help more than hurt.

For instance, are we comfortable with the idea of private citizens using private networks to engage in network “warfare”?

By doing so, do we make our civilian network infrastructure a valid target to an adversary? What risks are associated with a group of private citizens sending an unintended message to a potential adversary in the form of a coordinated network disruption?

Perhaps we are, but I don’t think that’s the case.

Earlier this year, Russia basically did this to Georgia, and caught a lot of flack for it. This sets a precedent that is dangerous, especially if we don’t understand its consequences.

Another question: if the attacks were actually successful, wouldn’t we be destroying the only portals we have into the very place we’re so interested in?

After all, foreign journalists have been banned from covering the demonstration, and many have been jailed and/or beaten. To choke off an authentic supply of information would be strategically foolish.

Technology is an increasingly powerful and important part of our society and our culture. As it expands to touch more parts of our lives, we must be ever-mindful of its drawbacks as well as its benefits.

One Love. One II.

5 Reasons Why Barack Lost the 1st Debate

I co-hosted a Debate Party on Friday night that doubled as a Fundraiser for Barack Obama. The party was fun, the food was delicious, and the people I watched the debate with, including the Bus Chick & people from YES! Magazine and Reclaim the Media, couldn’t have been cooler.

What could have been better was my candidate’s performance. Here’s why this debate was a lost opportunity:

1. Too much agreement
2. Posturing on Pakistan & Afghanistan
3. Nuclear Iran only posing a threat to Israel
4. Iran’s army is a terrorist organization
5. Venezuela is a rogue nation

(All the references I make here can be seen in the Debate Transcript, courtesy of the New York Times.)

Breaking news re: Iran

In breaking but not surprising news, it was revealed today that Iran is not actually developing nuclear weapons. From the New York Times via truthout.org.

Washington – A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to be a major factor in the tense international negotiations aimed at getting Iran to halt its nuclear energy program. Concerns about Iran were raised sharply after President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III,” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.

Now before you think that this report will actually end the saber-rattling regarding Iran, please put your dancing shoes back in the closet. The Bush administration has already shifted its justification against Iran by citing Iran’s meddling in Iraq. We are very much not out the woods yet and I would ask for all of my liberal-minded friends to not think that evidence or facts prevail in Bush’s world. Please continue to speak out against war escalation and not just in safe progressive bubbles.

Stay up fam,

Brandon Q.

Bin Laden must be in Iran

I don’t have any kids but I have been around them enough to know that they have a very short attention span. This reminds me of the Bush administration. An article in WaPo states, 

“The United States has decided to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country’s 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a “specially designated global terrorist,” according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group’s business operations and finances.”

How was I supposed to know?

This will be the type of ignorant but calculating excuse that Bush would use if and when a conflict would breakout with Iran. In the latest development, “the U.S. Navy staged its latest show of military force off the Iranian coastline on Wednesday, sending two aircraft carriers and landing ships packed with 17,000 U.S. Marines and sailors to carry out unannounced exercises in the Persian Gulf.”

General Patraeus and Iran

The following is taken from an article at Voice of America.

The top U.S. commander in Iraq says an Iraqi group affiliated with an elite Iranian force carried out an attack last year in which five U.S. soldiers were killed near the Iraqi town of Karbala. The statement by General David Petraeus follows months of suspicion about Iranian involvement in the incident, but the general says he cannot directly connect Iranian agents to the attack.

First of all, if you can’t confirm your claims with evidence, shut up. Do I need to remind you of Colin Powell’s presentation of mobile lab cartoons and the empty vile prop? I am sick and tired of this administration being able to make claims that are passed off as facts but cannot be confirmed.

And seriously, with all of the work that General Patraeus has to do in making the “surge” successful, why are we trying to link Iran to an incident from last year? Maybe if we were more focused on rebuilding Iraq than we were trying to scrimp for reasons to invade Iran, we could bring home the troops. I’m done.

Stay up fam,

Brandon Q.

Iranian hostage crisis

In CNN today, it was reported that Iraq is pressing the U.S. to release the 5 Iranian officials it seized in Iraq in January. The timing is critical because if you have been watching the news, 15 British sailors are in Iranian custody after being accused of trespassing into Iranian waters.

Of course, Bush could only be quiet for so long.

“President Bush was asked by a reporter in Washington on Tuesday whether the United States would be willing to give up the five Iranians to help obtain release of the Britons.”

“I support the Blair government’s attempts to solve this issue peacefully. So we’re in close consultation with the British government,” he responded. “I also strongly support the prime minister’s declaration that there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages.”

For clarity, Bush was saying that the U.S. won’t release the Iranian officials in exchange for Iran releasing the British sailors. My fear is that this conflict over the British sailors will be twisted around to serve as a launching pad for starting war with Iran.

 

Keeping you informed,

Stay up fam,

Brandon Q.

Iran seizes British Navy soldiers

Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says. The men were seized when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.

Fortunately, The Royal Navy said the men, who were on a routine patrol in Iraqi waters, were understood to be unharmed.

In the continuing stand off between the West and the Iranian nuclear program, it will be situations like the one just described that will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.

I predict that the Iran government will return the soldiers home unharmed in part to show the world that they are much more humane and reasonable than their Western counterparts would have you believe.

And God forbid these soldiers were American, there would be major saber-rattling on the part of the Bush Administration. Moreover, America’s lack of diplomatic relations would not allow Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice to do what British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett did by being able to summon the Iranian ambassador in London to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in an attempt to negotiate the men’s release.

Chances are, it was just an honest misunderstanding but when negotiating is cut off, you simultaneously cut off options for reasonable compromises.

God, I pray for peace in this world.

Stay up fam,

Categories:
Iran
International Affairs

Congress can do more to stop US involvment in Iraq

Congress can do more to stop US involvement in Iraq than people think.

To give background without getting into a lot of details, our government is set up in a way that each branch has a way to guard itself from being overpowered by the other two branches. The Congress does this in many cases by what is called the “Power of the Purse,” or the ability to control how the government spends money.

With regard to Iraq, [the Democratic] Congress has a lots of options when it comes to finding a way to end the current occupation. The one that is talked about the most is using its “Power of the Purse” to not allow the money to be spent on sending more troops to Iraq. This has been falsely criticized as “not supporting the troops” by spin doctors, but the reasons why that view is misguided are will not be addressed in this article.

If Congress looks beyond the “Power of the Purse,” it is likely to find alternative strategies that are not only possible, but safer politically and less vulnerable to being deemed unpatriotic.

One option is to keep the spending the same while limiting:

1. The scope of the mission
   Example: Congress can say that it’s alright to train Iraqi troops but not alright to take non-defensive action
2. The number of troops sent
   Example: Congress can cap the size of the troop escalation, setting it ideally to ZERO.
3. The specific places troops are sent
   Example: Congress can direct where troops can/cannot go (yes to Afghanistan, no to Iraq, no to Iran).

I don’t see how this could be framed as an unpatriotic. I have no military experience, but being specific and deliberate about where soldiers go and what they do sounds like supporting them to me. From the NY Times article:

…The Supreme Court has long recognized Congress’s authority to set limits on the president’s military power, as in 1799 when it accepted Congress’s power to authorize the seizure of ships going to, but not coming from, French ports…[Former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court] Mr. Rehnquist cited numerous historical examples including a 1940 law prohibiting the deployment of drafted soldiers outside the Western Hemisphere. More recently, under President Clinton, we in the office of legal counsel repeatedly recognized the authority of Congress to limit the scope, nature and duration of military engagements.

What this tells me that all of this is precedented and has been done before successfully. Why can’t it be done again now? This is the type of plan that I would like to see proposed and passed through legislature at the same time that measures to withdraw troops as soon as possible are being debated.

One Love. One II.

Categories
Politics
Iraq
Iran
So-called “War on Terror”

Iran, Iran, Iran…

For anyone confused as to why there is so much talk about the possibility of a conflict with Iran, I strongly urge you to read this article aptly titled, “The Redirection” by famed journalist, Seymour Hersh. I won’t attempt to provide an analysis as insightful as him but I will leave you an excerpt;

Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me that “there is nothing coincidental or ironic” about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. “The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when – if you look at the actual casualty numbers – the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,” Leverett said. “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.”

It is not a game.

Stay up fam,

Categories:
“So-called” war on terror
Iran

The fruition of a nightmare

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor under President Carter, said this, (emphasis mine)

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Don’t be silent, speak out against this misguided policy. Too many Americans are now afraid of what the government in power may do, but time is now for the government to be afraid of the people.

Stay up fam,

Categories:
Iran
International Affairs
“So called” war on terror

Sabre rattling with Iran

If you haven’t noticed, Iran comes up just as often as Iraq. Of all the problems that is complicating some notion of success in Iraq, Bush and the peanut gallery have decided that Iran’s interference (which is not spelled out, just like the weapons of mass destruction) is a primary role in preventing Iraq from standing on their feet.

Iraq has stated on multiple occasions that they want a dialogue with Iran. So if we are there to help the Iraqis and the Iraqi government thinks it is wise for them to talk to their neighbor, then why has Bush authorized killing Iranian officials who are found in Iraq? The main problem is that focusing attention on Iran is the only way Bush can justify keeping a military presence in the region. Just so we are clear, we are trying to either start or maintain a so-called war in Afghanistan (which you never hear about), Iraq, and Iran. This is idiocy at its finest.

For more on this topic, read this article.

Stay up fam,

Categories:
Iran
So-called war on terror

2007 State of the Union: A Translation

Here is my real-time analysis of G. W. Bush’s 2007 State of the Union address. This is a shortcut for anyone that did not watch the speech on TV or listen to it.

First, an omission. He did not say a word about Hurricane Katrina. That made me so upset that I nearly shed tears.

Madame Speaker…

This actually started well. Hearing this reminds me of how historic it is for Rep. Nancy Pelosi to be the Speaker of the House, the most powerful woman ever in the United States Congress. I wonder if Mr. Bush was sincere in his words to her during his opening remarks.

Decisions are hard, and courage is needed…The will to face difficult challenges…Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities…

These guarded statements are said to try and disarm his opposition within the Democratically-controlled Congress. What these statements basically mean is, “I will give lip service to working together, but expect nothing different out of me and my administration.”

3 Economic Reforms that deserve to be priorities…Balance the Federal Budget…We can do so without raising taxes…What we need is spending discipline in Washington…Earmarks…Entitlements…Commitments of Conscience…Fix Medicare and Medicaid, and save Social Security…

This was the first “meat” of the speech. He spit typical conservative banter about “fiscal responsibility,” and it is simply banter because this administration has been arguably the most fiscally irresponsible administrations in history. A key example of this irresponsibility: Iraq. The “we can do so without raising taxes” part is consistent with Bush’s insistence on cutting taxes while we are at “war,” something that has never happened before.

The stuff on “earmarks” is a joke because those will not go away any time soon since Republicans and Democrats use them all the time.

Conservatives use the term “entitlements” to deceive people. They need to do this so that they can make you feel bad about the government doing things for you. They play up this farce so that people feel bad taking things from the government that they select & elect. Funny how there was no mention of corporate entitlements in the form of war profiteering or the Bankruptcy Bill a.k.a. the worst piece of legislation since the Patriot Act (which a certain person voted for, and that really bothers me).

The future of opportunity requires that all of our citizens have affordable and available health care…For all other Americans, private health insurance provides the best option…Standard Health Insurance Tax Deduction…Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care available to all Americans

I don’t even know why this man fronts like he wants all Americans to have health insurance. If so, he would at least put a dent in the 40+ million people who don’t. He and his friends still think it is a bad idea to realize Universal Health Care through what’s called a Single-payer system. Basically, single-payer means that only one party negotiates for the price of health insurance and services: the government. Every citizen would then have their health costs covered through what they pay in taxes. This would result in higher taxes for the citizens, but those increased costs probably would not add up to the amount that people overpay for health services every day, month, and year. The idea of trying to get everyone to go private is as ridiculous as the privatize social security plan that he had a while back (and still has). This is also consistent with the way that the “war” in Iraq has been privatized. These pro-business, anti-citizen types always think private is the answer so that they can take money away from public institutions and services.

Extending hope and opportunity in this country requires an immigration policy that is worthy of America

I won’t say much on this. I think that Bush’s guest worker idea sounds a whole lot like new school indentured servitude. For those that don’t know, this was the precursor to slavery in this country. I do not think that the parallel is coincidental.

Reduce gasoline usage by 20% in the next 10 years…

How??? His mandatory fuel standard statement was weak at best, especially in the midst of his administration and its energy policy.

Global climate change…

He can’t say global warming because that does not exist. So rather than being a flip-flopper (we know how much he hates those), he has decided to use a different term: global climate change. This is his backwards way of admitting that there is a problem. I guess a small first step is better than no step at all. Is the next step for him to watch this?

To win the war on terror, we must take the fight to the enemy…

This was the opening statement to his surprisingly long section on Iraq, Iran, and foreign policy. There was too much B.S. here to sift through. Take a look at some of our analysis to get an idea of the truth. Suffice it to say that this strategy is questionable at best.

Darfur…Fight AIDS on the continent of Africa…Dikembe Mutumbo…

He really mentioned Darfur? That’s a surprise. Too bad he didn’t refer to it as a genocide. Again, I guess a small step is better than no step at all.

It is sad, but the “fighting AIDS in Africa” phrase is being rendered absolutely meaningless. It gets paid so much lip service that people forget that there are actually humans living on the continent of Africa who exist for reasons other than making someone feel good being a philanthropist.

One Love. One II.

Categories
Politics
Foreign Policy
State of the Union
Taxes
Darfur
So-called “War on Terror”

In Bush’s speech, nothing changed but Iran

Originally, I was going to post a detailed analysis of Bush’s speech from last night but my analysis was in line with what most political and military experts described as, “More of the same.” However, one marked difference is Bush’s change of tone with respect to his stance toward Iran and Syria.

In a major speech concerning Iraq given in March of 2006, Bush said,

“Some of the most powerful IEDs we are seeing in Iraq today includes components that came from Iran. Our director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, told the Congress Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti- coalition attacks by providing Shi’a militia with the capabilities to build improvised explosive devices in Iraq. Coalition forces have seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran. Such actions, along with Iran’s support for terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, are increasingly isolating Iran. And America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.”

This excerpt is important in what was not said. Bush does not explain how his administration would help isolate Iran and more importantly, he makes no threat if Iran continues to support terrorism.

Now pay attention to the shift in tone in Bush’s speech on Iraq from last night, January 10th, 2007;

“Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Here is how the logic breaks down,
1. We must succeed in Iraq
2. Succeeding in Iraq requires defending its territorial integrity
3. Iran and Syria are compromising Iraq’s territorial integrity
4. Therefore, we must seek out and destroy networks within Iran and Syria to defend Iraq’s territorial integrity

And not without irony, the same day as Bush’s speech, US forces stormed a building in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six people said to be Iranians, prompting a diplomatic incident. The building that was raided was an Iranian consulate. This may not seem like real news but I am convinced the United States will continue to push and probe Iran with similar incidents until Iran responds. And if Iran even coughs in response to any U.S. provocation (no matter how small), the neoconservatives will waste no time selling the Iranian response as an act of war and worthy of an overwhelming military counter attack.

These are sobering times we live in. My hunch is that this won’t be the last “surge” we will see deployed to the Iraqi region. What’s more scary is that I feel that our “surge” isn’t really intended for Iraq.

God please grant us wisdom and discernment.

Stay up fam,
Stay up fam,.

Categories:
Iran
Bush Administration

UN imposes sanctions against Iran

I am especially critical of the news during times of mass distraction. This is primarily because often times the government will use these times to do make controversial decisions, knowing that people will be too busy to make a big fuss about it. One example of this includes the resignation of now former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced the day after the midterm election. Keeping true to form, on December 23, 2006, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.

This is troubling on so many levels. The most important being that with this resolution in hand, U.S. now has the moral authority to claim the support of the “international community” in his saber rattling against Iran. It should be noted that the current resolution was watered down to satisfy concerns of China and Russia (both veto holding members of the United Nations Security Council) that the sanctions were too harsh. In effect, the resolution will not do any serious harm to the Iranian economy but this wasn’t the purpose of the resolution in the first place.

Nevertheless, Bush already used the support of the “international community” to help justify war against Iraq when there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. So the fact that Iran is actually developing a civilian nuclear program will make it that much easier for the Bush administration to make a case for military action against Iran. What’s worse is that previous attempts at resolving this standoff through diplomacy was made unrealistic by Bush’s precondition that Iran stop enriching uranium.

In the coming months, expect Bush to use this resolution as proof that Iran has something to hide for not agreeing to suspend their uranium enrichment. Moreover, expect Bush and mainstream media outlets to continue to blame Iraq’s problems due to Iran’s meddling. Couple this with Bush’s call for a “surge” in the size of the American military and his refusal to rule out using a nuclear strike against Iran; we are witnessing the priming of war with Iran. As a result, I encourage all of you to make your voice heard as it pertains to war policy. Wars cannot exist without public support but your silence will always be interpreted at best support and worst, indifference.

For more on this topic, please read this article

Stay up fam,

Categories:
iran
war
internationalrelations
bushadministration

Credible Threats

I have been playing online chess as of late and it started to make me think about chess as a metaphor for life. In chess, the majority of the game can be boiled down to whether or not you respond to or can make credible threats. And while threats are appropriate for discussing chess, I mean threat as the attempt to achieve a goal.

For example, you may make a threat to take out your opponent’s queen but if that will leave your king vulnerable, then that threat is not credible and your opponent will make you pay for it. In the same way, if your opponent makes a credible threat on your king, but you deem it unimportant, this decision will put you at a serious disadvantage.

So with this paradigm, let’s explore how the idea of credible threats plays out in our everyday lives. For those of you who are Christians, you know that at least part of your decision to turn your life over to Christ was your believing in the credible threat that if you don’t accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you will spend eternity in hell.

In relationships, if your partner makes a credible threat to leave you if you consider doing the thing that he/she dislikes, not taking them up on this threat will leave you out in the cold.

When you were growing up, many of us would try to duck out of our responsibilities until our parents said they would get the belt or take away some of our privileges.

Right now at General Motors, billionaire shareholder Kirk Kerkorian has made a credible threat to make GM seriously consider merging with another automotive manufacturer. “To bolster its defense, GM has retained two heavyweight investment banking firms… to help prepare for a potential Kerkorian-led proxy fight or other hostile action. The first specific actions were taken Oct. 3, when the GM board changed its bylaws to make it tougher for Kerkorian to elect a slate of directors or put strategic issues to a direct vote of GM shareholders.”

Right now, the Bush administration is trying to threaten North Korea to stop testing nuclear weapons. But with our current engagements in the Middle East, this threat is not exactly credible. The same logic holds true for Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons program.

If you are trying to make a threat to request a loan to start your own business but lack proper preparation and don’t have adequate back-up plans, the bank will not feel compelled to grant you that loan.

When applying to college/grad school, failure to make a credible threat that you are not only prepared but uniquely deserving of admission will make admissions counselors call your bluff.

What I have learned playing chess is that in life, we must always prepare for and respond to credible threats. We also should never make threats that are not credible.

There are so many different angles I could take this but I want to know if you have ever underestimated a credible threat coming your way or failed to make credible threats. What were the consequences?

Stay up fam,

Categories:
choices
misc

Why do they hate us?

Ever since 9/11, Americans all over have asked this fateful question, trying to understand why people would hijack airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A severe rejection of wrong doings at the hands of the American government I think fuels such bewilderment amongst the American public. So as we witness the confrontation between Iran and the U.S., it might be a good time to shed some light on history that would help explain (not justify) the fiery remarks by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad.

This post in inspired by a story I read in the Los Angeles Times entitled, U.S. history lesson: stop meddling, by Stephen Kinzer. In the article, Kinzer illustrates the negative long-term effects of American government ousting the governments of at least 14 countries around the world for the past 100 years. He does this to help inform what will probably be the effects of what will happen if and when the U.S. decides to forcibly intervene in Iran.

Before Iraq and Afghanistan, Kinzer states there were the Philippines, Panama, South Vietnam and Chile, among others. But while military interventions are easier to remember, the majority of US intervention involves “funding of rebel insurgencies, organized military coups, and encouraged popular nonviolent uprisings to overthrow foreign regimes – most recently in Yugslovia.” The sad reality is that “most of these interventions not only have brought great pain to the target countries but also, in the long run, weakened American security.” The long-run is an interesting idea isn’t it? But how do we think about the long-run in America? “We don’t have to pay down the deficit now, we can take care of it in the long run.” “Taking action to stop global warming would cost jobs so let’s take care of the earth in the long-run.” Fixing public education? Don’t get me started, but I digress.

Getting back to Kinzer’s article, he illustrates how America played a major role in changing the arc of history in Cuba. Kinzer states how,

“Cuba, half a world away from Iran, is a fine example. In 1898, the United States sent troops there to help rebels overthrow Spanish colonial rule. Once victory was secured, the U.S. reneged on its promise to allow Cuba to become independent and turned it into a protectorate. More than 60 years later, in his first speech as leader of the victorious Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro recalled that episode and made a promise. “This time,” he vowed, “it will not be like 1898, when the Americans came in and made themselves masters of the country.”

Isn’t it interesting how revolutionaries use history to justify their actions and how democratic countries use the future? Fidel Castro was born in 1926 so obviously, Castro, like other Revolutionaries, don’t have a short-term memory. So where most Americans miss the boat is not understanding that many terrorists see Americans as having blood on their hands from administrations that may be before their time. So rather than keep up their end of the bargain, the US has provided the fodder a dictator become a constant thorn in their sides for decades. Iran however, presents a more interesting case because in 1953, Iran was a baby democracy when they elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and he was largely popular amongst Iranians. But as Kinzer points out, things became thorny between Iran and the US when,

“Mossadegh angered the West by nationalizing his country’s oil industry. President Eisenhower sent the CIA to depose him. The coup was successful, but it set the stage for future disaster.” “The CIA placed Mohammed Reza Pahlavi back on the Peacock Throne. His repressive rule led, 25 years later, to the Islamic Revolution. That revolution brought to power a clique of bitterly anti-Western mullahs who have spent the decades since working
intensely, and sometimes violently, to undermine U.S. interests around the world.”

Kinzer later added that, “Today, Latin America and the Middle East are the regions of the world in the most open political rebellion against U.S. policies. It is no coincidence that these are the regions where the U.S. has intervened most often. Resentment over intervention festers. It passes from generation to generation. Ultimately it produces a backlash.”

A backlash? To me this means that any meaningful negotiations between Iran and the “international community” has to address issues from past generations. But after you sort through all the historical mess, Iran and the US actually have similar goals that Kinzer points out, “Both want to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, assure the free flow of Middle East oil and crush radical Sunni movements like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. What prevents talks from materializing is the deep resentment both sides feel over past interventions.”

So let’s stop drinking the kool-aid that the American government only has good intentions when it comes to regime change along with the notion that any country that is occupied by the U.S. should be grateful. And what is lost on many Americans is that they think that if they themselves did not do something wrong, then they should not be held responsible for the consequences. While this thinking is rational and plausible, many terrorists (not just Arabs) cite history from past generations as justification for their current behavior. What this tells me is that Americans claiming that they didn’t do anything wrong fails to account for the ramifications of past decisions by previous administrations. This is chess, not checkers.

Stay up fam,

Brandon

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
–George Santayana
Politics is war without bloodshed. War is politics with bloodshed.
–Huey Newton

On Immigration

I have been pondering the current ramifications of the immigration debate and I have come up with more questions than answers. And unfortunately, I am no where as near well-versed on this issue as I would like to be. But I would like to take some time to at least steer us in the right direction.

Language
For starters, (this applies to any issue) we have to pay strict attention to the way in which language is used to frame a debate. When commentators use the words, “alien” and “illegal,” the ensuing argument already assumes its own conclusion. And to call someone an “illegal” is just plain ignorant. I heard a guy on NPR ask, “Why don’t we call Martha Stewart an illegal CEO after she was indicted?” Similarly, if you ever had to go to court to contest a speeding ticket, the bailiff or judge doesn’t label you as an illegal driver. So why are so many of us so comfortable with using this term with respect to Latinos? If we are going to have an intelligent debate, we need to create language that is clear and respectful to both sides.

Distraction
You know what is killing me about all of these Black commentators talking about how Latinos are taking away jobs is baffling. I say that because like most Black folk (perhaps with the exception of those living in the Southwest) never seriously thought or wrote about immigration policy. But now, poll numbers show that Blacks and the rest of the country consider immigration policy to be an important national issue. Did you ever once consider that maybe this immigration debate is a convenient distraction for Bush and the Republicans to not talk about the ongoing civil war in Iraq? Not to mention that while Iran is upping the ante, our national government is obsessing over immigration. So for all the Black writers who recently discovered the importance of immigration reform, go back to what you were writing before instead of taking your talking/writing points from the mainstream press establishment.

Patriotism
Another thing that perplexes me is Black commentator’s assertion that we can’t let “illegal immigrants” sneak into our country. I don’t need to get into the nuances of why Black people may not have the warmest affection for America, but I condemn anyone that will use racism/discrimination to solidify their patriotic ideals. Because when Katrina survivors STILL can’t depend on FEMA to help them and when our country ignores the plight of those in Darfur, Black patriotism for America is hard to find.

History
I know Americans are notorious for lacking an appreciation of history, but why hasn’t Manifest Destiny or the Mexican-American war of 1846 informed the immigration debate? To be sure, the US “conquered and held California and New Mexico during the U.S.-Mexican War. The nation also obtained vast cessions from Native American tribes, which were relocated to remote and unwanted regions, a process begun in the seventeenth century.” Therefore, it seems to me that for as complex as the current debate has become, it would be a little easier to understand if we put it in the context of real American history.

West Indian Immigrants
And I haven’t heard anyone talk about the vast numbers of West Indians (I am speaking generally, of course) that are patiently awaiting their green card. So my gripe with Bush’s proposed guest worker program is that I wonder how much easier it would be for Mexicans and other Latinos to participate in this program than it would be for West Indians. Again, a historic note would be fitting because if you really think that people would be trying to keep Elian Gonzalez here if he was a Jamaican, then you are seriously mistaken. My hope is that immigration reform should be just as easy to take advantage of as Mexicans or West Indians, or any one else who wants to come to this country. More importantly, letting people work illegally without any intentions of granting them citizenship is just wrong. And for all the people talking about how illegal immigration closes job opportunities for Blacks is narrow-minded at best. We see the same flawed logic used in affirmative action when people imagine two applicants where one White applicant directly competes against a Black applicant who has lower credentials. The fact is that college admissions, like the economy, is dynamic and the market place (with healthy assistance from the government interference) and therefore, cannot be simplified to one Black and one Latino competing for one job. The fact is that if American corporations were more concerned about producing better products and services than cutting costs, there would be enough jobs for everybody.

Black and Brown Unity
Hopefully, this immigration debate will serve as the bridge between Blacks and Latinos because if you keep it real, it hasn’t really been robust. More importantly, Black people are not the judges of whether a “civil rights movement” is justified. I appreciate our unique history in this country but in the same way not “every” Black person was involved during the Civil Rights Movement, not every Black person have to take sides on the immigration debate. That is to say that not every quest for civil rights requires the involvement of Black people. I think Latinos have showed themselves to be quite capable or organizing themselves around this issue. As such, Blacks people’s presence or lack thereof, is not the deciding factor in determining Black/Latino relations. We have to define our own destiny.

Stay up fam,

Brandon

Bush’s State of Iraq Unveiled

As we approach the third anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Bush gave a speech yesterday trying to drum up support for the war in Iraq. But if you missed it, don’t worry because we here at Superspade have you covered and will help you understand what Bush said and what he didn’t.

Now before Bush reached the meat of the speech by stating, “Next week will mark the three-year anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom,” September 11th was mentioned three times. This ladies and gentlemen is known as framing because even back in 2003, Bush told a reporter that “we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.” But Bush knows that were it not for 9/11, he would not have had the almost unquestioned authority to invade Iraq. Therefore, he constantly evokes 9/11 to confuse the public for the real reasons we invaded that country.

After detailing every political landmark in Iraq without discussing quality of life issues, (like having running water, electricity, jobs) Bush went on to say, “Our goal in Iraq is victory, and victory will be achieved when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation.”

But re-read that quote carefully because Bush outlines when victory will be achieved but he fails to let the public know what victory is. This is very troubling because all Bush has to do is change up how and/or when victory is achieved without ever having to be held accountable. In other words, if this idea of when extends beyond Bush’s current term, then he doesn’t have to worry about cleaning up the inevitable mess we created in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush’s three when ideas are all vague and can easily be re-worded but the first point troubles me the most. Bush said, “Victory will be achieved when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy.” One of the most troublesome myths I see developing is the idea that once you have democracy, everything else more or less will fall into place. And as we can currently see in Iraq, the Iraqi people seem to vote every four months but the Iraqi government is so inept and corrupt that they are quite adept at messing up things on their own. Therefore, democracy does not equal stable and effective governing just because people vote. But it is easier for Bush to talk about Iraqi democracy instead of the Iraqi government, and for good reason.

But here was the real clincher, once you delete the obligatory greetings and acknowledgements, Bush spent an astonishing 24% of his speech detailing how dangerous Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) are to Coalition troops and Iraqi civilians. Now I don’t doubt that IEDs are a major problem in Iraq but its how Bush ended this section that disturbed me the most. He said,

“Some of the most powerful IEDs we are seeing in Iraq today includes components that came from Iran. Our director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, told the Congress Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti- coalition attacks by providing Shi’a militia with the capabilities to build improvised explosive devices in Iraq.”

I highlighted “some” because I want you to be aware of how the speech writers wrote “some” into the background. There is no data provided that would help the public understand if “some” is miniscule or catastrophic. And the first sentence says that some of the IEDs include components that came from Iran. I insist on being a stickler for words because components could mean anything from paint to the actual gun powder. But most people who heard that sentence probably understood it to mean that Iran is supplying terrorists with IED components. Now I am not saying Iran is certain of doing this or not, but I am sick and tired of the Administration acting like what they say is as good as gold without providing evidence. Do you remember the yellow cake from Niger?

And in the second sentence, Bush cites the National Director of Intelligence Congressional testimony that Tehran has been helping the Shi’a militia with the capabilities to build IEDs. Can someone help me understand what capabilities Iran is guilty of? Now I know that there are some honest employees that work in the intelligence community but some political appointees distorted the truth to fit their goals. And when you consider how much information comes from torturing suspects, how much can you trust the testimony of Negroponte?

Bush went on to say, “Coalition forces have seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran. Such actions, along with Iran’s support for terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, are increasingly isolating Iran. And America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.”

If some IEDs and components were clearly produced in Iran, can I see a receipt, UPC Code, or something that will let me know that when Bush says clearly, he can be trusted?

But here is the bigger picture going on, just pay attention to Bush’s logic;
1) IEDs are the most dangerous and effective tool terrorists use against Coalition troops.
2) Iran has contributed some IEDs and components of IEDs to some Iraqi terrorists
3) Iran supports terrorism and is seeking a nuclear weapons program
4) Therefore, “America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.”

This is twisted logic but understand how Bush is making the connections between Iraq and Iran. Do you remember we were in Afghanistan and we invaded Iraq? I remember thinking to myself, “These boys are slick.” Now the same types of innuendos are being used to build the case against Iran. But the common thread here is no supporting evidence. And if you think that it is impossible for Bush to rally a war in Iran, you are sadly mistaken.

Stay up fam,

Brandon

Blacks and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

The Middle East is going to be the center of world attention for many years to come. And if you think that what happens in the Middle East doesn’t affect you, think again. So as we witness the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections, along with the war in Iraq and the brewing battle over Iran’s nuclear program, what will history say about where Black people stood during these tumultuous times?

And although we could break down every conflict in the Middle East, no situation is more controversial than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So my question is simple but the issue is complex.

Where do you stand in the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Should Black people have a natural bias towards either group? Is it any of our business?

I have heard some say that Palestinians are victims of Israeli aggression in much the same way Black Americans suffered under slavery and segregation. Likewise I have heard some say that Blacks have a natural bias towards Jews/Israel due to the support Jews they showed Blacks before and during the Civil Rights movement.

Stay up fam,

Brandon

The long war ahead…

In a recent speech, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said “the United States is engaged in what could be a generational conflict akin to the Cold War, the kind of struggle that might last decades as allies work to root out terrorists across the globe and battle extremists who want to rule the world.”.

I am so surprised that after the coalition launched its attack on Iraq, the predictions of a quick victory and no plans for an occupation have faltered. The implications of Rumsfeld’s speech are profound because it seems odd that Presidents get credit for starting wars and once that machine is in motion, it takes monumental circumstances for the political elite to actually end the war. But at least the characters are set up with Rumsfeld comparing al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Which makes me wonder why we would want to catch Osama when it is his being elusive that provided much of the impetus for invading Iraq? Just imagine how future historians will look back on this war; Bush vs. Bin Laden. It is so simplistic it is nauseating.

And with the Bush administration doggedly resisting all forms of a timetable, they are just waiting to pass on the real mess of this war to future Presidents. This will in turn allow Bush Jr. to enjoy fishing with his father saying “Dad, I really wanted to finish that war but those dang old term limits nipped me in the bud.” But on a more serious note, Rumsfeld and others have noted the war on terrorism could take years. Do you really think the neo-conservatives thought the US would invade Iraq and bring the troops home? Just think about the timing of the US media sudden infatuation with Iran and how it coincided with the ‘major’ elections in Iraq. The boys are already overseas, so we might as well keep them busy right?

All of this war-mongering is set against the backdrop of the Pentagon’s report stating the US Army is “in a race against time to adjust to the demands of war ‘or risk ‘breaking’ the force in the form of a catastrophic decline’ in recruitment and re-enlistment.” But who needs to really worry about troops when our troop levels revolve around our Star-Wars type weapons systems as confirmed by the “relatively minor adjustments in key weapons systems, with the biggest programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter and the Army’s Future Combat Systems escaping virtually unscathed.”

No matter how much we spend on our military, the million dollar question is how are we defining success, because surely you can’t end terrorism right? And in the words of my good friend Garlin, “when the “clear plan” is made “clear” by not “clearly” defining success, then is it really that “clear?”

It will be interesting to see how future historians analyze this war. That is if they ever get a chance to study the war that never ends.

Stay up fam,

Brandon

The State of Your Union

Tonight was the continuation of an American tradition in which the elected executive stands before the whole of the remaining two branches of government and delivers their thoughts and visions on and for the Nation. It is a good opportunity to listen to what the president has to say about America: what do do they care about? What do they want to do? What have they done?

G. W. Bush had a few main points tonight, which included:

1. Isolationism = Defeatism
2. Democracy everywhere is the future
3. Building on existing domestic momentum

That is what he said. Here is what it actually means. We will approach this line-by-line, with parallel translation of rhetoric.

G. W. Started out paying respect to Coretta Scott King, who passed on today. That was a good move, but it was also probably the highlight of the night.

“Act in a spirit of goodwill and respect.”
G. W. Used this in reference to the heated, partisan tone of recent Washington debates (Patriot Act Extension, Alito Confirmation Hearings, Domestic Spying Inquiries). What this really means is “Democrats need to stop making noise. Get down or lay down.” It means that conservatives don’t want any disagreement, regardless of its merit (more on this below).

“Isolationism leads to danger and defeat.”
This is how G. W. Began his foreign policy section. This is a challenge to those of us who feel that domestic matters outweigh foreign affairs. Isolationist is conservative code for “having one’s priorities in logical order.” Is it “danger and defeat” if you care more about someone else’s house than your own family’s well-being? Of course not: it’s stupid.

“We seek the end of tyranny in the world…democracies replace resentment with hope…”
This was how G. W. Justified his *Offensive Democracy* foreign policy approach. Research has shown that “fighting them there so they don’t fight us here” holds as much water as a spider web. What does tyranny mean? It can be summed up in two words: unchecked leadership. America was designed to protect against such a thing, but with all three branches compromised, that protection has disappeared. As for democracy replacing resentment, is there resentment in American democracy? That’s another spider web full of Kool-Aid.

Mentioned Zimbabwe among non-democracies
The African continent made an appearance this year. The last time the Earth’s source was mentioned by G. W. was when he lied about Iraq getting weapons of mass destruction from Niger. I don’t think this mention will stir as much reaction.

“Terrorists chose the weapon of fear”
This is the first nominee for Line of the Night. BushCo has pedaled fear and propaganda in order to justify their foolish, selfish policies, including [but not limited to] the Patriot Act and the Domestic Spying program and the so-called “War on Terror.”

“The US will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil”
More code for “isolationism” being bad. See above.

“Clear plan for victory” in Iraq
This is the second nominee for Line of the Night. All I can say about this is this: when the “clear plan” is made “clear” by not “clearly” defining success, then is it really that “clear?”

“Iraq: 3 years to sovereignty…we are winning”
Sovereignty? G. W. Still hasn’t figured out what sovereignty means. What government is sovereign when it is supported, financed, and protected by another government. And “we are winning?” See above for an explanation on why you can’t win when you don’t know what winning means or looks like.

“The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home”
This is a feeble attempt at defining winning. Any idiot knows that when a “war” is “over,” the troops will come home. This is simply an empty, rhetorical, admission of the obvious.

Responsible Criticism vs. Defeatism
G. W. has touched on this before. Responsible criticism might as well mean total, blind agreement. Anything less is defeatism in the eyes of conservatives.

“Keep our word…stand behind the American military”
The “keep our word” part is the same as the “stay the course” B.S. that we’ve been hearing since the election of 2004. It means “I [and my backers] am too damn hard-headed to see my flawed actions and decisions of the past, and I refuse to change my tactics in spite of my mistakes.” It is an unfortunate reality that we meddled in and broke Iraq. Oh well in my opinion. I would much rather see resources expended in the Gulf Coast than the Persian Gulf.

“Raising up a democracy requires the rule of law…”
The timing of this statement is matched only by its irony. We are amid scandal and corruption in Washington, yet the President is calling for “the rule of law” in other nations. Apparently Americans can be above the law. Well, Americans WITH MONEY (read: Republicans) can be above the law.

America wants to be “the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran”
This is laughable considering that we will likely be invading Iran in the near future. Whether they were free or democratic, they would get invaded.

Patriot Act: “same tools used to fight drugs and crime”
This is how G. W. introduced his case for renewal of the controversial Patriot Act. There is plenty on this blog that makes our opposition to this clear. Black people should fear and reject anything similar to the “tools used to fight drugs and crime” that have led to such grave injustices as racial profiling, disproportionate Black male incarceration, and systematic Black disenfranchisement.

Spying: “appropriate members of Congress kept informed”
More attempts to justify “Terrorism Surveillance.” What defines “appropriate?” Why wasn’t the “appropriate,” appointed FISA Court informed?

“Roosevelt, Kennedy rejected isolation and retreat”
Sprinkle of rhetoric here about why “isolationism” is bad. We’ve already covered why that’s just plain dumb.

“I urge the Congress to act responsibly and make the tax cuts permanent.”
This oxymoron is the third nominee for Line of the Night. This means the the legislature should “responsibly” withhold money from important domestic affairs to reward the wealthy. Permanent tax cuts would be as irresponsible as permanent tax increases. Since one cannot predict future occurrences, tax policy should be periodically, organically evaluated.

The Special-Interest problem can be tackled with the Line-Item Veto
Never seen a President that didn’t want a Line-Item Veto, so that’s nothing new. The question is, would he really, really do something about lobbyists if he had one? I doubt it.

“Keeping America competitive requires affordable Health Care…Strengthen Health Spending Accounts…Make coverage portable”
The first and third phrases sound decent enough to me, given that I want the ultimate in affordable, portable coverage: Universal Health Care. The second phrase is one that I have a problem with. This point, nestled between two decent ideas, is part of G. W.’s Ownership Society message. The problem is that 45 million Americans don’t have Health care and cannot afford it, another would not be able to afford or understand HSAs as proposed. The beauty of Universal Health Care is that is based on a simple notion: you need health care, you get it, period. HSAs are no more than funnels leading to the pockets of HMOs and Insurance companies. Do not be fooled.

“America is addicted to oil…Advanced Energy Initiative…Replace 75% of Middle Eastern oil dependence by 2025″
This is actually a good idea. Increase research in ethanol and zero-emission coal power is a good thing. However, I can’t imagine BushCo’s oil buddies letting this kind of thing actually result in lower oil consumption.

“American Competitiveness Initiative”
Again, another good idea in theory. Doubling our commitment to natural sciences, permanent research tax credits, encouraging more math & science in secondary education, all good stuff. I just hope they don’t use No Child Left Behind as the model for implementation.

Work with Black churches to fight AIDS
Black folks came up again at the end. This marks the first time I had ever heard a White Republican cite statistics on AIDS in Black America. While I am happy about that (it is a step in the right direction), I am worried that the Black church path is a flawed one. BushCo has coaxed the Black church into supporting him on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and he may be at it again. I would not trust these guys, as a fear that they are more concerned with gaining votes that saving Black lives.

There you have it.

Please share your thoughts and reactions to the speech and my reactions.

–
GDGII
www.TheSuperSpade.com

Sent using Windows Mobile 5.0

Iran’s nuclear program

Understanding Iran’s position: nuclear technology meets national defense.

If you have been reading any news lately, then I am sure you aware of the uproar that the “international community” has expressed over Iran breaking the UN seals at three of its nuclear facilities.

Remember when President Bush’s named Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the “axis of evil” in 2002? If so, then you can get an idea of how long the media and government officials have trained the public en masse to not distinguish between Iran, illegal nuclear weapons, and evil. “It was harmful both conceptually and operationally,” said Graham Allison, government professor and former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. “Conceptually, the ‘axis’ suggested a relationship among the entities that doesn’t exist. More important, operationally, the reaction of the world and the North Korea debacle demonstrates that it was a mistake.”

What I don’t get with respect to the axis of evil is that by naming the countries you intend to shake down, you invariably add more fuel to the fire. Ergo, if Iran was only thinking about developing nuclear weapons, then wouldn’t they fiercely want nuclear weapons now? The main thing I don’t understand is this; why does the so-called war on terror assume that named countries won’t take decisive actions to defend themselves against attack? That is why I am so dismayed at current US foreign policy towards Iran. I am going to lay out a series of facts that lay out how Iran might be justified in their saber rattling towards the West.

1) As the war Afghanistan and Iraq progresses, a quick look at a map will show you that Iran is strategically trapped between US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2) You have been named as part of the axis of evil.

3) Israel and the US have developed or are developing plans for a preemptive attack.

4) The current conflict is further exacerbated because “the same technology needed to produce low-enriched uranium for nuclear power plants can also produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons, the West believes that Iran intends to use this capability to stockpile weapons-usable nuclear materials.” So what we have is the West trying to have it both ways because while the West can allow states to develop peaceful technology and sometimes nuclear weapons, (like Pakistan) it can simultaneously claim that the state in question is seeking nuclear weaponry. This is also known as a catch-22.

I am not defending Iran, I am just pointing out that when you back someone into the corner, they will sometimes do almost anything to get out of that corner. And let’s face it, Iran has the upper hand because “the United States is quickly acquiring the ‘Vietnam Syndrome’ - the decision never to venture abroad again, after being so stung by the disaster which has become the occupation of Iraq. It has no stomach for a new battle: and Tehran knows it.”

And if you have been following the news, you know that Russia opposes economic sanctions against Iran and you know China is thirsty for oil like a fat kid loves cake. Both Russia and China are permanent members of the UN Security Council and the same way the US goes out of its way to veto sanctions/resolutions that go against Israel, Russia and China are prepared to do the same for Iran.

And I don’t even have to explain how much gas would sky rocket, because if you don’t know, Iran is the second largest exporter in the world.

The bottom-line is that the threat of war is the best guarantor of peace and while I wish we lived in a world where there were no nuclear weapons at all. But the doctrine of mutually assured destruction seems to be holding up pretty well. Moreover, if one were to observe the way the US dealt with Iraq and North Korea, then it is reasonable to assume that the possession of nuclear weaponry demands respect from the international community. Iraq was invaded and North Korea is not a signatory to the NPT and is essentially being offered carrots to peacefully contain its nuclear program.

I know the US is isolated by two oceans but we don’t live in a vacuum. Countries, like people respond to threats. And while the US may be the most powerful country in the world, the world is getting flat and traditional forms of power just won’t cut it. Because as we see in this Iran conflict, when you have different rules for different countries, soon enough, the countries that have traditionally been locked out will find ways to get in. We need a foreign policy that makes wanting nuclear weaponry unattractive because until we do that, the axis of evil will take on a life of its own.

Look for more analysis of the Iran conflict in the future.

Stay up fam,

Brandon
.