Obama’s Foreign Policy

Posted in 2012 Election, Politics on March 1st, 2011

So what exactly is the foundation of Obama’s foreign policy? What are Obama’s goals for America’s international relations? Nobody seems to know those answers, not our State Department, not Congress, not the People, not our Enemies, and certainly not our Allies.

With no apparent rhyme or reason to Obama’s statements, occasional half-measures, and string of inactions in response to any of the situations in the Mid-East, Africa, Asia, and Latin America people keep searching for some deeper game that he’s playing and ascribing various and sundry motivations to him.

There’s a far simpler and, I believe, much more likely rationale for Obama’s foreign policy inconsistencies:

Infographic: Obama's Foreign Policy Goals - This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Infographic: Obama’s Foreign Policy Goals

There are two rules one should always remember: “The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one” and “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

I firmly believe that Obama already displayed the extent of his foreign policy. He apologied to all and sundry for America’s status as a superpower, vilified the actions of his predecessors, and thought that our enemies would now begin to like, if not America, at least him.

Beyond that, I don’t think that Obama has any foreign policy goals.

As the international situation grows ever more fluid and we in America move towards the 2012 Elections this is something to keep firmly in one’s mind.

Related Reading:

Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United
The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
Exit the Colonel: The Hidden History of the Libyan Revolution
China in the 21st Century: What Everyone Needs to Know®

Pakis Defy American Law

Posted in Politics, Society on December 23rd, 2010

Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha - Pakistan's ISI Chief and/or Terrorist RingleaderThe “government” of Pakistan has defied US laws and refused to have its chief of Intelligence, Lt. General Ahmed Shuja Pasha appear in a US court to face a lawsuit alleging that he was responsible for the November, 2008 Muslim Terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India.

Pasha is the chief of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency.

As reported Thursday, December 23, 2010 by the Economic Times of India:

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani today said that no force could pressurise the ISI chief Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha to appear in a US court to face a lawsuit filed by relatives of victims of the Mumbai attacks.

“The ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence)… is an extremely important (and) sensitive institution of this country. If they do not agree to go to the American court, then no one can send them,” Gilani said.

His remarks came as media reports from New York said the plaintiffs in two US lawsuits accusing Pakistan’s spy chief of nurturing terrorists involved in the 2008 Mumbai attacks are hoping for a historic outcome recalling the Lockerbie settlement.

The lawsuit against the ISI and the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) was filed before a Federal court in Brooklyn, NY on November 19, 2010 by relatives of Rabbi Gavriel Noah Holtzberg and his wife Rivka, who were both brutally gunned down by Islamist vermin while at the Chhabad House in Mumbai. The court promptly issued summons to Lt. Gen. Pasha along with other key leaders in the ISI and LeT.

The 26-page lawsuit accusing ISI of aiding and abetting LeT in the slaughter of 166 people was filed before a New York Court on November 19, following which the Brooklyn court issued summons to Major Samir Ali, Azam Cheema, Inter-Services Intelligence of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Major Iqbal, Lakhvi, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Sajid Majid, Pasha, Saeed and Nadeem Taj.

“The ISI has long nurtured and used international terrorist groups, including LeT, to accomplish its goals and has provided material support to LeT and other international terrorist groups,” said the lawsuit filed by relatives of the slain Rabbi. Pasha, who has been director general of the ISI since September 2008, has been summoned, so is Nadeem Taj, the director general of ISI from September 2007 to September 2008.

From what evidence we have, including testimony by Pakistani-American Muslim Terrorist David Headley, the case has definite merit. It is very likely that Pasha and others in Pakistan’s ISI are Islamist terrorists and it’s even more certain that they’ve been waging a war of terrorism against India due to the long dispute over Kashmir.

I wholeheartedly sympathize with the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. These Muslim vermin need to be made to pay in any way that mankind can make them pay.

Then, when we’ve punished them fully, we can shove pork chops down their vile throats and shoot them in their respective heads – unto their last misborn crotch-dropping.

Unfortunately, irrespective of the merits of the lawsuit or mankind’s sentiments, restitution as dictated by the court will not be forthcoming and no member of what passes for Pakistan’s government will ever stand before a US court. It is delusional or foolish to believe, think, or hope otherwise.

Failed state or not, never should have been created out of whole cloth or not, Pakistan is a sovereign nation. Sovereign nations rarely allow their citizens to be summoned to stand before foreign courts in matters of tort, nor due they make any effort to enforce any judgments rendered by such foreign courts. This is even more true when the defendant is a senior member of the nation’s ruling body.

In point of fact, the US behaves in exactly the same manner and protects its citizens and officials the same way. It’s – at best – ridiculous to expect any other nation to behave otherwise. That’s why retribution in such cases is most often best handled outside of the judicial system and by experts in the field of bringing wrongdoers before the highest bar for judgment.

Related Reading:

Politics
The Terrorism Lectures
Islam: Religion of Bigots
America's Other Army: The U.S. Foreign Service and 21st Century Diplomacy
The Army and Democracy: Military Politics in Pakistan

Strange Bedfellows

Posted in Humor, Politics, Religion on December 16th, 2010

Politics makes for strange bedfellows and war and Muslim Terrorism is just an extension of politics, so it’s unsurprising that Al-Qaeda’s “spiritual leader,” Osama Bin Laden would cultivate a relationship with North Korea’s yammering monkey, Kim Jong Il. Yet, who knew that it would take such a bizarre, depraved, and disgusting turn?

Congratulations!
Strange Indeed! Most Believed Osama Preferred Goats

A leading Al-Qaeda cleric, Imam Abdul Al Akroot ibn Al Daa’reh Khanzeer responded to queries about Osama Bin Laden’s seemingly prohibited relationship with the North Korean dictator.

What Osama has done is permissible. It is not the sin of homosexuality because Kim Jong Il is not a man; he is a monkey. As Abdullah ibn Abbas narrated in the Kitab Al-Hudud, “There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.”

Allah is merciful. Women of Islam are few and goats and such are many, and it is often hard for a man to tell them apart in the night. Allah knows this and thus it is halal.

Sadly, when questioned on the fact that the ayat immediately preceding the one that he cited (Book 38, Number 4450) called for the death of any man caught fornicating with an animal – and the death of the animal! – Imam Abdul Al Akroot went into a violent rage and became too incoherent to continue the interview.

The Civilized World just fervently and desperately hopes and prays that Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong Il will not follow in the trend of celebrities couples and release a sex tape. 8-O

Related Reading:

The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work: A Practical Guide from the Country's Foremost Relationship Expert
Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life (Norton Paperback)
The Art of War
One New Habit To Fix Your Marriage: 10 Simple Steps To Put The Joy And Intimacy Back In Your Marriage
His Needs, Her Needs: Building an Affair-Proof Marriage