Obama needs a Foreign Policy 101

      Since my Associates and Bachelor degrees were in International Studies and Global Affairs, respectively, it's fair to say that I know a lot about the subject. No, I'm not an expert, but I have this thing that most politicians lack called "common sense." I look at Obama's foreign policy and weep. I mean this guy doesn't even try. It is a disaster for everyone in the world...except Obama and the 1%: the mainstream media, the military industrial complex, the rich Democrat CEOs, etc. So that's why he continues to do it, even though, by all standards, it sucks.  It sows destruction throughout the world while the rich overlords reap the benefits. It makes people around the world hate us, which, they have every reason to, given all of the death, oppression, torture, repression, and suffering we cause deliberately with our self-centered foreign policy.
      What would I do differently than Obama? Well, I'm glad you asked. Let me count the ways.
   
     1. Push for the legalization of marijuana. 
     Wait, but this a domestic issue, right? That's what you're thinking, right? Well, it is, but it has grave foreign policy implications for all of South America, especially Mexico. By keeping marijuana illegal in the states, we give the drug cartels in Mexico more money and power, because we create a vacuum of ways people can get marijuana legally. The cartel fills that vacuum. If marijuana was legal, American consumers wouldn't need to go to a drug dealer that gets his drugs from the cartels. They would go down the street to a legal American store, that employes legal workers and pays taxes, to buy some marijuana. That marijuana would be grown legally by U.S. farmers.
     The report and evidence is all right here for anyone to read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/pot-legalization-opium-mexico_n_5112869.html. Legalization in just two states have taken a significant chunk out of the cartels' profit. They hate legalization. Imagine if we made it legal everywhere in the U.S.? Bam, the cartels couldn't stay in business. They'd fold, and thousands of Mexicans would live because the cartels wouldn't be around to kill them.
     This post will not go into the domestic issues surrounding marijuana legalization, as that is a post for another time. This is solely looking at the international implications of such a decision.
     Critics of my idea would say "Oh, well, the cartels will simply shift to another way to make money, such as selling and moving cocaine, heroin, etc." Fine, make all of that legal. Where in the Constitution does it say that Americans cannot use cocaine? You're violating peoples' right to use what they want to. You think using heroin is immoral? Perfectly fine, no one is forcing you to do it. But don't expect to shove your opinion down other peoples' throats, and make them believe that using it is immoral. You are entitled to your opinions and to act on them, as long as they don't violate other peoples' human rights. You are not entitled to make your opinion the law of the land just because you think it is a good idea. This isn't Saudi Arabia.
      So this leads to #2, which is:

     2. Stop financing and training the Mexican military, as well as every other South American military.
      When we train militaries to go and kidnap people, torture them, rape them, oppress them, deny them their basic human rights, and kill them, then we are just as responsible for those crimes as the ones that commit them. If we hadn't given them the training and weapons, then they would not be able to carry out those crimes. Yes, perhaps Mexico would go to Russia or China for training and/or funding, but at least the suffering and killing would not be on our hands, on our conscience. We could say we had nothing to do with it. We would not be responsible for the crimes.
     Look at all of the reports on the Mexican military, how much they oppress and make their own people suffer. You'll never hear about this in the mainstream media, for their overlords could never allow Mexico, our "ally," to look bad.
     http://www.hrw.org/americas/mexico
     http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/mexico
     http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/4/amnesty-internationaltortureinmexico.html
     Do you want your hard earned tax money to give these thugs weapons and training? Huh? What do you say, Obama supporters? Sure seems like you all just love killing and oppressing innocent people who are just minding their own fucking God damn business. Fucking fascists.
     Look at how much money we've given those fucking fascists down in Mexico City over the years:

 

     My opinion doesn't just apply to Mexico. We give weapons and training to many Latin American countries who abuse them the same way Mexico does. Honduras, Columbia, Guatemala, fuck them all, stop all military sales and training until they stop oppressing and killing their own people.You can find dozens of reports on any South American country that we give weapons and training to, just like the reports I linked above the picture. Just type "Honduran military human rights abuses" or "Columbia military human rights abuses" etc, and you will find all the information you need. 

     http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/15/mexico-drugs-us-military/12535271/

     Remember, if Obama did #1 of my suggestions, the cartels would cease to exist, or, at the very least, be a shell of their former selves in terms of power. With them weak and dying, we don't need to pump money and weapons to South American countries to fight the "War on Drugs" anymore.

     But, here's the thing that the Democrats never, EVER, want to talk about. Obama doesn't want the War on Drugs to end. In fact, no one in power in the United States government wants the War on Drugs to end. It's making them too much money. It's giving them too much power. Why would they want it to stop? 

 

     3. Get the fuck out of Somalia.

     We've been in this failed state for decades now. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That's exactly what we've been doing in Somalia. We're just killing terrorists and protecting the crony government there. And look at where's that has gotten them. Oh yeah, we sure a big help!

      Every time we kill a "terrorist" (some insurgents may be ordinary people who are fed up with the corrupt government that oppresses them, in that case, we're fighting people who have a legitimate reason to fight the Somalian government), we just create 10 more people willing to fight the Somalian government and us. Friends and family of the deceased will be angry and take up arms. Kill 1, create 10, oh yeah, great plan. 

     There is no group we can morally back in the decades long civil war. The Somalian government is just as bad as the terrorist group it fights. Just look at any of these human rights reports done on it:

     http://www.hrw.org/africa/somalia 

     http://www.refworld.org/publisher,HRW,,SOM,,,0.html 

     http://www.progressio.org.uk/sites/progressio.org.uk/files/human-rights-in-somaliland.pdf 

     4. End all foreign aid to every single country. 

     We need that money here at home. Even if it is not a lot of money compared to our national budget, it is still money that is being used to slaughter innocents. We cannot have that on our conscience, as I talked about in #2. The U.S., by law, is not allowed to finance terrorist organizations. It's time we actually enforced that law. Plus, morally, we cannot give weapons to terrorists and fascists so they can go and kill innocent civilians. Is that where you want your tax dollars to go to?: Torturing a teenager into giving a false confession? The rape of a woman? The murder of a father? No, didn't think so. 

 

     Cut off every single one of these damn countries! They all oppress their own citizens or citizens of other nations. They kill civilians, they deny people their basic human rights. They have secret police that kidnap people in the dead of night. No fucking more!!! We could've used that $14.5 billion in 2013 for any of a hundred other better programs or causes.

     5. Send NATO into Ukraine to protect its sovereignty against Russia.
     I know, such a radical idea, right?? Since when is defending freedom and human rights against a foreign aggressor who wants to put in a puppet dictator that supports said foreign aggressor deemed "radical"? Ask yourself, how did we come to this point in our global society: Where doing such an action is considered "radical" or "extreme"? Isn't it sad that our liberal wussy society is so scared about getting into a fight with a country that could actually fight back that they label such a noble act "radical"?
     Listen, it's really quite simple. U.S. foreign policy should be based on the premise that we reward and support countries that act on our ideals and morals: democracy, human rights, etc. We should shun and oppose countries that act against our ideals and morals: dictatorships, terrorism, apartheid, wars of aggression, etc.
     We apply this logic to the Ukraine/Russia situation. The Ukrainians overthrew a leader that was oppressing them, corrupt, and a fascist. Our morals tell us that the Ukrainians had the right to do that, and that they followed in the example of our founding fathers by doing so. Russia was furious that their pro-Russian stooge was overthrown, so, rather than try and develop a close relationship with the new Ukrainian government, they would rather invade to try and put another pro-Russian stooge in power so that they can control him. Our morals tell us that Russia is in the wrong. We cannot have any interaction with a country who does that. We tried to solve this problem peacefully, but Russia has broken the cease-fire several times. They engage in "diplomacy" only to create another scenario where they can trick their opponents into getting more of what Russia wants. It has shown us that we cannot trust the Putin administration. This has nothing to do with race or religion, it has everything to do with the specific actions the Putin government has taken.
     But Ukraine isn't part of NATO, you say. Well, that is correct. They are not part of NATO. But they have applied to become part of NATO. So NATO should accept their membership and then defend them against aggressor like they do any other NATO member country.
     Critics will say that a NATO/Russia war will be devastating, and therefore, my idea is completely stupid. Well, it will be devastating, I am not denying that fact. But I will argue that it would be worth it. If this is what it takes to finally teach Russia a lesson that they can't just make up shit and invade countries based on blatant LIES, then so be it. It'll be on Russia's head, not NATO's, all of the death and destruction that would happen. Russia escalated this conflict, not Ukraine or NATO. Ukraine would've never overthrown "President" Yanukovych if he hadn't oppressed them, kidnapped them, tortured them, and killed them for simply asking for basic human rights.

    6. DO NOT BOMB ISIS!!!
    This war will be horrible for everyone except Obama, the military-industrial complex, and the oil industry robber barons, which is exactly why he declared war on ISIS, (well, not formally, like, asking Congress's permission to do so. Apparently that is SO 1940's, and "not needed" in the 21st century). I will explain how it will benefit or hurt every single group involved in this conflict.

• The Iraqi people: Obama said he entered this war for "the Iraqi people." Note: aggressors and imperialists always say they are fighting "for the good of the people" to make their bloodthirsty campaign sound legitimate. But the U.S. will only make the Iraqi people suffer more. How? 1. U.S. warplanes always miss their targets a number of times during a bombing campaign. It happens to everyone, not just the U.S. But eventually, the U.S. will hit civilians, either on accident or on purpose. They will cause civilians to die because it is impossible to hit your targets 100% in a chaotic battlefield. 2. By weakening ISIS, Obama will ensure the survival of the Iraqi government, which, remember, oppresses and kills its own civilians ALL THE FUCKING GOD DAMN TIME. See my past post on how horrible the Iraqi government is, and, based on our morals, we cannot support them any longer: http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/06/what-should-us-do-about-isiss-advance.html. 3. Each ISIS death at the hands of the U.S. will enrage their family and friends, causing even more recruits for ISIS. They will want to fight even harder and slay even more innocent Iraqis to satisfy their bloodlust which was fueled by their friend or family member's death at the hands of U.S. bombs. 
• The U.S.: The world will see the U.S. bombing yet again more Muslims in an attempt to protect an oppressive, corrupt puppet government. This will enrage Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They will flock once again back to Iraq and Syria to fight "the good fight." As if we didn't need the Muslim world more pissed off at us. Just like the 2003 Iraq war drew in thousands of fighters from around the world to fight the imperialistic U.S. occupation, so will this conflict. We have 1,200 U.S. soldiers in Iraq right now, and more come every month or so. How long before ISIS attacks them? ISIS has anti-air weapons in its arsenal. How long before they shoot down one of our aircraft? Nothing gives a morale booster like shooting down a multi-million dollar aircraft, which seems invincible by the sight of men armed with assault rifles, with a missile that cost a couple of thousand dollars. The world will continue to isolate us as a result of our imperialistic, blood spilling actions. We haven't defeated the Taliban in 13 years. What makes you think we can defeat ISIS, who is a lot stronger than the Taliban, any faster? This will just accelerate attacks on Western civilians worldwide as well as U.S. soldiers. 
• The Syrian people. Yes, ISIS commits barbaric acts of terrorism and oppression against the Syrian people. No one in denying that. But by weakening ISIS, you are strengthening another entity it is fighting: the Assad government. And the Assad government is just as bad as ISIS, despite what the mainstream media says. In fact, the Assad government has caused infinite more times death and destruction because it has been around for decades. ISIS has only been around 2 or 3 years. Assad kidnaps people, ISIS kidnaps people. Assad tortures people, ISIS tortures people. Assad beheads people, ISIS beheads people. Assad kills people simply for their religion, ISIS kills people simply for their religion. They are one in the same, and our morals tell us that we cannot support either entity. 
• The military-industrial complex: Oh they're loving this. Killing and maiming is their business, and with this newest war, business is good! (Yes I quoted Dave Mustaine, deal with it bitches). This war means more ludicrous contracts for companies producing weapons, vehicles, and hardware for the U.S. military. This means more opportunities to test their weapons. This means the politicians will push for more defense spending, because anyone who is against more defense spending is obviously a liberal terrorist (heavy sarcasm). 
• The oil industry: Pushing ISIS off the oil fields of Iraq and letting the puppet Iraq government take back control of them is perfect for the oil industry. Now they can continue to steal Iraq's natural resources and sell them for ridiculous prices so they can lavish in their unbridled wealth!

     To end, this article sums up why Obama's ISIS speech was an utter and complete load of fucking horseshit:  http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/barack-obama-islamicstatestrategyspeech.html?utm_content=opinion&utm_campaign=ajam&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow 

     7. Get the fuck out of Afghanistan. 

     We have been in Afghanistan for 13 YEARS. That's since I was in 6th grade for crying out loud. More than half of my life we have been in this stupid, ridiculous, unnecessary war. Al-Qaeda wanted us to get stuck in Afghanistan for years, and guess what, our stupid incompetent leaders fell for it. They did 9/11 so we'd get stuck fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, (btw, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are two completely different organizations. Contrary to the mainstream media, the Taliban had NOTHING to do with 9/11). In the meantime, Al-Qaeda spread to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. The Afghanistan War was one of the best things to happen to Al-Qaeda.

     We're wasting billions and billions of dollars every year by staying in Afghanistan, while all of our efforts are making Americans less safe, not more safe. The war has tarnished our international image, making us the laughing stock of the world because our military cannot defeat men hiding in caves with AK-47s and goats. The war has been a gathering point for jihadists all over the world to hone in their skills so they can create more mayhem and death in other parts of the world. The military-industrial complex is loving the war though. 13 years of solid business with the military and related government agencies. 13 years to test out all their various weapons. 13 years of happy senators passing big "defense" bills. 

     If we really wanted to defeat Al-Qaeda, we would have to do it a completely different way that neither Obama nor Bush has done. But instead, we sought out to put in a puppet government in Afghanistan, that is corrupt and oppressive, so we can control it, and, in the process, control it's vast mineral wealth for ourselves, as well as control a strategic point in Asia.

     So there you have it, Obama's foreign policy 101 that he will never do because that would actually help spread freedom and stop suffering throughout the world. No, he'd rather kill people and plunder countries so he can line his already fat pockets with even more money. No one is going to stop him. The Democrats cheer him on as he continues to slaughter thousands, and the Republicans would do the same thing if they were in charge, (they proved that with Reagen and Bush). America feeds off chaos and death around the world. Because, who would sell weapons to terrorists, put in puppet governments, and steal resources if we didn't do it?!       

         

    

   

     
      

The Disconnect between Stated Goals and Actions Done

(The following is a paper I wrote for grad school, and I thought was an appropriate entry for this blog. Yeah, it's gonna be a lot different than my usual posts, I get it :D Of course, the pictures are added for this entry only, I didn't put them in the paper.)
 
           A never ending and ever changing part of U.S. foreign policy is which countries the U.S. give military/economic/political aid to. These gifts and transactions of goods and services are done either based on a set of principles and norms that supposedly the U.S. and the foreign country share, or, they are done to further the United States’ interests abroad. Some of these principles and norms include democracy, defense of human rights, wanting their citizens to be prosperous, and respect for international law. What is disturbing is, in many cases, the U.S. gives this aid to a foreign country that is openly hostile to these principles and norms. Policy makers in the U.S. government say that’s not the case, yet by all standards, a rational analysis of the country, records of breaking international law in relation to these principles, and reports done by human rights organizations, the foreign country does not share the principles and values that the U.S. claims to hold. Other times, the United States’ stated interest runs contrary to the values it says that it proclaims. That leads to an observation that the stated interest really is not going to establish or strengthen democracy in the foreign country. This review will demonstrate the positive results of giving military/economic/political aid to a country that does want to uphold democratic values, without bending the rules due to race, religion, or radical self-interest groups. 

             

          The first article is titled “Democratization of the State: A Global Perspective and South African Case Study” by Richard Harris. It talks about how to establish a democracy that is free to all in a country that was previously authoritarian. This is relevant because most of the United States’ military aid goes to countries that were/are authoritarian and that the United States’ supposedly wants them to become more democratic. The author says in simple terms that the way to establish democracy in a country is to establish democratic norms; to show the people in that country that these norms are the best way to do certain processes. Do not force them to do these norms, because that will just push them away from doing them, even from something that may benefit them. Show them, by example and logical/rational reasoning that these norms are what it takes to protect human rights, reduce corruption, etc.

            An important term that the author introduces in this article is “low-intensity democracy,” a term that describes a government that uses formal democratic institutions as a cover for continued authoritarian rule and/or foreign domination. This relates to a point made earlier that U.S. officials claim the countries they are giving military aid to are democratic, or at least trying to be democratic. The fact is, most of them aren’t. They’re simply low-intensity democracies. U.S. officials point to the formal democratic institutions as the basis of their claim that these countries are democratic, but upon further inspection, it is evident that these governments are corrupt, authoritarian, and extremely violent towards civilians for political gain, (terrorism).

            The second journal reviewed is titled “Compound Democracy and the Control of Corruption: A Cross-Country Investigation” by Alok K. Bohara, Neil J. Mitchell, and Carl F. Mittendorff. The journal talks about the effect democracy has on corruption. The study focused on four countries: India, Nigeria, Sweden, and Japan. It included various aspects of the countries and their governments such as GDP per capita, amount of government intervention in the marketplace, and amount of trade the country does with other countries. An important point from the journal is that the larger a government gets, the more opportunities for corruption there are. This supports the claim that less government is better for the people. Therefore, according to the article, if the American government wants to decrease corruption around the world, its policies must focus on reducing the size of government. American military support, economic support, and political support should revolve around this principle.

            Another important point is that the greater amount of government intervention in the marketplace also increases the opportunities for corruption. This point supports the same claim as stated in the paragraph above. Also, democracy helps countries win wars. The reasons for this is because the political culture of a democracy is better suited for warfare, the public’s consent is more powerful in a democracy vs an autocratic state, and the leader is accountable to the voters. The logical conclusion from this point would be that if the United States truly wants to help protect other populations’ human rights, it’s policies must support democracy around the globe because when a country can win a war, it can defend itself from aggressive wars and potential foreign occupation. Both of these types of conflicts trample on a multitude of human rights.

            The most important point this journal had was that corruption in a country’s government prevents other countries from coming to help that particular country. Any economic aid that comes to a corrupt government just gets taken by the corrupt officials, and hardly any, if any, actual aid comes to the poor population of that country. Military aid would just give more might to the army to oppress and kill their citizens for trying to exercise their basic human rights. So if the United States wants to help a country that is corrupt, it cannot give aid to the government to do so. It must identify opposition parties that are not corrupt, or other NGOs/human rights organizations/moderate secular rebels, (whatever the case may be in that particular country), and pinpoint which ones are in line with true American values, the ones this country was based on. That way, the American people would know that their hard-earned taxpayer money would be going towards an organization that was not in conflict with American values. 

             The links and commonality of these two articles is that they are two steps to understanding democracy. The first article talks about how to establish it, and the second article talks about what its effects will be once it is established. Stating how they are common also illustrates how they are different: they represent two different time periods on the road to democracy i.e. one has to happen before the other.

            The third article continues on this linear concept of democracy establishment/implementation, even though it is entirely possible to go backwards in this process. The article is titled “Implications of Globalization in the Teaching of Public Administration in Africa: The Case of Nigeria” by Robert Dibie. Its title is a clear statement on what it is about. Countries have to develop their own way of education that fits their specific needs. Simply borrowing a system from a rich Western country will not work. The author says “It became apparent in the nation that it is wrong to undermine all that is indigenous in favor of all that is western.’  

            The article answers the question “Why does Nigeria have a lack of qualified teachers and inadequate resources to have a decent public administration program to better itself?” The three answers are because of low salaries, inadequate infrastructure, and lack of security. If the U.S. goal is to help Nigeria have a decent public administration program, its policies have to solve these three problems. If it’s policies help contribute to these problems, then it cannot claim that it wants Nigeria to have the program.

            What this third article has in common with the previous two articles is that is illustrates how U.S. policy can (has) deviated from its stated goal, and has created situations that it publically says that it is against. It points to a necessary revaluation of U.S. foreign policy related specifically to the main topic of this review: U.S. military/economic/political aid and support, because by the results of the studies done in these three articles, the U.S. policies are not achieving their stated goals. It provides a starting point from which U.S. policy makers can create new policies. The articles do not say specifically what these U.S. policies are, but that is outside the scope of this review. However, a short amount of time invested in research, having the background that these articles provide, would result in finding these U.S. policies without a problem. 

            The fourth article is titled “Governance in a Globalizing World” by Jamil Jreisat. It talks about the very same issues as the third article: Governance and how globalization affects it. It specifically focuses on what are the consequences of a global power “going rouge,” so to speak. Such actions that would fall under this category would be changing the international commerce rules to benefit itself at the expense of weaker, poorer countries, making up false pretexts as an excuse for a war of aggression, and trampling on peoples’ (whether its own citizens or others), basic human rights. The article states that a constitution is the basis for democracy and protecting citizens’ human rights. No democracy does not have a constitution, whether written or un-written, although it points out that there are some authoritarian governments that do have a constitution. In other words, a democracy has to have a constitution, but just because it has one doesn’t mean it is a democracy.   

            Globalization brings many benefits to a country, including more trading opportunities, closer economic ties that can foster closer political ties, and the sharing of best practices, lessons learned, etc, in all areas of public administration. However, globalization can be severely reversed if a strong, world power country goes rogue, doing some of the actions listed in the previous paragraph. Globalization cannot happen if a powerful country has an “empire-building approach with imperial authority to put down challenges rather than to persuade and to negotiate agreements.” This means that if a world power such as the United States wants to foster more globalization between itself and other countries, it must refrain from committing actions that would severely reverse globalization. If the U.S. continuingly commits actions, on purpose, that guarantee the reversal of globalization, then one must question if the U.S. truly wants to foster more globalization or not.

            Both the third and fourth articles talk about the latest step in the establishment of democracy, but the fourth article talks about the concept in wide, non-tangible descriptions that are not specific to one country or region, while the third article focuses just on South Africa as its example. Together, they provide a solid basis for understanding how globalization affects democracy. One without the other would not be as effective in explaining this concept. If just the third article was presented, a reader might be left wondering how the lessons learned in South Africa could apply to any other country experiencing the same problem. If only the fourth article was presented, the reader could possibly be confused as to how these abstract, non-tangible practices would actually look on the ground in a country.

            The fifth and final article is titled “Introduction: Benefit of U.S. Educational Assistance

in the Eastern European Transformation” by James McCollum and Niles Schoening. The basic premise of this journal is that the more education a country has, the more democratic it becomes. There are very few highly educated socialists and fascists. Communism, in of itself, has inherent deficiencies. The authors suggest that the U.S. should only offer educational assistance to organizations/countries that believe in democracy. Communists, or other people that believe in tyranny, would only use that education to further control and subjugate people. Therefore, offering educational assistance to them would not further the U.S. goal of spreading democracy. The last point the journal makes is that any educational program that the U.S. sends to a foreign country has to be sensitive to the local culture; it is not a one size fits all. This is the same point that the 3^rd article, the one about globalization in Nigeria, mentioned, when it said that simply using a Western educational model in a non-Western country will not work.   

            The significance of this last article in relation to the other articles goes back to the concept of democratization as a process that was talked about when linking the other articles together. To recap, the first article talks about how to establish democracy. The second article talks about the situation right after establishment: what effects democracy will have and how it will reduce corruption. The third one talks about what effects globalization will have on this young democracy, (which globalization is inevitable at this point in history, unless one is a state like North Korea). The fourth article talks about how to govern with globalization happening all around one’s country. This is very similar to the third article’s main point. And finally, the fifth article talks about the role of education, that could happen before, after, or in-between any of these points. That observation points to the value of education: it can light the spark to create democracy, it can help a fledgling democracy once it is established, and it can help a democracy combat the ill side effects of globalization at any point of the country’s level of globalization.

            In conclusion, these journals do not directly spout policy recommendations to the United States government in relation to its efforts to spread democracy throughout the world, as that is not the journals’ goal. Their goal is simply to state the facts in way that would help ignite U.S. policymakers to think in a rational, logical, and non-biased manner: “If I want to achieve goals XYZ, how would I do that?” Such policies that would come out of such a brainstorm or discussion would be: Not to give military aid/training to fascist regimes or governments that support terrorism, identifying and helping organizations that are democratic within a despotic or tyrannical country, and not breaking these policies due to the lobbying of radical self-interest groups or racial or religious bias. The government must have principles and stick to them no matter what in order to make sure their democratization efforts are effective overseas. These journals, when read together, also show what are the consequences when there is a disconnect between a country’s stated goals and actions committed in order to achieve that goal. It is outside of the scope of this journal review to directly command “The United States must do XYZ.” Instead, it focuses on a specific aspect of the U.S. foreign policy. It provides the basis for the conversation of “If the United States says that it wants to achieve XYZ, yet commits actions that will certainly not achieve XYZ, these are the consequences that will follow.” 

Works Cited

            Alok K. Bohara, Neil J. Mitchell, and Carl F. Mittendorff, (2004). Compound Democracy and the Control of Corruption: A Cross-Country Investigation. The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, 2004.

            Robert Dibie Ph.D. (2004) Implications of Globalization in the Teaching of Public Administration in Africa: The Case of Nigeria, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:3-4, 151-169.

            Richard L. Harris (2004) Democratization of the State: A Global Perspective and South African Case Study, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:13-14, 1061-1100.

            Jamil Jreisat (2004) Governance in a Globalizing World, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:13-14, 1003-1029.

            James K. McCollum & Niles C. Schoening (2004) Introduction: Benefit of U.S. Educational Assistance in the Eastern European Transformation, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:11-12, 821-827.

More evidence that the US has a terrorist government

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch recently released a publication that, in essence, shows that the US government is killing a lot more civilians in countries like Pakistan and Yemen that they freely admit.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/security-and-human-rights/drones/will-i-be-next
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o5GOvAarMc
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/10/21/us-reassess-targeted-killings-yemen

The numbers speak for themselves:

• In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the 82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman.
• Amnesty International said it found strong evidence that more than 30 civilians were killed in four of the attacks in Pakistan. 
• The groups’ findings coincide with a report released Friday by a U.N. human rights investigator, who estimated that 2,200 people have been killed in drone strikes over the past decade in Pakistan. Of those casualties, at least 400 were civilians and 200 others were “probable noncombatants,” according to the U.N. official, Ben Emmerson. He said the statistics were provided by Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry.
• Amnesty International highlighted a July 6, 2012, drone attack in the village of Zowi Sidgi, near the city of Miran Shah, in which it said 18 civilians — including a 14-year-old boy — were killed. 
• In December 2009, a US cruise missile strike on a Bedouin camp in the southern village of al-Majalah killed 14 alleged AQAP fighters and 41 civilians, two-thirds of them women and children. The attack involved cluster munitions – inherently indiscriminate weapons that pose unacceptable dangers to civilians.

The ages of the victims speak for themselves:

• By the end (of 2 particular drone strikes in Pakistan), 18 people were dead, including at 14-year-old boy, and 22 others were wounded, including an 8-year-old girl.
• It recounts another strike, in October 2012, in which a 68-year-old woman, Mamana Bibi, was blown apart by a drone as she picked vegetables in front of her grandchildren, several of whom were injured in the attack. 

Shakira, a Pakistani girl that was 1 year old when a US drone strike hit her and disfigured her. Was she a terrorist? Was she a future producer of terrorists???

The refusal of responsibility, the lack of transparency, and the arrogance of our government acting like a complete God damn dick speaks for itself:

•  With rare exceptions, the US government only acknowledges its role in targeted killings in general terms, refusing to take responsibility for individual strikes or provide casualty figures, including civilian deaths. The Yemeni authorities have been almost as silent. Both governments declined comment on the six strikes that Human Rights Watch investigated.   
• The six strikes also did not meet US policy guidelines for targeted killings that Obama disclosed in May 2013, Human Rights Watch said. 
•  The U.S. government almost never publicly acknowledges its role in individual drone strikes, and its legal justifications for targeting specific people are shrouded in secrecy. 
•  But in virtually all cases, the groups said, it was impossible to know whether the targets had met Obama’s threshold of posing an imminent threat to the United States, because U.S. officials have kept that information a secret.

The aftermath of a Pakistani wedding, bombed by an American drone. If this happened at your wedding, wouldn't you be PISSED OFF?!

What is the definition of terrorism? That's right, killing unarmed civilians. That's what the US is doing, and has been doing for centuries. It's time to get people out of their comfort zones. People feel uncomfortable talking about the crimes that their country's soldiers do, or admitting that they aren't 100% perfect little angels. Fuck your uncomfortableness. People are dying by the thousands because of the American peoples' lazy inaction. The American people could easily solve 90% of the nation's problems by simply voting third party, but no, they still vote for Republicans and Democrats, while both parties are working tirelessly day and night to ruin us.

Look at the facts, look at the stats, look at history, look at peoples' stories. The US HAS A TERRORIST GOVERNMENT. Our American values compel us to get rid of this fucking government as fast as possible, any way we can. Our government is an insult to it's people. It kills innocents on purpose to rile up the friends and families of those killed, so they can justify their one-sided war to get more power and resources.  People have the right to be mad at America. People have the right to fight against America, because America has killed their innocents. If someone killed your wife/husband/son/daughter, wouldn't you think it would be justified if you fought back and killed the murderer?

Afghani children, killed by an American airstrike. Why do we sit in silence when our soldiers kill innocents, yet we constantly demand that citizens of other countries condemn their terrorists? Do not ask someone to do something that you are unwilling to do yourself.

Simply saying basic sentences about the US government will make it easier and more comfortable for you to talk about these concepts. Stating "People have the right to take up arms against America" starts the conversation. We need to have these painful conversations. Yes, it's uncomfortable to talk about these concepts, but the government has pushed this on itself.  Only then can we work towards purging the terrorists out of our government.

Oh, America isn't the only one to blame for this. Drone strikes require the approval of the country it's happening in, otherwise, they would attack our drones with their Air Force or ground to air defenses. But they don't. They let America kill their citizens. The Pakistani and Yemeni are corrupt, self-centered oligarchies that do not care about the well-being of their citizens. They oppress them, denying them the most basic of human rights. Those governments need to be overthrown just as much as America's government needs to be. Without "foreign aid," aka, bribery, from the US, (paid by us, the taxpayers), these governments would not last a month. They're simply puppet governments that allow the US to do what it wants in their country.       

Why the hell are we still in Afghanistan? Let's get the fuck out!

     With Syria and Egypt dominating the headlines in recent weeks, it's easy to forget that we're still fighting the war in Afghanistan. I mean, it's only the longest war in U.S. history. It's been going on for so long that people just take it for granted that it will always be there. It's been going on for the majority of my lifetime. I remember when it started, when I was in 6th grade. It seems like an eternity ago. And yet we're still there, wasting American lives and money, for what?!

Afghan kids killed by a NATO airstrike

      Osama Bin Laden has been dead for over two years. Al-Qaeda has mostly moved on from Afghanistan and into Pakistan, Yemen, and Northern Africa. It makes no sense that we still have tens of thousands of soldiers and mercenaries in Afghanistan, and thousands of civilian workers risking their lives for the rich American oligarchy that has America in it's greedy vice. In fact, this whole war has NEVER made any sense. It's not like it was a good idea at the beginning and then turned bad, no, it was rotten from the very core, the very beginning. I will make this argument by listing the reasons the U.S. government gave for invading Afghanistan back in 2001, and go into each reason individually and say why each one of them is complete bullshit.

1. To go after Al-Qaeda: You don't send hundreds of thousands of soldiers halfway across the world to go after a couple of dozen of people. Wait, what's that you asked? Al-Qaeda was only several dozen people at the time of 9/11? Yep, that's right: http://blogs.reuters.com/afghanistan/2010/09/16/how-many-al-qaeda-can-you-live-with/  Al-Qaeda was only 200 members at the time of 9/11. That's 200 worldwide, total. Who knows how many of those 200 were in Afghanistan, but even it was the majority, like 101, you don't send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fight 101 people. Anyone who knows anything the military, policing tactics, counter-insurgency, would know that is a HORRIBLE idea. You would be much more effective if you did small scale counter-insurgency operations with a small force of elite units like a SEAL team or the Army Rangers. They would do home invasions, disrupting operations, infiltration, drone strikes, etc. If you send a whole bunch of troops over, they end up dealing and wasting time with other people that are not Al-Qaeda. Which is exactly what happened. The insurgency against the US is not an Al-Qaeda insurgency, it's a Taliban one. We ended up fighting the Taliban, who had nothing to do with 9/11, and who offered to give us Bin Laden, but we rejected that offer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm Why did we reject that offer? Because we wanted to go to war!!!!
2. To deny Al-Qaeda the space needed to plan another attack against us: That's an impossible task to deny any group, because you only need one house to have the resources and space needed to pull off an attack like 9/11. Remember, 9/11 was committed by only 19 people. To deny people that such a small amount of space, you would need to have a soldier in every house in the world, and we have an Constitutional amendment against that, motherfuckers. 
3. The Taliban, by allowing Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to be in Afghanistan, were guilty of the crimes of 9/11 just as much: No, just because you know someone, or have someone over to your house, does not mean you are guilty of all the crimes they may have done. That's like if a radical French group attacked the US, so then we respond by invading and occupying France. It wasn't the French people's fault, they aren't responsible for the crimes of a few. It wasn't the French government's fault, they didn't do anything. So it makes absolutely no sense to invade and occupy Afghanistan for the crimes of a couple of dozen people. 

     So if it wasn't for any of those reasons, then why did we invade Afghanistan?

• To establish a base of operations that is strategically located in Central Asia, i.e. to better run operations in Iran, Pakistan, etc. That's right, we invaded an innocent country to better our military and political standing in the world. This is something that we should leave back in the 18th and 19th centuries. That's something straight out of a video game or a board game, not real life. To be civilized people, we don't invade other countries just to strengthen ourselves. The government and its media lackeys made up this whole narration listed above to make our invasion sound legitimate, when in fact it was only launched to benefit the military-industrial complex.
• To get the vast amount of mineral resources that are in Afghanistan, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0  Again, we only did it to better ourselves, our own fat pockets. The government didn't care about protecting us or saving Afghan women. No, they did it for wealth.

        So there you have it. The entire Afghan war narrative that we have been fed, some from childhood, has been ONE ENTIRE STINKING FUCKING BULLSHIT LIE. Every person in the Bush Administration who was for the Afghan war should be hanged for launching a terrorist war against a people who were minding their own fucking business. So, 12 years later, what can the average American citizen do to try and bring this phony war to an end?

1. Write to the president and your elected officials, saying, in more politer terms of course: "BRING THE FUCKING TROOPS HOME."
2. Look at the voting record of any elected official running for office that you can vote for. If he/she voted to go to war or voted at any time to keep being in the war, do not vote for that candidate. That will send a message to the government that the American people are sick and tired of going to war to benefit the 1% and the military industrial complex. 
3. Explore the platform of the Libertarian party. Both Republicans and Democrats are addicted to starting long wars that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people who didn't do a single damn thing, just to line their pockets with more money and power. But Libertarians offer an alternative to the "two party" system that is ruining our country, primarily because it is no longer a two party system, but rather an elitist oligarchy. Their official website is:  http://www.lp.org/  
4. Speak out against the war, just like I'm doing now. It can be over social media, it can be a protest in front of the White House, it can be a petition, etc. Get the word out, start people talking about this, because silence is compliance. If we're silent, that gives our jackass government the red light to continue this illegal, immoral, terrorist war.       

 

Condemn Terrorist Attacks, No Matter Who the Perpetrator Is

         I’m going to talk about the one thing that no one is talking about when it comes to the story of Malala Yousufazi, the 14 year old Pakistani girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban. 

          Before I get into that, I am glad that so many governments, so many news channels, and so many people from all over the globe are united in their condemnation and utmost disgust of this attack. With it being hard for people of different faiths or races to agree on anything now in days, it is heartening to see such a diverse group of unified people on such an important issue. But, once you look closer at this, with historical context, you notice that there is something very wrong about this.

          No, I’m not saying we should not condemn this act of terrorism, that’s not my point at all. We should condemn it. My problem with it is: Why is that when a Muslim injures or kills someone in a terrorist attack, Westerners are quick to condemn that attack, but when a Westerner does the exact same fucking thing to a Muslim victim, the number of Westerners condemning the attack sharply decreases to very few people?

          Every single major U.S. news station has reported on Malala’s story, (CNN, FOX, CBS, MSNBC, etc). So why haven’t they expressed the same amount of outrage or given the same amount of coverage say when, American soldiers have shot unarmed Iraqi civilians on purpose? (Sometimes they’ve shot children in the head, the exact same thing that happened to Malala.) Why aren’t they disgusted when American soldiers bomb unarmed Afghani civilians? Why aren’t they repulsed when American drones bomb a funeral procession in Somali, or a wedding in Pakistan, or students in Yemen? Why why why why? No American has ever been able to answer me this question. No one. 

 

An Afghani child that was shot in the head by American soldiers

          This is very disturbing. The majority of Westerners, particularly the majority of Americans, have no problem with one of their fellow citizens, (Read: someone who “looks like them,”) murdering an innocent civilian that is not American, especially if that innocent civilian is Muslim, (Read: the mysterious, foreign, dangerous “Other,”). Our current culture hypes up people’s egos so much, turning them into megalomaniacs, that they honestly believe that Americans are genetically superior to every other nation in the world, so, we can do things that everyone else can’t. The rules that apply to everyone else in the world, don’t apply to us. We’re just that fucking special. 

          Now, not everyone who gives Americans a pass on terrorist attack is a self-absorbed prick. I’ve met some good, honest, nice people who do the same thing. Now why is that? Simply, it makes them feel too awkward, or too uncomfortable, to admit that their soldiers do such things. They don’t want to face the facts of all of the millions of civilians American soldiers have murdered over the decades, (centuries actually, if you want to go back to colonial times, but let’s not overwhelm ourselves here). So, they simply never talk about it. They never admit it. If someone brings it up in a debate or an argument, they physically cannot say anything else; they just sit there.

          An American being the villain and a Muslim being the victim simply cannot compute for many Americans. That is not the official narrative of the government and their media lackeys. That is not what they hear when they are growing up. So, if anyone says otherwise, (like me), I’m simply an American hating terrorist. They completely disregard all my facts, charts, graphs, testimonies, history books, etc, etc, etc, i.e. all the overwhelming evidence that I have, with name calling. How immature.      

                                            An Iraqi civilian killed by American forces       

          If we can’t condemn our own terrorists, then why do we expect every other nation in the world to condemn their own terrorists? You can’t tell someone to do something that you are not willing to do yourself. The answer goes back to the megalomaniac point earlier: “We’re Americans, we don’t have to condemn Americans for anything, because we don’t commit any terrorist acts. We are only hard workers and heroes. However, you Islamic countries, you guys are all terrorists, so you have to condemn each and every terrorist attack a Muslim commits.”

          Don’t think other nations get a pass on this either. It’s not just Americans that do this. Every single other nation has the exact same sick problem. They condemn terrorist attacks right and left, but as soon as someone of their own nation commits a terrorist attack, they fall deathly silent. Israel, Palestine, Russia, Syria, Nigeria, Mexico, Burma, etc, etc, all of them do the exact same thing.

          We, as Americans, need to get over the awkwardness and the stigma that comes with condemning our own soldiers. I have no fear of walking up to an American soldier and saying “American soldiers kill innocent civilians on purpose.” Because it’s true. Look at history, YouTube, the news, etc. The facts are on my side. No one should be afraid of saying the truth. There is nothing un-American about calling a blatant terrorist attack, a blatant terrorist attack ,even if that terrorist is an American soldier. If you are a truly principled person, then race/nationality should have no role in whether you condemn a terrorist attack or not. If it does, then that means you are truly not against terrorist attacks. You’re only against terrorist attacks, as long as the terrorist is not an American. That’s right. You support terrorism. What does that say about your morals, your character, your values? 

                                 The site of a Pakistani wedding bombed by a U.S. drone

          Think on it, and you’ll see why so many people around the world hate America. And, you’ll see that hate is not stemmed in ignorance, or jealously, no, it’s because they want us to stop killing them! Wow, who would’ve thought that killing unarmed civilians would piss people off?!