Beautiful day for a parade

Russia brought out its tanks for a parade to celebrate their victory over the Nazis in World War II. They also brought out posters with the sickle and hammer insignia of the old communist regime. Are they returning to their old pre-cold war ways? It was a time when Russia felt more in control of their destiny even though it was, and still is, a failed idealism.

Should we view Russia as a threat to the U.S.? As a potential threat, yes. Maybe not in direct military conflict but Russia sells military equipment to Syria, Iran, China and Venezuela. It supports the development of Iranian nuclear technology and blocks Kosovo independence. It has cut off gas to Ukraine, imposed economic sanctions on Georgia and launched a cyber war against a NATO ally, Estonia.

Even though Russia rolled out tanks based on equipment designed decades ago, and their current military force is nowhere near communist era levels they have been busy formulating plans to replace nearly half of its hardware by 2015 with newer more sophisticated equipment such as a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and possibly a fleet of aircraft carriers. Every nation has the right to modernize its military for defense purposes, as newly elected president Dmitry Medvedev said in the celebratory parade’s opening speech "the true purpose of weapons and military equipment is to give reliable defense of the homeland."

The danger of having a large military for the purpose of “defense” is that military leaders get tired of playing war ‘games’. They want their military prowess to be tested under ‘live conditions’ and in the wrong hands that military can be used for offensive purposes. Just look at how George W. Bush used our “defense” military against Iraq.

The fact that Russia is returning to the tradition of showing off their military in a communist era show of military might raises concerns that Russia has aggressive ambitions.

Putin cemented his central authority over regional leaders by undermining their authority, independent media, both houses of parliament, independent political parties and civil society. At the same time, he increased the role of the Federal Security Service, the successor to the KGB, in governing Russia and has arbitrarily politicized such state institutions as the courts, tax collectors and the police. Putin's regime also made it increasingly difficult for U.S. business and nongovernmental organizations to operate in Russia. As Russia's retreat from democratic values increasingly becomes a source of tension between it and the West, Moscow, in turn, sees less value in trying to cooperate with NATO, the European Union and the U.S.

Putin’s shift away from Russia’s new found democracy is placing the United States as Russia’s No. 1 enemy. Russian state-controlled television is showing how the U.S. is surrounding Russia with military bases, fomenting pro-American revolutions in countries neighboring Russia and seizing Russian natural resources.

In April, Putin warned, "There is a growing influx of foreign cash used directly to meddle in our domestic affairs. . . . Not everyone likes the stable, gradual rise of our country." In May, Putin said that threats to Russia from the West "are not diminishing. They are only transforming, changing their appearance. In these new threats, as during the time of the Third Reich, are the same contempt for human life and the same claims of exceptionality and diktat in the world."

Today, The U.S. is bogged down in unwinnable wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and morally discredited in the eyes of the international community as a unilateral, interventionist power and violator of human rights. Thanks to George W. Bush’s mishandling of foreign policy Russia believes that only hard power, not values, matter in international politics.

We go into countries with a holier than thou attitude and preach to them about human relations when right here in America New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are still in a shambles, our economic system is failing us, our government is spying on us, there is a disproportionate number of blacks in prison, we are making a huge deal out of possibly electing the first woman or first black as president in our 230 year history and we back our foreign policy with military strength.

Is it any wonder Russia views us with suspicion? Should we be surprised that Russia wants to do some saber rattling of its own as a warning to the U.S.?

Relations between the two countries has been strained due in part to Bush’s insistence that a new missile defense system, purportedly to defend against long range missiles from Iran and North Korea, be installed within range of Russia. Putin believes the real target of the missile shield is clearly Russia and its vast nuclear arsenal.

In 2002, Mr. Putin and George Bush signed a treaty obliging both sides to cut strategic nuclear weapons by about two-thirds by 2012. Installing a new European missile defense system sends the message that we don’t trust Russia to keep up their end of the bargain. Russian-U.S. ties have since worsened steadily over other disagreements on Iraq and other global crises, and U.S. concerns about an authoritarian streak in Russia's domestic policy.

Recent expulsions of military attaches to the Russian Embassy in the U.S. led to Russia’s response of expelling two U.S. military attaches from Russia. Neither side will comment on reasons behind the expulsions but one can’t help but wonder if cold-war era spy games are returning.

Putin’s adoption of a new military doctrine that names the USA and NATO as potential enemies indicates a step up in the preparation for conflict. Much like what Bush is doing towards Iran.

A Russian Tupolev 95 bomber recently flew directly over an American aircraft carrier twice in the western Pacific at an altitude of about 2,000 feet while another one circled about 58 miles out. Such Russian bomber flights were common during the Cold War, but have been rare since. This is further indication of Russia’s growing animosity towards the U.S.

But really, what has Russia to fear from the U.S.? They do have all of that oil and the U.S. has shown it is not above invading a sovereign nation to ensure continued access to oil.

The bottom line is that we have done this to ourselves. And we have George W. Bush and his paranoid cronies to thank for it.

Another attempt to rewrite history

George W Bush is in Israel this week with plans to broker a peace deal in a region that knows nothing but war and hate, and subscribes heavily to revenge as a matter of national policy.

That region will never know peace. This attempt to paint himself as a stalwart of foreign policy and a ‘friend to the world’ will fail as badly as his attempt to present himself as an environmentalist after signing one weak, lame piece of environmental legislation. And the very fact that he thinks just by taking this one action will reverse the effects his illegal actions had on Iraq just proves how much faith he puts in Americas gullibility.

Mr. president, your record on foreign policy is abominable. Do you honestly think the American history books will portray you as a peace activist by virtue of this one trip in this final year of your eight year term? You think you will be exonerated for your crimes against the constitution and the American public by shaking hands with foreign dignitaries in their own land?

The bloody shadows of Iraq and Afghanistan, the campaign of hate against Iran, the threat of World War III, the destabilization of relations with Russia, the egotistical stance against any attempt to combat global warming, these are not the earmarks of a master of foreign relations.

The spying on American citizens in our own homes, the replacing of military leadership until you found one that agrees with you, the rewriting of scientific finding until they matched your personal beliefs, the refusal to do anything meaningful to alleviate environmental pollution, the blatant appointments of under-qualified personnel to key administration posts, the denigration of habeas corpus, the weakening value of our dollar, the selling out of the cornerstone of our economy (Wall Street) to foreign investors, exposing CIA operatives, covering up crimes under the guise of executive privilege, profiteering from war under the threat of terrorist attacks on our shores.

Just what good have you done for this country? This list of crimes against the American people is disgusting, sir. And this doesn’t even begin to address the crimes and short comings of your personal life that were overlooked due to your ties with your father.

If you had not been born into such a wealthy politically powerful family, I have no doubt your life will have ended up an alcoholic wreck depending on the very charities your political party turns its back on, cowering from the police state you have managed to foster. You could very well have become a victim of the very egregious record number of Texas death row inmates you helped populate as Texas governor.

The best thing to happen to this country will be the collective departure of you and your administration from public office. It cannot happen soon enough.

You and your puppet masters may attempt to rewrite history, sir, but the majority of people in this country know you and Dick Cheney for what you really are, sad remnants of an old west mentality of shoot to kill and declare yourself as the moral, law-abiding authority.

What is the real goal of this Iraq War and who is behind it?

Why are we still in Iraq? Why did we go there at all? Was it really to remove Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction? If that was the case then we have no business being there because there are no weapons of mass destruction.

Was it to remove Saddam Hussein from power? Mission accomplished, lets go home and resume our lives.

Was it to get control of Iraq’s oil resource for our own use? Not going to happen. Lets go home and work on alternative sources of energy like we should have been anyway.

Was it to fight terrorism? The only reason there are terrorist in Iraq now is because the U.S. brought them there by attacking Iraq. Let’s go home and protect our borders better and fight them here. I guarantee you they will not have the same will to fight us on our own turf.

Was it to show the world that we are truly the only world power and the rest of the world should recognize us for it? That isn’t working because if we truly are the only world power then we would have ‘won’ in Iraq by now.

Was it because war times have historically strengthened the U.S. economy by putting more Americans to work? Look around, we are losing jobs to cheaper foreign work forces. So, I don’t think that goal was achieved.

Was it so George W. Bush could ‘avenge’ his father for not taking out Saddam during the first Gulf War? Maybe he will some day decide to be candid enough to actually admit that there is more truth to this part of the story that he has ever let on.

As an American citizen, I am deeply confused about why we are there and why we stay.

The politicians and generals have all lied to us about how the war is progressing, all you have to do is read alternative news sources and listen to the troops who have actually served there to know that is true. Since they are lying to us about what is really happening there, they want something out of this war than what they are leading us to believe. Traditionally, 'winning' a war results in us marching away as the victor while people shower us with thanks and goodwill for relieving their suffering from the dictatorial rule of some madman. That, clearly, is not what is happening in Iraq. Therefore, a different goal has been set for Iraq.

The Pentagon, Haliburton, all of their subsidiaries and all of the other U.S. based contractors are making a lot of money off of this war. Profits they could not have dreamed of during a peace-time economy. As is usually always the case, if you follow the money trail you will learn the real reason behind why people in power do what they do.

Before this war started, Bush's handlers did not have an exit strategy. They did not plan for one because they knew there would be no exit. Why? One reason is that they planned to build military bases in Iraq to control the Middle East. This would extend America’s role of policing the world. If you are going to be the world’s police force you have to have police stations throughout the world.

Another underlying reason for not leaving is because of the oil reserves there. Bush's cronies at Haliburton and others would continue to make profits.

Just look at the fact that we still have military bases in Europe and Japan almost six decades after World War II. The U.S. does not give up strongholds easily. We will stay in Iraq indefinitely.

U.S. military and foreign policy does not account for the possibility of helping Iraq gain democracy and then leaving them to ‘sink or swim’. The U.S. military and foreign policy is to conquer and control. This alone is why the Middle East will never give up fighting the U.S. on their soil. The Middle East belongs to them, they will fight for it until their dying breath.

This policy of ‘American internationalism’ believes that we should dominate the world economy. Adherence to this policy will lead to the downfall of American power. Bush is stretching our grip too far. We should take a lesson from the Roman empire. They tried to stretch their control over the entire known world and their civilization fell apart. If we continue on this same path we will duplicate their fate.

The Pentagon budget is increased every year at the detriment of the U.S. domestic economy. Our educational system is suffering, our healthcare system is suffering, our citizens are suffering, except for Bush’s millionaire cronies who are profiting from this insane need to stretch U.S. control around the world.

Bush is currently working to expand the global missile defense system. This is the ‘big gun’ that will be used to back his idea of the Americanization of the world.

Our military has been undergoing the transformation to a police force long before George W. was inserted as president. The basis for this policy was born from a document drafted in 1992 by the defense department when, current vice president, Dick Cheney was defense secretary. That document saw the United States imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.

The greatest danger that springs from the U.S. becoming the world’s police force is that all of our financial power and military might will be dedicated to maintaining that role. Once we become the world’s police force all our allies will back away and redirect their spending on domestic issues.

George W. Bush certainly did not campaign for this type of foreign policy while running for president but he has been doggedly pursuing it ever since. He is being led by conservative groups and he is only their ‘mouthpiece’. This says a lot about American politics today. The big lesson here is that it does not matter which person we the voting public elect as president, it is the groups behind the scenes who really decide this countries policies and we never have a say on who populate those groups.