Obama, His Poisoned Legacy and Europe
Tadas Blinda
Like their fellow Europeans, many Lithuanians have expressed dismay
that the administration of Barack Obama has turned its back on the
Continent. It appears that he has bigger fish to fry in
Asia, that’s why he refused an invitation to meet with EU leaders in a
May Summit. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the Georgian-Russian War,
his decision to scrap George W. Bush’s anti-missile system in the
Czech Republic and Poland has caused many residents of the East Baltic
Sea region to express concern about Washington’s pledge to defend
their countries. But such concerns are unwarranted and fail to take
into account the horrible panoply of domestic and international
problems that he inherited from his predecessor.
In any serious attempt to understand the Obama administration’s
approach to foreign affairs, it is imperative to appreciate the
magnitude of the poisoned legacy that he discovered as he entered
office. It accounts for Obama’s laser-like attention to a multitude of
daunting problems that he faces at home and is less a matter of his
preoccupation with developments in places other than Europe. Also, in
contrast to two protracted wars in the Greater Middle East and the
prospect that Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons, could crumble
into chaos, Europe is a peaceful place.
The place to begin is Bush’s disastrous decision to invade and occupy
Iraq where he embarked upon the “wrong war” in Iraq before he finished
the “right war” in Afghanistan. In spite of current efforts on the
part of Bush’s Vice-President Dick Cheney and his leading political
operative Karl Rove to justify this incredible blunder, the stunning
truth is that Saddam Hussein did not possess the military prowess to
harm the U.S. nor was he an ally of al-Qaeda.
Specifically, he did not have any nuclear weapons, and his chemical
and biological capability was minimal and hardly a threat to the
world’s most powerful military force. Moreover, Saddam was not allied
with Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi dictator had nothing to do with the
al-Qaeda 9/11 strike on the United States. Indeed, bin Laden deemed
him an enemy. Some Democrats were mislead into believing false claims
perpetrated by the Bush administration to the opposite while others
cowardly supported the invasion less they look meek and lose the
support of hawkish voters. Obama was not among them.
The fact is, key members of the elder George H. W. Bush’s
administration like his national security advisor Brent Scowcroft and
his Secretary of State James Baker both opposed the Iraq invasion for
the simple reason that Saddam had been contained and represented no
threat to the United States. They correctly predicted that if the
younger Bush ignored their advice, the outcome would be disastrous for
America’s national security.
Consequently, when Obama entered the White House, he had inherited two
wars that have resulted in severe strains on the American military;
international condemnation of ill-considered unilateralist policies
that de-stabilized the greater Middle East and that among other things
enhanced the capacity of Iran to make mischief there while giving
Tehran the justification for acquiring nuclear weapons; declining
faith in the moral rectitude of the U.S. in face of charges of war
crime violations; and finally a global shift in public opinion where-
by America was deemed a greater threat to world peace than communist
China. Significantly, this was not only the opinion of Muslims but of
old American allies like the British.
To add to his misery, the young President was forced to address an
economic meltdown that began in the United States and precipitated the
worse global financial calamity since the Great Depression of the
1930’s. To make matters worse, Obama’s Republican opponents declared
immediately after he entered office that they would obstruct him in
his efforts to address America’s daunting problems with the declared
intention of “bringing him down.” Indeed, his Republican opponents
have been un-relenting in their campaign to sabotage the very policies
that are required to address some of America’s most compelling
problems.
The most glaring example here is the Republicans’ attempt to deny the
American people a national health insurance program. It is
unbelievable but until two weeks ago, the U.S. was the only advanced
society that had not acknowledged that health care is a basic human
right. Opponents of what amounts to a most health care program delayed
its adoption by resorting to a disinformation campaign that was based
upon distortion, out-right lies and fear-mongering. It is no
exaggeration to conclude that if Obama had lost the health care
battle, his administration would have been dealt a lethal political
blow. Among other things, it would have undermined his ability to
address pressing international problems. It is against this backdrop
that he has had little time to address foreign policies matters and
then only those that are most urgent.
Also, as I noted in a Veidas article in the summer of 2008,
presidential candidate Obama did not believe it was prudent to deploy
an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe that did not work against a
threat that had not yet materialised. Instead he has selected a system
that is designed to meet Iran’s capacity to launch intermediate ranged
missiles—that Iran possesses today–against its enemies in the Middle
East and Europe. As Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has indicated,
this is a better choice than the one that Bush has championed and
Gates had earlier endorsed.
Finally a word about the 2008 Georgian-Russian War is in order.
Presumably Moscow tricked Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvilli into
launching an attack against South Ossetia, but he took ill-considered
actions that made this possible. The EU has falsely concluded that he
started the war in the first place. Consequently, former friendly
American and European leaders have turned their backs on him lest his
capricious antics prompt another military exchange with Russia. The
recent Georgian TV program that simulated a second Georgian-Russian
war has been cited by his critics of further evidence of his
irrational behaviour. (He has denied having anything to do with it but
his disclaimers have not convinced his critics on the one hand while
on the other one the provocative program was a gift to Kremlin hard-
liners who are bent on bringing him down.) At the same time, his
commitment to democratic rule has been called into question. Is it any
wonder then that leaders who are responsible for the welfare of their
citizens in the dangerous former Soviet-neighbourhood such as
Lithuania are reluctant to share a diplomatic event with Saakashvilli.
Oh, one more thing. If George W. Bush had not invaded Iraq it is
unlikely that there ever would have been a Georgian-Russian war in
2008. Burdened by a war in Iraq that had cost many lives and billions
of dollars and a return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the American
military was badly over-stretched. Simultaneously, the international
stature of the U.S. had plunged under Bush’s stewardship. To make
matters worse, the calamitous economic meltdown was waiting in the
wings. Under these circumstances, the military-minded in Moscow
believed they could act without interference from a discredited
leadership in Washington.
When considering Obama’s policies toward Europe then, the poisoned
legacy that he inherited from George W. Bush – compounded by his
political opponent’s obstructionist policies and an economy under
stress – are the place to start.
Dick Krickus is professor emeritus at the University of Mary
Washington University and has held the H. L. Oppenheimer Chair for
Warfighting Strategy at the U.S. Marine Corps University.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> Obama, His Poisoned Legacy and Europe, by Dick Krickus
>
> Like their fellow Europeans, many Lithuanians have expressed dismay
> that the administration of Barack Obama has turned its back on the
> Continent. It appears that he has bigger fish to fry in
> Asia, that’s why he refused an invitation to meet with EU leaders in a
> May Summit. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the Georgian-Russian War,
> his decision to scrap George W. Bush’s anti-missile system in the
> Czech Republic and Poland has caused many residents of the East Baltic
> Sea region to express concern about Washington’s pledge to defend
> their countries.
What do these "George W. Bush’s anti-missile system in the Czech
Republic and Poland" have to do with "the Georgian-Russian War"?
According to Bush, this system was aimed at Iran and North Korea.
According to his claims, it had no component that would affect Russia
at all. Curiously, the leaders of Poland and Czech Republic claimed so
too, and accused Russia of interfering in something that had no
bearing on them. Russia was even accused of "lying" about the intent
of this system.
However, the anti-Russian hysteria in response to Obama's scrapping
this system, proves that this was an anti-Russian system all along,
and Bush's USA and all other NATO countries involved in this plan are
lying, cheating warmongers, bent on causing Nuclear Holocaust.
In any case, the Lithuanians have a very narrow view of USA's
interests and role in Europe. To Lithuanians, the only thing that USA
should be doing is helping Saakashvili attack innocent Ossetian and
Abkhazian civilians and provoking the country of Russia in all
possible ways.
But, first of all, Russia is only one small part of USA's relation
with Europe, and hostility towards Russia is not in USA's interests.
On Apr 6, 1:54 pm, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote:
>
> If Russia were an individual, he/she/it would be in serious need of
> psychotherapy for delusions of grandeur. Look at Sweden, a normal
> civilised country. It doesn't want to be in NATO, so it doesn't
> join. Does it rant and rave about the 'audacity' of NATO encroaching
> on its borders? Does it try to sabotage neighbours that want to join
> NATO? Does it insist it should have a 'sphere of influence'? No,
> only Russia does sick shit like that. We get so used to those sick
> assholes' behaviour that we forget to demand normal civilised
> standards of behaviour from them.
If Lithuania (and other Balt countries), were an individual, he/she/it
would be in serious need of psychotherapy for schizophrenic paranoia
and hostile preoccupation with a neighbour. Look at Sweden, a normal
civilised country. It doesn't rant about USA not doing enough to
provoke some Sweden's neighbour, does it? Does it rant and rave about
the 'audacity' of Russian peacekeepers in defending Ossetia from the
Georgian aggression? Does it try to sabotage neighbours by sending
them multi-billion dollar reparations bills? Does it insist it should
have a 'sphere of influence' in hte internal affairs of Belarus? No,
only Lithuanians (and maybe other Balts and Poland) does sick shit
like that. We get so used to those sick assholes' behaviour that we
forget to demand normal civilised standards of behaviour from them.
Tadas Blinda
<ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 1:02 am, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote:
>
> > Obama, His Poisoned Legacy and Europe, by Dick Krickus
>
> > Like their fellow Europeans, many Lithuanians have expressed dismay
> > that the administration of Barack Obama has turned its back on the
> > Continent. It appears that he has bigger fish to fry in
> > Asia, that’s why he refused an invitation to meet with EU leaders in a
> > May Summit. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the Georgian-Russian War,
> > his decision to scrap George W. Bush’s anti-missile system in the
> > Czech Republic and Poland has caused many residents of the East Baltic
> > Sea region to express concern about Washington’s pledge to defend
> > their countries.
>
> What do these "George W. Bush’s anti-missile system in the Czech
> Republic and Poland" have to do with "the Georgian-Russian War"?
> According to Bush, this system was aimed at Iran and North Korea.
> According to his claims, it had no component that would affect Russia
> at all. Curiously, the leaders of Poland and Czech Republic claimed so
> too, and accused Russia of interfering in something that had no
> bearing on them. Russia was even accused of "lying" about the intent
> of this system.
>
> However, the anti-Russian hysteria in response to Obama's scrapping
> this system, proves that this was an anti-Russian system all along,
> and Bush's USA and all other NATO countries involved in this plan are
> lying, cheating warmongers, bent on causing Nuclear Holocaust.
There is no anti-Russian hysteria and if you are convinced that the
place where you live (USA) is a "lying, cheating warmongers, bent on
causing Nuclear Holocaust" (do you have permission to use the H-word
out of context?), then I expect you'll be renouncing your U.S.
citizenship any time soon.
> In any case, the Lithuanians have a very narrow view of USA's
> interests and role in Europe. To Lithuanians, the only thing that USA
> should be doing is helping Saakashvili attack innocent Ossetian and
> Abkhazian civilians and provoking the country of Russia in all
> possible ways.
Lithuanians have a 'quaint' attachment to justice and truth and to
international statesmen living up to promises publicly made.
> > If Russia were an individual, he/she/it would be in serious need of
> > psychotherapy for delusions of grandeur. Look at Sweden, a normal
> > civilised country. It doesn't want to be in NATO, so it doesn't
> > join. Does it rant and rave about the 'audacity' of NATO encroaching
> > on its borders? Does it try to sabotage neighbours that want to join
> > NATO? Does it insist it should have a 'sphere of influence'? No,
> > only Russia does sick shit like that. We get so used to those sick
> > assholes' behaviour that we forget to demand normal civilised
Oh, cutesy, writing a parody of my words. Except you are trying to
transplant a rhinoceros horn onto a horse's head, and your false
unicorn is dead as a result of the clumsy attempt.
> > standards of behaviour from them.
It's not "schizophrenic paranoia" when somebody is really out to hurt
you (having done so copiously in the past).
It's not "hostile preoccupation" when you are being duly vigilant.
> Does it try to sabotage neighbours by sending
> them multi-billion dollar reparations bills?
Are you publicly declaring that you will never / would never sue any
party that deliberately caused you enormous harm?
> Does it insist it should have a 'sphere of influence' in the internal affairs of Belarus?
Lay off the chips and dips and Rebel Yell at bedtime. Look at the
delusions and false phantasies it causes.
captain!
talk about taking "blame america" to a whole new level...
<snip>
captain!
"Tadas Blinda" <tadas....@lycos.es> wrote in message
news:72a16fe2-5a5a-4da3...@n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 7, 8:15 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
<ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 1:02 am, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote:
>
>There is no anti-Russian hysteria and if you are convinced that the
place where you live (USA) is a "lying, cheating warmongers, bent on
causing Nuclear Holocaust" (do you have permission to use the H-word
out of context?), then I expect you'll be renouncing your U.S.
citizenship any time soon.
//////////
he's got a point. why do you live there if you hate it so much?
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> "Tadas Blinda" <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote in message
Who said I hate living in USA? To be honest, California is the best
place for me to live in in the entire World. In particular, I like the
domestic policies here in USA much more than what they have in
Russia.
What I object to is what Tadas himself and most other people hate: the
US imperialistic foreign policy. I want my US government to change it.
My views are the same as those of many other Americans, in particular
of the Libertarian Party and the Cato Institute.
Another thing: Guy de Maupassant hated the Eiffel Tower passionately.
And yet, he had lunch there every day. Why? Because that was the only
spot in all of Paris from which one could not see the the Eiffel
Tower. Similarly, living inside USA is the best way to avoid becoming
a victim of the US imperialist foreign policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_de_Maupassant
Maupassant was but one of a fair number of 19th-century Parisians who
did not care for the Eiffel tower; but he often ate lunch in the
restaurant at its base, not out of any preference for the food, but
because it was only there that he could avoid seeing its otherwise
unavoidable profile.[2] Moreover, he and forty-six other Parisian
literary and artistic notables attached their names to letter of
protest, ornate as it was irate, against the tower's construction to
the then Minister of Public Works.
Do you see the analogy here?
The Black Monk
Very well said....
regards,
BM
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On Apr 7, 8:15 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
> <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 1:02 am, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote:
>
> > In any case, the Lithuanians have a very narrow view of USA's
> > interests and role in Europe. To Lithuanians, the only thing that USA
> > should be doing is helping Saakashvili attack innocent Ossetian and
> > Abkhazian civilians and provoking the country of Russia in all
> > possible ways.
>
> > > psychotherapy for delusions of grandeur. Look at Sweden, a normal
> > > civilised country. It doesn't want to be in NATO, so it doesn't
> > > join. Does it rant and rave about the 'audacity' of NATO encroaching
> > > on its borders? Does it try to sabotage neighbours that want to join
> > > NATO? Does it insist it should have a 'sphere of influence'? No,
> > > only Russia does sick shit like that. We get so used to those sick
> > > assholes' behaviour that we forget to demand normal civilised
>
>> would be in serious need of psychotherapy for schizophrenic paranoia
>> and hostile preoccupation with a neighbour. Look at Sweden, a normal
>> civilised country. It doesn't rant about USA not doing enough to
>> provoke some Sweden's neighbour, does it? Does it rant and rave about
>> the 'audacity' of Russian peacekeepers in defending Ossetia from the
>> Georgian aggression? Does it try to sabotage neighbours by sending
>> them multi-billion dollar reparations bills? Does it insist it should
>> have a 'sphere of influence' in hte internal affairs of Belarus? No,
>> like that. We get so used to those sick assholes' behaviour that we
>
> Oh, cutesy, writing a parody of my words. Except you are trying to
> transplant a rhinoceros horn onto a horse's head, and your false
> unicorn is dead as a result of the clumsy attempt.
>
> > > standards of behaviour from them.
>
> > > psychotherapy for delusions of grandeur. Look at Sweden, a normal
> > > civilised country. It doesn't want to be in NATO, so it doesn't
> > > join. Does it rant and rave about the 'audacity' of NATO encroaching
> > > on its borders?
>
> you (having done so copiously in the past).
Aha, so you admit that if NATO is trying to hurt Russia's interests,
it is normal for Russia to object?
> It's not "hostile preoccupation" when you are being duly vigilant.
Aha, so you admit that it is OK for Russia to be vigilant?
No, wait. I bet your view is that Russia has no right to defend its
interests or to be vigilant. I bet your point is that it is OK for
**Lithuania** to be vigilant, but Russia has no right to be so.
Speaking of double standards....
> > Does it try to sabotage neighbours by sending
> > them multi-billion dollar reparations bills?
>
> Are you publicly declaring that you will never / would never sue any
> party that deliberately caused you enormous harm?
If I have a legal right to sue somebody who had done harm to me - I
may sue them. But if one keeps on suing another party even when there
is no law to support these suites - he is either insane or a
provocateur or both.
In fact, my close relatives have a very good cause to sue the state
government for the wrongful death of their father. But they don't,
because the government has immunity in this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
Sovereign immunity
Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a type of immunity that in
common law jurisdictions traces its origins from early English law.
Generally speaking it is the doctrine that the sovereign or state
cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal
prosecution; hence the saying, the kings (or queen) can do no wrong.
In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity
and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to
suit.
The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eleventh
Amendment re-affirms that states possess sovereign immunity and are
therefore generally immune from being sued in federal court without
their consent. In later cases, the Supreme Court has strengthened
state sovereign immunity considerably.
International Law
Sovereign immunity is available to countries in international court.
Under international law, and subject to some conditions, countries are
immune from legal proceedings in another state. This stems from
customary international law.[8] The US recognizes this concept under
the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
----------------------------
So, how is Lithuania suing the government of the Russia Federation for
the crimes committed by Stalin more than 60 years ago? Nobody in
Lithuania familiar with international law and sovereign immunity? Or
is this yet another way to provoke hostilities with Russia and then
blame Russia for these hostilities?
Dmitry
> Obama, His Poisoned Legacy and Europe, by Dick Krickus
>
> Like their fellow Europeans, many Lithuanians have expressed dismay
> that the administration of Barack Obama has turned its back on the
> Continent. It appears that he has bigger fish to fry in
> Asia, that’s why he refused an invitation to meet with EU leaders in a
> May Summit. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the Georgian-Russian War,
> his decision to scrap George W. Bush’s anti-missile system in the
> Czech Republic and Poland has caused many residents of the East Baltic
> Sea region to express concern about Washington’s pledge to defend
> their countries.
It is just a simple political deal between two "superpowers". Since
the collapse of the USSR, Russia has managed to preserve its leading
position in Central Asian countries. US needs those military bases to
fight Afghan war. Scraping anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe is
the price to pay. US needs Russia to support them in putting pressure
on Iran http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100408/usa/us_russia_iran_weapons_nuclear_diplomacy_treaty
, Russia wants to be a member of WTO etc.
It is a shame that some people naively believed that Bush is genuinely
dedicated to security of Baltic and other Eastern European countries.
Proposed anti-missile systems were on the table for political and
financial reasons, not to save Lithuania from invading russkies.
captain!
"Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_be...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f449b260-ce81-4377...@k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
/////////////
-yes i do. good response.
captain!
"The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c099e773-844d-4747...@r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Very well said....
regards,
BM
///////////////
true
Ostap Bender
> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:c099e773-844d-4747...@r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Thanks to both of you.