TheDailyBanter.com

Impending Nuclear Proliferation: Part 1

Exclusive to The Daily Banter
By: Daniel Ritchie

The menacing depiction of an Iranian nuclear program is most certainly very vivid in the short term memory banks of the American public. The daily malignant mantra permeating all the main stream ‘news’ sources, reverberating in the tone of a war drum, creates ignorant fear. The public is led to believe that the Iranians are intent on obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities through the development of their nuclear power program. Feelings that Iran must be stopped from obtaining ‘the bomb’ have arisen, and distort the reality of the debate, while simultaneously negligent reporting fails to uncover the duplicity of American nuclear foreign policy and discuss the many other nations which have declared intent to develop the same technologies.

Intellectuals complicit in lack of Iraq War accountability

Daily Banter Special Comment
By Ben Cohen

After having an argument with a close family member about Tony Blair's complicity in the terrorist attacks on London in 2005, it occurred to me how the architects and supporters of the Iraq war have cleverly manipulated events to evade taking serious responsibility. And they have relied on the support of the chattering classes to do so.

The central argument with my family member was that Tony Blair's alliance with George Bush took Britain into two illegal wars, and was a major cause of the terrorist attacks on London. The family member seemed to think that it would have happened anyway, and Blair should not be held accountable. This family member is a well educated, well read and highly intelligent person, but seemed unable (in my opinion) to connect the dots.

A Triadic Conundrum: Turkey, Kurds, and the United States

Exclusive to The Daily Banter

By Daniel Ritchie

The United States has entered a precarious situation in an area of the world which has been notoriously entangled in historical turbulence: northern Iraq. The Ottomans, the British, the Baathists and now the Americans are playing a deadly game of divide and conquer, with the local Kurds being the major playing piece.

US Antagonism: Russia, Iran and the EU

Exclusive to The Daily Banter

By Daniel Ritchie

It is no secret that the United States views the emergence of a powerful vengeful Russia and a nuclear armed Iran as significant threats to its national security interests. However, the steps taken by the United States to secure its national security relative to these states could in fact be creating the threats themselves by reciprocity. The United States’ insistence that Iran is determined to develop nuclear warheads, and the subsequent measures taken to defend against that possibility, has inflamed tensions with Russia, Iran, and the European Union, and will do more harm than good.

Most notably in recent developments is the plan to construct a ‘missile defense shield’ in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Obama's foreign policy under scrutiny

By Ben Cohen

Barack Obama's foreign policy has not come under scrutiny in his campaign thus far (largely due to the media fawning all over his oratory skills). Check out this interesting interview with Obama's senior foreign policy adviser Susan Rice on what an Obama Administration might do internationally:

Debating a Hillary Clinton Supporter

By Ben Cohen

Every now and then a reader leaves a comment that warrants a reply. After I wrote my article on Joe Wilson damaging his foreign policy credentials by backing Hillary Clinton, an angry reader going by the name of 'vb' left this comment:

Ben,

Your obvious hostility to Hillary Clinton puts you squarely in the camp of that small, but loud, poisonous group of Hillary Clinton haters who are incapable of putting their misogynist feelings aside and evaluating her candidacy fairly and objectively.

It must have really hurt to read Joe Wilson's excellent piece supporting Hillary Clinton based on his firsthand experience of her contribution to this nation.

I feel sorry for you and your fellow Hillary Clinton haters. Hopefully, you'll get over it once you discover how ineffective you've been.

Firstly, I'm glad people are joining in the discussion at 'The Daily Banter'. However, comments like these do nothing to promote serious discussion about an important issue.

I've made pains never to mention Hillary Clinton's sex, because I don't believe it has any relevance to serious debate. I have also never mentioned Barack Obama's racial heritage, because I think it unhelpful in deciphering his politics. To label me as a misogynist because I do not support Clinton is akin to calling me a racist when I attack Obama's politics (which I have done on numerous occasions). It's a baseless attack, and it denigrates a very serious issue. Hillary Clinton has a record of following the neo conservative foreign policy agenda of the Bush Administration, and she should not be let of the hook because of her sex.

It is interesting that the reader does not mention actual policy, an indication that they are unaware of Clinton's political positions. Far from it hurting me to read Joe Wilson's piece, it further reinforced the notion that conventional wisdom in foreign policy is what is damaging the U.S at home and abroad.

If bringing attention to some of Clinton's virulently imperialistic political beliefs makes me a 'hater', then it is probably the reader we should be feeling sorry for rather than myself. Attacking Mrs Clinton may prove ineffective halting her campaign juggernaut, but it is certainly an issue serious people should not apologize for.

Joe Wilson trashes his credentials with Clinton support

By Ben Cohen

Joseph Wilson, former U.S Ambassador and husband to outed CIA agent Valerie Plame has written a scathing attack in the Huffington Post on Barack Obama's foreign policy experience while defending his choice of candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Wilson deserves a huge amount of praise for his opposition to the Iraq war from its inception, and his continued outspokenness to the Bush Administration. He also deserves credit for his critique of Obama's lack of experience in foreign policy. Writes Wilson:

"After he came to Washington, Obama's views were thoroughly conventional and even timid. In 2004, he said about the 2002 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." On Iraq-related votes in the Senate, Obama's record identically matches Senator Clinton's--with the exception that Senator Clinton voted against the confirmation of General George Casey as Army chief of staff. Obama's vote was typically passive."

Wilson's remarks are spot on. Despite the media's love affair with Obama, he should certainly be held accountable for his views (or lack thereof).

But Wilson falls apart when he speaks up for Hillary Clinton's foreign policy credentials.

Ron Paul actually makes Billy O’Reilly think

by Ben Cohen

The only sane Republican in the race for the 2008 presidency, Ron Paul, seems to do the impossible: make Bill O'Reilly think. It's not completely obvious, but you can actually see the right wing shock jock pause for thought on a couple of occasions. He does not agree with Paul, of course, but he does not shout him down or completely disregard his point. Paul discusses the disastrous effects of American foreign policy and lays blame for September 11th on the actions of the U.S Government for the past 60 years. That O'Reilly did not kick him off the air is a major concession. To watch the video, click below:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY]

Full text.

Obama loses the plot

By Ben Cohen

Barack Obama's dismissal of the standard 'We Don't talk to our enemies' foreign policy stance was something of a revelation. No mainstream Democratic candidate in recent times has had to guts to go against the party line, but Obama, true to his word was offering a 'different type of politics'.

However, in one swift move, Obama has destroyed his credibility on the topic by announcing he would invade Pakistan if they didn't follow Washington's orders.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will" said Obama in his foreign policy speech on August 1st.

"There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard."

It appears that Obama has fallen into the same ideological trap that has infected American politicians for the past 60 years, believing that U.S interests supersede international law and the national sovereignty of other countries.

To put this in perspective, let us imagine the situation in reverse. Let's say President Musharraf announced he would be sending Pakistani forces to the U.S if they did not clamp down on extreme neo con elements in the White House.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value neo-con targets, and President Bush won't act, we will".

Given America's track record in killing people in the middle east, Musharraf probably has a better case than Obama. But not in the world of American hegemony, where it is one rule for the U.S, and another for everyone else.

The Pakistani government was also unsurprisingly unimpressed with Obama's bluster.

In an interview with AFP Pakistan's Minister of State for Information Tariq Azeem said,"Such statements are being made out of sheer ignorance."

"They are not fully apprised about the ground realities and not aware of the efforts by Pakistan," he continued.

"We have said before that we will not allow anyone to infringe our sovereignty."

Clearly an attempt to out muscle other Democrats on foreign policy, Obama has sold himself shockingly short of the 'politics of hope' he preached at the beginning of his campaign. If Democrats and people around the world expected something different from Obama, they have been let down badly.

Far from the outsider he has portrayed himself as, it is politics as usual from the Obama campaign.END

Full text.

Clinton lectures Obama, calling his comments ‘irresponsible’ and ‘naive’

By Ben Cohen

For reasons best known to herself, Hilary Clinton believes that the United States is too morally superior to speak to its enemies. Having lived through 6 years of atrocious U.S diplomacy, one would have thought Clinton would be more amenable to speaking equally with leaders of other countries. But when Barack Obama stated that he would be willing to hold direct talks with the Venezuelan, Cuban, Iranian and North Korean leaders at the latest Democratic debate, Clinton accused Obama of being 'irresponsible' and 'naive'.

Conveniently forgetting U.S relationships with some of the world's worst human rights abusers that her husband maintained throughout his tenure (Saudi Arabia, Columbia, Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan and Israel for example), Clinton said that she would speak to the 'axis of evil' countries only 'through envoys' to avoid being 'used for propaganda purposes' (whatever that means).

It is this imperialist attitude that has lead to America's demise in the eyes of the rest of the world, and Clinton would do well to put a lid on it. Lecturing other countries about morality after voting for the illegal invasion of Iraq is hypocritical beyond belief. Obama has quite rationally proposed another doctrine for American policy, and Clinton's absurd rebuke is further proof that she is just another politician not worthy of serious respect.