US drone strikes will give the term “blowback” new meaning
The example of U.S. Power
An interesting article appeared in the MumbaiMirror on Saturday July 8/12. My impression is that the MubaiMirror is a low quality newspaper. But like the Toronto Star, it does reflect popular sentiment.
“A day after Hillary’s apology, US drones strike Pak again”
Drone strikes are highly unpopular in Pakistan, where they are seen as an infringement of the country’s sovereignty and counter-productive in the fight against extremists …
Strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles, drones, on Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan have increased substantially under the US president Barack Obama’s regime. There were 52 drone strikes carried out carried out under the Bush administration, the NATO forces during Obama’s tenure have already carried out close to 300 drone attacks.
A search of “US drones” on the MumbaiMirror site generates the following:
This is a big issue in the countries affected by this. All Obama is doing is building more anger, resentment and ultimately hatred of the United States.
It is going to give the word “blowback” new meaning.
But of course, on the home front, the “Homelanders” are busy NOT thinking about what is going on in the rest of the world (actually not thinking at all about anything). And they wonder, “Why is America not popular?”
Once upon a time, didn’t our friend Barack Obama receive the Nobel Peace Prize? What were they thinking? This is hilarious. Get this:
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”
Oslo, October 9, 2009
The use of drones is surely not:
founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.
I once heard President Clinton comment that:
People are more impressed by the power of our example rather than the example of our power…”
Too bad Obama and the current group of Democrats can’t understand that.
The power of U.S. example
But, on a friendlier note: As you might know when Romney was running Bain Capital (you know the company that Obama believes was conceived to harm the Homelanders), Bain invested in Dominos Pizza. Dominos Pizza seems to have a big presence in India. People eat Dominos Pizza. Presumably people in India buy franchises.
Obama sends drones to kill people in South Asia, illuminating the example of U.S. power.
Romney creates companies to feed people in South Asia, illuminating the power of U.S. example.
If either one should receive the Nobel Peace Prize, who would be the better candidate?