Author Topic: What Should Obama, the Toothless Tiger, Be Worried About?  (Read 167 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 71,170
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
What Should Obama, the Toothless Tiger, Be Worried About?
« on: May 22, 2014, 07:14:49 PM »
Huanqiu, China

What Should Obama, the Toothless
Tiger, Be Worried About?

By Liu Zhilin

The United States should drop its pretense as a global overlord.

Translated By  Rosalyn Shih

 4 May 2014

Edited by Kyrstie Lane

 China - Huanqiu - Original Article (Chinese)

Obama is at his wit’s end with regards to international affairs.

 Since President Obama has been re-elected, he has failed at handling several major issues. His support rating has fallen to 42 percent, and in terms of domestic affairs, the Republican and Democratic parties have not been able to agree on the national budget, national deficit, health care, immigration and other issues. Although Obama passed a bill to raise the minimum wage, his support in Congress has been only 15 percent. In international affairs, the United States is in a difficult position regarding Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan, the Iranian nuclear deal and the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The media even claims Obama is as ineffectual as a toothless tiger.

How Will the United States Put Out the Fire It Lit in Syria?

 The Americans have already lost control of the Syrian rebel forces they originally supported. When the United States held a conference in Geneva, the rebels didn’t even attend. In truth, these so-called “moderate” anti-government forces exist in name only; the most predominant militant groups are the extremist Islamic armed forces that are labeled by Americans as terrorist organizations. On the surface, the United States opposes these groups, but cooperates with them behind the scenes. In fact, the Americans have attempted to use them to overturn Bashar Assad’s lawfully established government.

 Even more awkwardly, these extremist organizations are backed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and other American-supported Gulf states. To date, there are over a thousand armed rebel forces in Syria who are supported by the Arab Gulf states, with a total of over 100,000 members. Of these members, about 60,000 to 70,000 members are considered jihadists, Islamic extremists, or are affiliated with al-Qaida.

 The United States’ difficult and contradictory position in the Persian Gulf is now increasingly brought to light. Saudi Arabia has expressed dissatisfaction toward Obama’s compromise regarding Iranian nuclear deals and absence of missile attacks against Syria. According to media sources, while Kuwait supports the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia and the UAE both oppose them. And because of disputes, Qatar has recalled its foreign ambassadors. According to reports from the U.S. Department of Treasury, Kuwait supports the Syrian Liberation Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, groups that the United States has labeled as terrorist organizations. Unbelievably, the U.S. has reported that the first leader of the Syrian Liberation Front was a CIA secret agent.

 Some critics have pointed out that the Syrian situation has long ceased to be a civil war; it has been an international war led by the United States and other interfering Western countries. Most Syrians see through this facade and believe that the American-supported “freedom fighters” will destroy their country in an act of human rights violation. Now, many local residents have started to organize themselves out of self-defense. Soon, Syria will hold a general election; Assad will be one of the candidates, and it seems likely that he will be elected. It remains unclear how Obama will put out the fire that the United States has lit in Syria. Some have suggested that if the United States truly wants to fight terrorism, it should cooperate with Assad to defeat Syrian extremists and terrorists in one fell swoop. However, the United States should not give up on the Middle East; it should continue training and arming the so-called “moderate” forces in Jordan, but it should admit that the situation in Syria may end up like the Lebanese civil war, and even persisting for up to 10 years.

If the United States Is Defeated by the Taliban, How Does It Withdraw Completely?

 The United States dispatched almost 100,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, allegedly to capture bin Laden, but the 13-year struggle with the Taliban has been a huge loss to the country; the U.S. has sacrificed over 2,000 American lives and spent up to a trillion American dollars. This has been the longest war the United States has ever fought abroad, and it cannot deny that the world’s strongest military has been defeated by the Taliban. Instead, Obama should be concerned with how American soldiers can safely and gracefully withdraw from Afghanistan.

 The truth is, the Afghan government’s influence does not extend beyond Kabul, and most villages are actually under the Taliban’s control. It is widely accepted that no matter who wins the democratic elections, there can be no peace unless there is cooperation with the Taliban. It can be said that Afghanistan is still the Taliban’s territory.

United States Falls into Dangerous Territory in Ukraine

 Recently, the temporary government in Ukraine has reported that Russian-affiliated troops have occupied Crimea, and that the Ukrainian army sent to maintain control in the area has openly defected to the Russian troops. They have refused to engage in combat with Russia because they believe the two sides are as close as brothers and that they are part of the same family. Obama has been moved to take action during this precarious situation. The United States has invested $5 billion and supported the violent protests in Kiev’s independence square, facilitating the toppling of the democratically-elected prime minister. As the situation changed, the U.S. supported the Ukrainian temporary government’s characterization of the occupation of government buildings by the Russian-supporting East Ukrainians as “terrorist attacks.” In this way, the Americans have fallen into a very difficult position.

 Obama has called for sanctions against Russia, which have received less-than-enthusiastic responses from the European Union. Because of the NATO alliance, European countries are bound to approach issues related to Ukraine and Russia differently from the U.S.

 Because of the EU’s persistent financial struggles and closer economic ties to Russia, European countries care most about their self-gain, and will be reluctant to challenge Russia. This would be like pouring kerosene on their own front doors.

 To sum up with the words of a foreign "netizen": “Your leader [President Obama] listens to the orders of the Rothschild family, and will pull our world into war. I live in England, but this idiot wants to use the EU for his pretense. He has made changes to American policy, and has overturned a government that has refused to do business with him. Those of us in Europe will suffer the consequences. I don’t believe any other countries will support the madman Obama.”*

To a degree, this comment projects attitudes that the European governments and people carry regarding the situation in Ukraine. These people better understand the current circumstances. The situation has changed, and the United States should drop its pretense as a global overlord. America should do away with the Cold War tactics of intimidation and sanction, and it should sit down with Russia and related parties to cooperate over Ukraine.

 *Editor’s Note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 07:18:22 PM by rangerrebew »
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo