The Vietnam war - a tragedy of greed and senseless aggression. Vietnam wasn’t an American war, yet it was this involvement that started the cycle of distrust and negative feeling towards the United States and everything it stood for. And that’s not to mention the horrendous loss of life, and the destruction of lives caused by politically motivated violence. You’d think we’d learn our lesson, huh?

In 2003, George W. Bush with the support of Tony Blair sent hundreds of thousands of troops to invade Iraq on the premise of ‘illegal weapons programmes’ and ‘imminent threats’. A chip off the old block, some would say. George H. W. Bush’s invasion of 1990 failed to overthrow the regime or gain control of the wealth of oil in Iraq. His son was more fortunate.

One of the most controversial American authors of our time, Bob Miller has been a staunch campaigner against the Bush administrations of now and then, since back in 1976. A Veteran of the Vietnam war, Miller has been cast as a pariah, a renegade, and has even been taken into custody by the US Secret Service for his outspoken approach to American politics. Nevertheless Miller has continued his relentless attack on the Bush regime and everything it stands for, traveling the country to deliver his opinions on the real motives of the Bush family.

A Republican himself, Miller is no stranger to the world of political activism. Yet his controversial branding in the mainstream media has seen him cast aside as yet another extremist, unpatriotic and senseless. However, with his latest book “Kill Me If You Can, You SOB”, Miller aims to express the true horrors of the Vietnam war, without descending into the same old ‘this and that’ of the Bush dynasty and their own brand of extremism.

Without forming opinions for the reader or giving a blow by blow account of the war and the politics behind it, Miller’s latest effort is based on diary entries from his time in the war, telling the tale more graphically than could otherwise be possible of the horrors behind the wars and foreign policy of the Bush administrations.

As Miller was quoted as saying, “Bush has spent the lives of thousands of young Americans and billions of dollars for oil, not terrorists, and everyone knew it. To have participated in this needless savagery in any way is not only hypocritical, it’s blasphemous. And to blame the son, and not the father, is like blaming the puppet, not the puppeteer. Like his father Prescott Bush, George H.W. Bush’s epitaph should read, ‘Here lies incomprehensible evil.’”

Sent by Nick Carter, Vietnam war

Take for instance the speech she gave in January 2005, where she spoke on the importance of sexual abstinence for teenagers. Soon after, she shared the stage with Republican leaders such as Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback, and conservative Democratic Joe Lieberman, at a Capitol Hill press conference where the leaders called for federal funding for research on the effect of electronic media such as computers and i-pods on children’s behavior development.

The conservative quarter also seems to have responded to Clinton. She has, for instance, drawn admiration from them for her stance on foreign policy. Her spar with fellow Democrat Barack Obama during a Democratic presidential debate—on whether a president should meet anti-American leaders without pre-conditions during his first year in office—has won her plaudits from established right-wingers such as the Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes, National Review’s Rich Lory, and the New York Times columnist, David Brooks.

The question is whether Clinton’s allegiance to the right will offend her Democratic voter base, with its significantly leftist bias. Well, her supporters do not seem too worried about it. However, Hillary Clinton would need to tread carefully to avoid tilting the balance too far on either side.

Source: EasyArticles.

The invasion of Iraq was lead by a largely American force, with soldiers from Australia, Great Britain, Poland and Denmark also playing their role. In an attempt to restore peace in Iraq, the Co-coalition countries attempted to establish a democratic government. Such plans have not went as smoothly as was hoped, and on-going violence has continued despite there being troops and a democratically elected government in place.

Since the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein fled the country in an attempt to avoid the consequences that would come as a result of being caught by the coalition troops. Despite his best attempts, Saddam was captured in December 2003 and was hanged in the same month the crimes he had committed whilst in office. His trial and subsequent hanging were all completed under the Iraq interim government.

The Iraq war has been controversial for a number of reasons:

1. The war was not legal and was completed without the backing of the United Nations. Some political commentators suggest this as a reason for wider international backlash out with the coalition countries that participated.

2. Not enough troops. The number of troops that were sent to Iraq, and that are now in Iraq, is less than half of what would be needed to allow for a swift operation which would lead to less casualties, according to a Rand report. Some objectors comment that this shows a lack of respect for human life and was done as a means of lessening the financial burden of the war.

3. Insufficient post-invasion strategy. The coalition governments did not adequately prepare an exit strategy and a means of bringing peace to Iraq according to many politicians and defence analysts.

4. Financial Burden. According to Reuters news agency, the cost of the Iraq war is close to $2 trillion.

5. Iraq’s oil supply has often been quoted as a reason for the start of the war. Such claims, if true, would be much different from the original reasons cited as the reason for the war happening in the first place.

6. Weapons of Mass Destruction have been been found in Iraq, which has made analysts increasingly sceptical as to whether they were there in the first place. If indeed they were not, then this would mean that the war was started on a false premise.

Source: EasyArticles.

During my early years I paid no attention to positive thinking as opposed to negative ideas. Then it became clear that nothing good can survive in a negative cloud. My living plan requires me to avoid negatives by leaving a person or group involved in bad discussions or ignoring the situation if that is possible. Sometimes there is no way to avoid negative contact. Those are the times when some kind of positive outcome must be developed. To simply accept a negative result as it is creates a foundation for more bad outcomes.

Politics and politicians have produced a culture of negativism in America. The massive amounts of wealth required to mount even an unsuccessful run for office have effectively eliminated most of the qualified candidates who might like to seek office. Now, many may say those who are running are the best contenders because they have years of experience. But, those were years spent as professional politicians and the result is constant bickering between the political parties and a Congress with a close to zero rating. The need is for new people with significant amounts of experience outside politics; only with such people can we ever hope for better government. But none of them will ever be able to run for office because they don’t have Bloomberg wealth nor the ability to mount massive fund-raising organizations.

Why is this allowed to continue?

Congress and lower legislative bodies are the only people who could control the political spending situation, if they wanted to. They don’t have any interest in any sort of restraint on the current process. They are looking after themselves and wealth for their future. That’s why they became professional politicians to start with—to profit from perks and income associated with their tenure in office. Successful politicians are able to peddle influence and favors to the extent large numbers of wealthy and powerful people are beholden to them. This provides opportunities for lucrative after politics careers as lobbyists, highly paid speakers, and top jobs in big companies that do business with the government.

Our leaders have been reduced to bickering among themselves and placing blame for all sorts of irrelevant events so that nothing very significant has been accomplished. I live in a resort area and things are so ludicrous that a major form of entertainment for weekenders and vacationers is to watch the proceedings of several local governing bodies on TV. They look like old slap-stick comedy shows. And everyone knows how ineffective Congress is; look at the ratings that sometimes are near ZERO.

These ideas would go a long way toward improving the quality of our elected leaders:

1. Limit any campaign season to nine months. It is ridiculous that we have had to endure over two years of inane bickering among so many candidates.

2. Prohibit all radio or TV political advertising of any kind.

3. Local candidates, including up to the county and city level, should be limited to $1,000.

4. State level candidates, including the Governor, should be limited to $100,000.

5. Congressional candidates and Senators should be limited to $500,000.

6. The Presidential candidates should be limited to $1,000,000.

What do I wish to accomplish with this article? My hope is that maybe someone will be encouraged to write their legislators on a continuous basis so that meaningful spending caps will eventually be enacted. Only when the average person can afford to run for office, not intending to be a career politician, can we once again have qualified leaders.

This is a positive spin on a very negative process. Let’s all try to do something about it through our elected leaders or, perhaps, the court system.

Source: EasyArticles.

However, perplexingly, the one crucial issue that Paul does not care to address at all is global warming. In fact, he has gone on record to say that he thinks the issue is “overblown”.

The issue of global warming and climate change is a contentious one. Most politicians talk about it but are inhibited when it comes to taking decisions, for fear of upsetting powerful stakes.

Even so—especially in this day and age—for a presidential candidate to completely reject the pressing need of tackling the issue is, quite simply, preposterous. “There are two sides of the (global warming) argument,” Paul maintains, indicating that he does not hold global warming deserves our immediate concern.

Responding to a question about the role of the federal government in controlling global warming, this is what Paul had to say, “Then you have to deal with the volcanoes, and you have to deal with China… so what are you going to do, invade China so they don’t pollute? He added, “We go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more oil. So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming—by subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed.”

Ron Paul is 10th-term Republican United States congressman from Lake Jackson, Texas. Paul has been described as a conservative, a constitutionalist, and a libertarian.

Source: EasyArticles.

Latino Community Credit Union of Durham and San Antonio-based Accion Texas will share the Wachovia NEXT Awards for Opportunity Finance.

The award recognizes community-development financial institutions that have exceptional track records and extraordinary potential. The organizations lend to and invest in small businesses, affordable housing and community facilities.

Latino Community Credit Union will receive $5.5 million, with Accion Texas receiving the remaining $2.75 million.

In June, The Wachovia Foundation committed a $16.75 million grant and the MacArthur Foundation committed $25 million to fund the Wachovia NEXT Awards through 2011.

The World Bank warned that unless Israel removes some of the physical and administrative obstacles to Palestinian travel and trade, donor countries asked to pledge $5.6 billion at a conference in Paris next week may be wasting their money.

Even if the donors pay the full amount, the Palestinian economy would keep shrinking by about 2 percent a year as long as the Israeli restrictions remain in place, the World Bank wrote in a report Thursday.

Israel’s military has been reluctant to remove some of the hundreds of roadblocks and barriers in the West Bank, saying they’re an effective tool against Palestinian militants, and that the Palestinian government does not have sufficient control over the territory to prevent attacks on Israelis.

The issue of roadblocks was raised Thursday in a meeting between international Mideast envoy Tony Blair, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak . Asked whether he won any Israeli guarantees of easing restrictions, Fayyad said: “It’s a one-word answer — no.”

However, Blair’s presence made it clear that the international community has a “huge stake in all of this,” Fayyad said.

“Donors are being asked to fund the Palestinian Authority whose funding needs are at least in part caused by these (Israeli) restrictions,” he said. “Clearly, the trade- off is there for everyone to see.”

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said his government supports the donors’ efforts and has an interest in seeing the Palestinian economy recover. Israel is willing to move on the issue of roadblocks, he said, but gave no specifics.

In violence Thursday, a rocket fired by Gaza militants hit a house in the Israeli border town of Sderot and seriously injured an Israeli woman. The rocket smashed through the roof, and Israeli TV showed medics carrying a woman out of the house on a stretcher.

Palestinian militants fire crude rockets almost daily at southern Israeli border communities, but the inaccurate projectiles rarely cause casualties or damage. However, they disrupt daily life there, and Israel has been indicating strongly that it will launch a large-scale ground attack in Gaza to try to stop the barrages.

The incoming U.N. Mideast envoy, Robert Serry , denounced the rocket attack in unusually strong terms. “Let me be clear about this: We consider that to be terrorist acts,” he said.

A few hours later, Israeli aircraft blew up a car in Gaza City, killing three militants, Palestinians said. The Israeli military said the target was a Palestinian cell that fired rockets at Israel earlier.

Ahead of Monday’s pledging conference, Israel was coming under heavy pressure to show flexibility on the restrictions issue.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he would link an aid package of $500 million to improved security in the region, progress in peace talks, and an easing of Israeli restrictions.

Britain has lobbied Israel to ease restrictions and pressed for the removal of barriers to travel within the West Bank. “The aid is dependent on the conditions the prime minister set out,” a British Foreign Office spokesman said on customary condition of anonymity in line with policy.

Britain is the only country to raise such a condition ahead of the Paris conference, said a diplomat in Paris, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

In Geneva, the International Committee of the Red Cross said the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territories is worsening. Gaza’s situation is particularly dire; it’s been cut off from the world since June when Hamas seized control, and Israel and Egypt virtually closed their borders with the territories.

Referring to the donors’ conference, the ICRC called for immediate political action to alleviate the suffering. The Red Cross rarely addresses conflict parties so openly, preferring instead to raise its concerns through less-public channels.

“The measures imposed by Israel come at an enormous humanitarian cost, leaving the people living under occupation with just enough to survive, but not enough to live a normal and dignified life,” said Beatrice Megevand Roggo , ICRC’s head of operations for the Middle East.

Regev said if restrictions are eased too quickly, Palestinian militants trying to torpedo peace efforts could carry out more attacks. Talks on a final peace deal resumed Wednesday.

Fayyad, meanwhile, said he’s optimistic about obtaining strong donor backing, and outlined his development plan on which the request for $5.6 billion in aid over three years is based.

Both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund this week endorsed his agenda, including promises to cut public spending by trimming a bloated government payroll and cutting subsidies for utilities.

The World Bank said Palestinian reforms alone will not reverse economic decline. “They must be fully supported by both the large increase in aid and the relaxation of the (Israeli) closure regime,” the bank wrote.

In the worst-case scenario — less than full donor support and continued Israeli restrictions — “growth will fall sharply and the already growing poverty levels will rise dramatically,” the report said.

If world leaders do not immediately engage in a race against time to save the Earth’s coral reefs, these vital ecosystems will not survive the global warming and acidification predicted for later this century. That is the conclusion of a group of marine scientists from around the world in a major new study published in the journal Science on Dec. 13.

“It’s vital that the public understands that the lack of sustainability in the world’s carbon emissions is causing the rapid loss of coral reefs, the world’s most biodiverse marine ecosystem,” said Drew Harvell, Cornell professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and head of the Coral Disease Research Team, which is part of the international Coral Reef Targeted Research (CRTR) group that wrote the new study.

The rise of carbon dioxide emissions and the resultant climate warming from the burning of fossil fuels are making oceans warmer and more acidic, said co-author Harvell, which is triggering widespread coral disease and stifling coral growth toward “a tipping point for functional collapse.”
The scientists argue that rising global CO₂ emissions represent an ‘irreducible risk’ that will rapidly outstrip the capacity of local coastal managers and policy-makers to maintain the health of these critical ecosystems, if CO₂ emissions are allowed to continue unchecked.

“This crisis is on our doorstep, not decades away. We have little time in which to respond, but respond, we must!” says Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, lead author of the Science paper, The Carbon Crisis: Coral Reefs under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification.

“Coral reefs have already taken a big hit from recent warm temperatures, but rapid rises in carbon dioxide cause acidification, which adds a new threat: the inability of corals to create calcareous skeletons,” said Harvell. “Acidification actually threatens all marine animals and plants with calcareous skeletons, including corals, snails, clams and crabs. Our study shows that levels of CO₂ could become unsustainable for coral reefs in as little as five decades.”
“The livelihoods of 100 million people living along the coasts of tropical developing countries will be among the first major casualties of rising levels of carbon in the atmosphere,” says Professor Hoegh-Guldberg.

“The warmer and more acidic oceans caused by the rise of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels threaten to destroy coral reef ecosystems, exposing people to flooding, coastal erosion and the loss of food and income from reef-based fisheries and tourism. And this is happening just when many nations are hoping that these industries would allow them to alleviate their impoverished state.”

Coral reefs are often portrayed as natural wonders of great beauty which makes them an important tourism attraction. In Australia, revenue from international tourism to the Great Barrier Reef exceeds $6.8 billion per year. It is estimated that coral reef-related tourism generates tens of billions of dollars per year worldwide. They are the economic engine of a vast number of economies around the world.

Professor Hoegh-Guldberg, who is based at The University of Queensland, says coral reefs occupy a unique niche in the world’s environment, where water temperatures and other environmental factors are ‘just right’. “But raising as little as 1°C the temperature that ocean surface waters reach in summer subjects coral reefs to stresses which lead quickly to mass bleaching. Raise the temperature a little more, and the corals that build reefs die in great numbers. No coral, no coral reef ecosystem,” says Professor Hoegh-Guldberg.

“In summary, the environment that has surrounded coral reefs for hundreds of thousands of years is changing so fast that compensatory biological responses are lagging behind, putting at risk the marine ecosystem with the highest biodiversity on Earth.”

Professor Hoegh-Guldberg says the concentration of CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere is 380 parts per million (ppm), which is 80ppm higher than where it has been for the past 740,000 years, if not 20 million years. Increasing atmospheric CO₂ has already brought about a +0.74°C rise in temperature, he says.

What can be done?

“If current CO₂ emission trends continue, then even the most conservative estimates predict CO₂ concentrations exceeding 500ppm and global temperature increases of 2°C or more by the end of the century,” Professor Hoegh-Guldberg says. “Under these conditions coral reefs are likely to dwindle into insignificance; they’ll be reduced to rubble, threatening the fate of those tens of millions of people whose livelihoods depend upon them.

“We clearly have to do more to reduce CO₂ emissions and still more in preparing vulnerable communities to the almost inevitable problems that they will face as a result of already entrained climate change.”

As world leaders gather for the last day of the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Bali, the CRTR scientists argue that the issue of global CO₂ emissions demands leadership at the international level, including a collective agreement on carbon emission reductions.

Says Dr Marea Hatziolos, CRTR Team Leader, World Bank, and a co-author of the Science paper: “There is an urgent need for high carbon growth countries to reduce their total CO₂ emissions and a responsibility on the part of industrialized nations to assist the most vulnerable coral reef states adapt to climate change impacts while reducing local risks to reefs.”

Dr Hatziolos points out that most coral reefs occur within developing countries where poverty and reliance on ecosystem goods and services place great pressure on them.

“In developing countries, tourism based on ecosystem services provided by coral reefs is a vital and rapidly expanding industry,” Dr Hatziolos says. “Much of the protein consumed by poor coastal communities is supplied in one way or another by coral reefs.

“Less visible, but no less important, is the essential role played by coral reefs in providing habitat for a vast array of marine species which contribute to a complex food chain that extends across the oceans.

“The threats to this natural capital from increased CO₂ emissions generated on a global scale simply raise the urgency for local reef managers and policy-makers to take responsibility for the ‘reducible risk’ to coral reefs, such as over-fishing, pollution and unsustainable coastal development.

“However, this is unlikely to happen, at the intensity and scale required, unless industrialised nations make funds available to assist the most vulnerable coral reef states manage these reducible risks.”

Dr Hatziolos says a range of policy and management tools are readily available, some of which have been refined through support from the CRTR Program, and no time should be lost in applying them more widely and effectively.

“These tools include coastal zone management, co-management arrangements between governments and local communities to foster effective stewardship, integrated catchment approaches to managing water quality and environmental flows, enforcement and compliance with fishing regulations, restoration of reefs and coastal vegetation and sustainable tourism,” she says.

Alone among the leaders of the 27 EU nations, Brown was absent from the proceedings in the 16th-century Jerónimos Monastery in Lisbon, delegating the role of representing Britain to Foreign Secretary David Miliband. Brown arrived later and signed the treaty in the afternoon after he had addressed a senior committee of the British Parliament.

Andrew Duff, a pro-European Liberal Democrat who represents the East of England region in the European Parliament, said Brown’s parliamentary engagement could have been rescheduled. “It’s a complete and absolute scandal and Brown has upset the pro-Europeans as well as the anti-Europeans,” said Duff, who attended the ceremony.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said that everyone had their own problems. “I think we need Great Britain in Europe,” he said in French before adding in English: “We need Gordon!”

The treaty is a watered-down version of the defunct EU constitution that was rejected by voters in the Netherlands and France in 2005.

It is controversial in Britain where the opposition Conservative party and the euroskeptic media has called for it to be put to a popular vote.

Brown’s decision not to reschedule his appearance before British parliamentarians appeared to backfire, provoking criticism from pro-Europeans while leaving critics skeptical of the EU unimpressed.

On arrival in Lisbon, Miliband tried hard to make up for his boss’s absence, embracing Prime Minister José Sócrates and Foreign Minister Luís Amado. Later, as leaders arrived for lunch without Brown, Miliband was seen in conversation with Sócrates, looking at his watch and saying “he’s coming.”

Duff, the European Parliament member, said Brown’s absence was all the more galling because the Portuguese had gone out of their way in their role as current holder of the EU presidency to help resolve Britain’s misgivings about provisions dealing with justice and interior affairs. “For him to spurn the conclusion of the process is considered discourteous,” said Duff, adding that Brown was “clumsy and has lost his nerve on the business of the EU.”

In Britain, the opposition seized on the issue. The Conservative party’s spokesman on foreign affairs, William Hague, said Brown had got “the worst of all worlds.”

“By his sulky rudeness to our EU partners he has actually managed to lose influence,” he added.

While Tony Blair had promised a popular vote on the Constitution, Brown argues that the new treaty is a less significant document and it was not necessary to have a referendum. Only one of the 27 EU nations - Ireland - is likely to put the treaty to a referendum.

Brown’s supporters say that his meeting with the Liaison Committee of the British Parliament was a long-standing commitment and that there had been uncertainty over the time of the signing in Lisbon. They argued that staging the ceremony in Lisbon was unnecessary because EU leaders meet Friday in Brussels, and they said that to have snubbed British Parliamentarians in favor of the signing would have been unwise, given that the Treaty needs to be ratified through Parliament.

Meanwhile some environmentalists have questioned the need for the Lisbon ceremony, considering the meeting Friday in Brussels. In response several leaders agreed to “plane share” for their day trip to Portugal.

The Lisbon treaty scraps the system under which the bloc’s presidency rotates among member states every six months. Instead, a president chosen by member states will serve a two and a half-year term.

Voting procedures for EU nations will be altered, the number of European Commissioners cut and a new high representative for foreign policy appointed.

While Blair was prime minister, Brown, then chancellor of the Exchequer, struck a more euroskeptic tone that resonated with Britain’s influential tabloid newspapers.

Analysts say that Brown, who has been beset by a series of domestic problems, wants to keep a low profile on EU matters to avoid aggravating the euroskeptic media.

Brown’s arrival Friday in Brussels will be his first visit to the city in the six months since he took over as prime minister. Although he has held meetings with the European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, these took place in London.

“Clearly this is a man who has to win a general election and he’s not going to want to be distracted and to put at risk the support of The Sun and Daily Mail,” said Stephen Wall, a former British ambassador to the EU and adviser to two prime ministers, referring to two large-circulation British newspapers.

Wall said that EU policy was in transition under Brown who, while chancellor, had limited his engagement with Brussels. Because Britain has not joined the European single currency, Brown did not sit on an important committee of finance ministers.

“But if you look at what Brown wants to achieve as prime minister, this is about how Europe can compete in the global world. On energy or climate change, Europe is the only place he can start,” said Wall, now vice-chairman of the Business for New Europe lobby group.

Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform research institute in London, said that in the big picture Brown’s relationship with the EU was more positive than the events Thursday would suggest.

“He is going to get this treaty ratified through Parliament,” Grant said. “That was not a foregone conclusion as there were plenty of people close to him - as well as newspapers - calling for him to hold a referendum.”

With relations between Sarkozy and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany reportedly under strain, Brown has the potential to play a leadership role in Europe, he said.

“To his credit, he has taken seriously his relationship with Merkel and Sarkozy,” said Grant. “What he should do is to go to Brussels more often and lobby, and take small countries more seriously.”

While some of the attention can probably be chalked up to typical lurid fascination in such cases, they also have struck a much deeper chord. The deaths have prompted a national conversation about how Germany cares for its children and how large a role the government can and should play in protecting them.

As a result, they have become enmeshed in the larger discussion about the strength of the country’s historically robust social safety net, which politicians on the left have argued should be restored to something closer to its former strength.

In a third closely watched case, a 24-year-old mother and her 6-week-old baby were found dead in a Berlin apartment.