Whereas U.S. voters don’t want the U.S. Government to go to World War Three against Russia over Ukraine, they do want it to go to WW III against China over Taiwan.
A poll in U.S., “Conducted 01/12/22 – 01/14/22”, by the Trafalgar Group, surveying “1081 Respondents” who were “Likely General Election Voters” found that 58.1% said “Yes,” and 41.9% said “No,” to “Do you believe the Biden Administration should use U.S. military assets to defend Taiwan if Taiwan is invaded by China?” Far lower percentages of Americans turned out to be supportive of going to war against Russia over Ukraine.
Nancy Pelosi, who leads Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, has made clear that she wants to visit Taiwan in August, to encourage Taiwan’s leaders to declare Taiwan’s independence from China, which is something that the U.S. Government has never publicly supported, and which, ever since the 28 February 1972 U.S.-China agreement called the “Shanghai Communique”, the U.S. Government publicly and formally opposed when it agreed with China to the promise and commitment that “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.”
The residents in Taiwan were long favorable to publicly acknowledging that Taiwan is a part of China, but the CIA and other U.S. Government agencies have worked for decades — notwithstanding the Shanghai Communique and others to the contrary of Taiwan’s independence — to reverse Taiwan’s being a part of China, and to instead encourage Taiwanese to fear and oppose (even demonizing) China’s Government. These U.S. Government war-mongering efforts have, by now, succeeded overwhelmingly among the residents of Taiwan.
Consequently, on 29 March 2005, Taiwan issued “The Official Position of the Republic of China (Taiwan) on the People’s Republic of China’s Anti-Secession (Anti-Separation) Law”, and publicly announced, to the world, that Taiwan rejects that Chinese law, because “the Law proclaims that ‘Taiwan is a part of China’.”
U.S. President Harry S. Truman had created the CIA in 1947 to perpetrate coups and other regime-changes so that the U.S. Government could take control of the world without necessarily using its armed forces for its conquests (doing it more by subversion, and by hiring mercenaries, and bribing generals). Their first coup was in 1948 Thailand (then called “Burma”) in order to establish a steady off-the-books funding stream for their bribes and “Special Operations” including future coups, and this first coup relied upon the fascist (or “Might makes right”) Guomindang (GMD) or Kuomintang (KMT) forces, who had fled from Mao’s victorious anti-Japanese forces in mainland China, onto China’s island of Formosa (whose Japanese rulers welcomed China’s fascists) and formed there the “Republic of China,” as an American protectorate. The KMT also had an army that had fled to Burma; and this army crucially assisted the CIA to overthrow and replace Burma’s Government in 1948 so as to establish the CIA’s funding stream from the international opium-traffic, which, at that time, was centered in Burma. Consequently, the CIA partnered with the KMT at the very start of the CIA.
On 27 June 1950, Truman announced that the U.S. 7th Fleet would be protecting Taiwan, so that the U.S., which was clearly hostile to (America’s WW II ally) China, would be providing national-security protection to the people on Taiwan. That policy has been very successful toward conquering China, but only gradually, and it is now being brought to the boiling point.
If Taiwan makes any attempt to declare publicly that it is not a part of China, then China will invade it, in order to enforce what they have always consistently asserted about Taiwan (that it is a part of China). And, then, the U.S. Government will say that China’s invasion is not “a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves,” and will go to war against China, and will blame China’s Government, for this war that the U.S. Government has actually been preparing (setting up) for decades.
Starting only late in the 20th Century did the U.S. Government begin to press more firmly to break off Taiwan from China. Consequently, Taiwan’s National Chengchi University instituted in 1994 annual polling on a number of policy-options regarding the way forward regarding Taiwan’s status. At that time, the most popular option, supported by 38.5% of residents, was “Maintain status quo, decide at later date.” A different policy-option, “Maintain status quo, move toward independence,” was supported by only 8.0%. However, as-of June 2022, those two percentages have become virtually tied at around 28.5% for each, which are thus now tied as being the top two policy-choices. So, apparently, this could be the time to strike.
Perhaps Pelosi is hoping to move the needle a bit more America’s way by flying into Taiwan now, under a U.S. armada, and so provoking war against China, on the part both of Taiwan and America. It would bond Americans and Taiwanese to the same fate. And a U.S. military victory against China would do much for Democrats’ fortunes in this year’s off-elections. (By contrast, a U.S. defeat wouldn’t much change the two Parties’ political prospects, because neither Party could then be bragging about ‘our victory’.)
On July 29th, the Republican U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn headlined “Blackburn, Colleagues Introduce Legislation Authorizing Defense Lend-Lease With Taiwan” and announced:
U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.), and Representative Michelle Steel (R-Calif.) introduced the Taiwan Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act. This legislation will support the United States’ partnership with Taiwan by authorizing a defense lend or lease program with the Government of Taiwan. …
“Taiwan is our greatest partner in the Indo-Pacific region, and their continued sovereignty is essential to challenging the New Axis of Evil,” said Senator Blackburn. …
“The introduction of this bill comes just days after the people of Taiwan had to participate in more air raid drills in the event of an attack from the Chinese Communist Party. …
In this virtually 100% neoconservative (i.e., fascist-imperialist) Congress, it could pass overwhelmingly. Neoconservatism is practically unanimous there.
The U.S. Government has been gradually building toward this boiling-point, ever since at least 27 June 1950. Perhaps this will turn out to be the pay-off time, after all those decades of subversion, bribery, etc. It seems to be the right time, because the U.S. Government is now more determined than ever to establish China as being yet another colony, or ‘ally’, and nothing would reassert U.S. global hegemony more than breaking off a piece of China would. It’d be the strongest assertion yet, of the U.S. Government’s “rules-based international order,” in which the U.S. Government makes the international “rules,” instead of the U.N. making the international “laws.” That’s what is really the point of all this: extending America’s hegemony to encompass every nation, eliminate all “competition.” America’s Government has been preparing for such an opportunity, ever since, really, 25 July 1945. This could be the biggest pay-off, yet, from it, if it happens. But taking this path could also spark WW III. The U.S. public seem to accept that risk — not WW III to keep Ukraine, but WW III to win Taiwan. Americans have been skillfully primed for it.
Even America’s ‘progressives’ apparently accept the risk. They ‘debate’ it. There are idiots (and deceivers) of all ideological types.
As regards the island’s history, and the key historical question, of whether the allegation is true “that ‘Taiwan is a part of China’,” here’s a summary about this history: Taiwan (Formosa) was started when the Japanese Empire was forced to give up control over the Chinese island Formosa. Truman backed the fascist Guomindang (GMD) or Kuomintang (KMT) forces who had fled from Mao’s victorious anti-Japanese forces in mainland China, onto China’s island of Formosa and formed there the “Republic of China,” as being an American protectorate. It subsequently came to be called “Taiwan” (which even Japanese historians acknowledge to be a Chinese name for the island) but called itself officially the “Republic of China,’ and NOT the “Republic of Taiwan.” So; even by the official and self-chosen designation of “Republic of China,” anyone who denies that it is a part of China and is “Chinese,” is simply, and boldly, lying, because even the KMT (or GMD) said it was. The U.S. side (now replacing the Japanese side as the post-WW-II, fascist, overlords of Taiwan) had lost the civil war in China, but, ever since, the U.S. Government has been protecting the losing side in China’s civil war, who holed-up in what is actually China’s province of Formosa or Taiwan. If and when China finally takes back control of it, the place-name might revert to “Formosa,” or to “the Province of Formosa,” so as to signify that China, not Japan, won WW II. None of this fascism in post-WW-II Asia would have occurred, at all, if FDR instead of Truman had been America’s President after WW II. Truman was a fascist-imperialist, but FDR was intensely AGAINST both fascism and imperialism. Anti-communism was merely the excuse that the post-WW-II fascist imperialists gave, for their fascist imperialism (America’s coups, invasions, subversions, etc., to conquer the world), so as to fool their publics into believing they live in a ‘democracy’.
If there will be a WW III, it will be because of Truman’s reversal of FDR’s foreign policies, and NOT because of his continuing those policies (which he didn’t do — though many ‘historians’ say he did). The turning-point, away from FDR’s foreign policies, was on 25 July 1945. That’s what got this snowball rolling down this fascist-imperialist mountainside, of the world’s history, since then. It’s what caused Truman quickly to replace all of FDR’s foreign-policy team. Truman was the catastrophe — not the continuation. However, the U.S. Congress, at that time, was even worse. And it still is. FDR was the anomaly. And so was Lincoln, in his time. And so were the majority at the U.S. Constitutional Convention, who collectively wrote the anti-imperialist U.S. Constitution, which has since become just a piece of paper. The aristocratic flood which has followed after them could now wash away all they had achieved, and leave only an ocean of blood behind.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
How CNN lies about Taiwan
The Shangri-La Dialogue in June 2022: Outcomes and the Future
South Asian Economic Chaos: It’s High Time Rising Above Geopolitics
“No longer analyze Asia with European eyes”, says French expert in Bucharest conference
Drones and transport could reshape Eurasian geopolitics
From the time America gained independence, a lot has been discussed about heroes. Politicians may define a hero as someone who supports their political ambitions. They may define them as someone who doesn’t criticize their government.
A journalist may define a hero as someone who suffers police brutality. A child can define a hero as a provider such as a parent or a teacher. In any typical scenario, the definition of a hero depends on who is defining it. Nevertheless, there is a big divide between how politicians, media, and ordinary citizens describe heroes.
What qualifies someone to be called a hero or heroine?
In any society, there will always be a hero, but heroes are hard to find. Different researchers have given varying definitions of a hero. Among them are Zimbardo, Franco, and Blau. In their research, they have defined a hero by three main characteristics.
First, they must recognize and accept the risk of making a sacrifice for the sake of others. Secondly, they must act voluntarily for the sake of others. Thirdly, they must do their actions without expecting any recompense.
According to the definitions of the trio, no hero works for themselves. Every hero, at one point or another, paid a high price for someone or people. Considering the modern-day description of a hero, these qualities have long been forgotten. The description is worse at the political level.
Anyone can be a hero if they resolutely focus on working for the good of the community. They must be ready to experience pain and rejection while pursuing a good cause. The political world influences a lot on who is declared a hero or not. There are many essay topics on heroes and heroism you can choose from. The topic you choose is a topic that is easy to research and argue out. You must be inspired by what other people have written. You can read quality hero essay examples on the StudyMoose website. You will get different ideas on the best topics and write quality essays based on the samples.
Who is a political hero?
The 2008 US presidential campaigns will be remembered in the entire US history. This was the time when all signs were pointing to an Obama win. The major difference from all other presidential campaigns was that America was about to have an African American president. To the entire world and the US, Obama was a hero. Whether he could still be called a hero after 2017 or not was an entirely different story.
The definition of a political hero today is different from what it was a century ago. The US was undergoing different political challenges. There were civil movements, women’s movements, and the like. Every individual who was pushing for human rights recognition was a political hero.
The current US president Joe Biden may have his list of unsung heroes. They could be his list of cabinet members or the team of US forces in peacekeeping missions. They could be ordinary Americans who are working hard to contribute to economic growth.
They could also be the 1.3 million Americans who died during the pandemic. To an American president, a political hero is someone who supports the ruling administration’s policies. Individuals who resisted the government in the previous regime can be termed heroes in the current regime.
Heroes in the media industry
The media is viewed as the link between the citizens and politics. Journalists investigate politicians and avail information to the masses. They attend political briefings and air the news. Journalists define them in different ways. According to journalists, a kid who dies of cancer is a hero. Someone who survives a wild animal attack is a hero. Another person who gets arrested due to politics is a hero too. The media considers a situation that seems daring, needy, enterprising, or aggressive qualified as heroic.
Heroes in the eyes of the general public
The public goes through a lot of challenges, and they always need someone to help out. Whoever avails themselves to offer any kind of help makes a difference in their life. A sick person needs a doctor, while a homeless person needs a philanthropic person. If a house catches fire, the homeowner will require a firefighter. Another person requires help from the police when robbers strike at midnight.
The acts of heroism or their definition look very different in the eyes of the general public. The doctor who comes to the rescue of sick people and the firefighter who helps put off the fire are all heroes. What counts most to the public are the little things someone does to make a difference in someone else’s life. Considering these heroic acts, soldiers and police officers are certainly heroes. It might sound correct to call a professional footballer who strikes most goals a hero.
Considering the critical things
Heroes and American politics are complicated subjects. According to the definition given by researchers Zimbardo, Franco, and Blau, definitions by politicians, the media, and the public seem to be biased. A soldier, for example, is in the line of duty because they are receiving a salary. The same case applies to a doctor and a firefighter.
According to the researchers, a hero should not expect recompense. They should go out of their way and do an action that benefits the public or an individual. An example is the men and women who fought for civil rights. Many more heroes today are fighting against racism and corruption. Considering the critical things, politics influences who is considered a national hero.
Societies celebrate their heroes in different ways and at different levels. For someone to be considered a hero, there are critical qualities they must fulfill. They must be selfless, society minded, and expect no benefit. No matter how great a hero might look, politics are crucial when determining who the national heroes will be.
The incoming administration in Colombia must prioritize tackling rising violence perpetrated by non-State armed groups and criminal organizations in rural areas, the UN human rights office, OHCHR, said in a report published on Tuesday.
The violence is having a devastating impact, particularly on women and children, indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, community leaders and human rights defenders.
Colombia’s new government takes office next month, and the report outlines a series of recommendations that should be implemented urgently to protect lives and uphold the rights of those affected.
The report, which is in Spanish, also calls for security sector reform, citing concerns of human rights violations by State security forces, including “arbitrary deprivations of life”. Alleged links between some State officials and security forces and violent groups must also be investigated.
“It is the State’s duty to protect the population from violence, and to do so in a manner respecting international human rights law. This is why we are urging the Government to adopt public policies to efficiently respond to and prevent further violence, in compliance with Colombia’s obligations under international human rights law,” said Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Dismantling the wide array of non-State armed groups and criminal organizations operating in Colombia should be a priority for the government, the report said, together with consolidation of the rule of law and strengthening public institutions in the most affected areas.
The country has witnessed a dramatic drop in violence since the signing of a 2016 peace deal between the authorities and the FARC-EP militia group, which ended a half-century of conflict. Murders declined from 12,665 in 2012 to less than 1,240 in 2016, OHCHR said, citing the Institute of Development and Peace Studies (INDEPAZ),
However, non-State armed groups and criminal organizations – often involved in drug trafficking, illegal mining and other illicit activities – have expanded their presence in various regions over the past two years.
The report said the government’s predominantly military response has failed to halt this expansion, while limited presence of civilian institutions is exacerbating the situation. Lack of education and job opportunities has also increased the risk of children and adolescents to being recruited by non-State armed groups.
Last year, the UN Human Rights Office in Colombia verified the killing of 100 human rights defenders. Additionally, between 1 January and 30 June of this year, the Office received information of 114 killings of activists, with 22 cases verified so far.
The report revealed how armed groups and criminal organisations have adopted a variety of tactics to gain control over communities, including by imposing rules and restrictions on movement.
“We have to do what they tell us…There are checkpoints on the road where men with heavy weapons stop us, tell us we need to ask permission to leave and check our phones,” one human rights defender told the authors.
In some cases, indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities have been forced to take part in illicit activities, and to abandon their traditional ways of life, such as fishing and hunting.
The violence destroys the social fabric of communities, endangering cultural identity and autonomy, the report said. Communities and their leaders who try to protect their land, their lives, their culture and the environment, face huge risks.
An example is the situation of the Nasa indigenous people in Cauca department, located in the southwest, who have long been the target of threats and attacks. Four Nasa leaders were killed in the first few months of this year. The report warned that violence, drug-trafficking and extractive industries are threatening the community’s whole way of life and survival.
Similarly, the current situation could accelerate the disappearance of the Jiw indigenous people, who live along the banks of the River Guaviare and currently number around 2,261.
The report urges the new administration to ensure the full implementation of the peace agreement, which includes pursuing the voluntary substitution of coca crops, rather than their forced eradication.
Additionally, rural reform and development programmes should be implemented and consolidated, with the participation of affected communities, while the capacity of local governments should be reinforced, which also includes those in Afro-descendant and indigenous communities.
Ms. Bachelet said the incoming government´s focus on peace and the regional implementation of the peace agreement “is a sound approach which my Office supports.”
The UN human rights chief also stressed the importance of dialogue to rebuild trust in the State and its institutions.
“I urge the authorities to hear the voices of all sectors of society,” she said. “The people who live in rural and remote areas have suffered the most from this scourge of violence but are also best placed to help chart a path towards a more peaceful future.”
Putting aside our bias one way or the other for former President Donald Trump; let’s consider what the state of world affairs might look like today if Trump became the president in the 2020. Outcomes under a Trump administration may be hypothetical or a myriad of assumptions, however it is unique in that we can gauge President Joseph Biden’s stark policy differences to the former president’s track record and known approaches to circumstances facing America and the international community while he was in office.
An open mind is required within the current acute political divide where Trump’s bellicose aggression and Biden’s apparent cognitive decline are both put on the backburner. The contrast on foreign affairs policy becomes very apparent between these two diametrically opposed leaders that has clearly set the nation and the world in complete opposite directions at the fork in the electorate road.
On the international front, enemies or those willing to confront American interests are well known to be far less respectful towards a cautious, passive, and visionary leader in the likes of Biden whereas the enemy will think much longer before acting militarily or crafting strategic expansions if they were to ruffle a bold, active, and clever leader in Trump. This is evident when analysing each of the president’s track records when decisively acting or reacting to threats and conflicts impeding national security interests.
During Trump’s tenure as president, he took the fight to ISIS and essentially eradicated the insane caliphate whereas the barbaric sect flourished under the Obama-Biden Administration. When former President Barack Obama failed to unilaterally act in 2013 when Syria crossed his redline after using chemical warfare on their own people, it emboldened Russia and Iran to fill the vacuum in the region as American leadership waned. Trump, on the other hand, struck Syrian and Russian military assets in 2017 with a barrage of 59 tomahawk cruise missiles in retaliation following the Syrian dictator’s use of banned chemical agents on innocent civilians. The belligerents knew full well the consequences if they carried out this inhuman act again knowing Trump’s big stick is for real. Trump made it clear when he said, “No child of God should ever suffer such horror”.
With North Korea testing ballistic missiles and threatening US allies in the region, Trump to the cringe of many, stated the US has a bigger button than North Korea. This set the stage to meet with Kim Jong Un, and subsequently see the rouge nation cease their menacing tests during the remainder of the Trump administration. It was not long after Biden took office where in 2021 North Korea restarted a nuclear reactor and began ballistic missile testing. A minimal response by Biden to North Korea’s actions sent a clear message to the world that America is weaker under this leader.
Russia seized the strategic Crimea from Ukraine under the Obama-Biden presidency with little to no consequences. Through the Trump’s term, there were no significant Russian territorial expansion due to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s respect for a strongman in the White House. In fact, Trump was ridiculed for pushing against Russia when he called out NATO for not paying their share of the alliance’s military spending and for advising Germany not to rely on the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline for their gas.
Biden, who often called out Trump for his cozy relationship with Putin, was quick to lift sanctions on the Russian firm behind the Nord Stream 2 project. Essentially, Germany is now hostage to their reliance on Russian energy to fuel their economy, and the pipeline is now a major geopolitical prize to bankroll the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. Biden’s decision is a major strategic miscalculation.
The distinction between Trump and Biden is most acute when dealing with Iran and the Middle East. Past presidents promised to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Trump was the only one to deliver on that promise during his term. Trump also took a tough stand against Iran with severe economic sanctions that had the regime floundering towards capitulation on their nuclear ambitions. He then cut off aid to the Palestinians for continuing to perpetuate instability and their unwillingness to recognize the Jewish State’s right to exist. These decisions by Trump placed America in a position of strength in negotiating favourable outcomes for the people across the entire region.
We quickly witnessed the fruits of Trump’s policies when he did what no other president did before him. Not since the historic peace agreement between Egypt and Israel in 1979, had any other Arab country in next four decades recognized the State of Israel. In 2020, the United States, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain signed the Abraham Accords to chart a new course in history to normalized diplomatic relations with Israel. Later that year, two other Arab nations, Sudan, and Morocco, followed suit and joined the Abraham Accords.
A central outcome of the Abraham Accords between the signatory countries has seen the blossoming of bilateral initiatives within the private sectors and civil society. This has set the stage for geopolitical and economic benefits spilling over in the region and establishing a foundation for peace that other countries can tap into; and it singled a collaborative bulwark against a threatening Iran regime bent on destabilizing the region. The Abraham Accords could inevitably advance a Palestinian solution by opening new channels of communication between the Arab signatories and Israel to give the Palestinian people new opportunities to press their leaders for similar benefits from the Accords.
Biden, on the other hand, reversed course on Trump’s major achievements, and now finds himself scrambling to save face with America’s allies in the region. Biden restored Obama’s sanction waivers to Iran that allows Russian and Chinese companies to carry out non-proliferation work to make it harder for Iran nuclear sites to be used for weapons development. To be clear, American rivals will oversee the enemy to make it harder but not prevent Iran from destabilizing the world with a nuclear arsenal. The American relieve in sanctions now infuses the Iranian regime with cash to fund their state-sponsored terrorism hubs in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen; and provide Russia with military technology to fight America in Ukraine.
On the heels of Biden’s recent trip to beg for oil from Saudi Arabia, a country he has labeled as a pariah, Iran announced that they are now capable of making a nuclear bomb. Kamal Kharrazi, a senior advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said they can easily produce enough enriched uranium to acquire a nuclear weapon; essentially admitting the rouge nation has exceed the enriching cap put in place in the Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal.
Biden’s head may be in the sand on the quid pro quo to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for Putin, the wily fox in the hen house, overseeing the Iranian nuclear deal. The Russian president won staunch support for his country’s military campaign in Ukraine when the Iranian Supreme Leader said the West opposes an independent and strong Russia in the face of a NATO military push onto its borders. Comments from the Iranian parliament described Russia as Iran’s most strategic partner.
Putin hailed the importance of the close ties between Moscow and Tehran when he added that the two countries have work to “strengthen their cooperation on international security”. This statement would have once been garnered by America in a show of their world strength and leadership.
Two years into his term, Biden now finds it uncomfortable in the box he created for himself that is increasingly becoming smaller. He has lost much of the political capital gained by Trump in the Middle East, and he is now clamoring to regain influence. When Biden claimed America is back, its enemies may have been rejoicing to see the reset from Trump.
It may be too late. Biden is now urging Israel and Arab countries to push back on Russian, Chinese, and Iranian influence. Nothing like codifying this Axis powers by calling them out. India and Brazil may be sliding over ever so quietly. Israel must wonder if America truly their back covered when cajoling the Palestinian leadership. Saudi Arabia and the UAE took what wins were available during awkward Biden visit and they will decline to pump more oil beyond a plan approved by their energy alliance with Moscow. If that was not enough salt in the wound, the Saudis purchase of Chinese weapons is up 400%.
Following Biden’s chaotic evacuation from Afghanistan that left hundreds of millions in weaponry in the hands of the Taliban and a nightmare scenario where 12 U.S. troops were killed by a suicide bomber; Russia had basically seen enough weakness in Biden to forage ahead with plans to invade Ukraine.
War is unpredictable at best. Russia most likely will hold onto eastern Ukraine with eventual fractures to a weakened Biden-led European alliance wilting in fear over a very cold winter. The billions of unaccountable dollars sinking into a corrupt Ukraine will begin to dry up. Russia’s known ability to retrench and simply wear down the opposition will see this war drag out until Biden is replaced or until the Ukrainian people realize they are not up to the task.
There is also a sharp contract in the leader’s action on the southern US border with over 2 million illegal immigrants flooding into American cities across the nation this year and causing great economic hardship. Some illegals are terrorists, criminals, carrying the coronavirus, or bringing in millions of fentanyl doses that are killing tens of thousands of Americans. Which Commander-in-Chief do we believe will build a wall and protect the homeland?
Summarizing, Trump was quite often labeled a war monger, yet he did not lead America into a war or quagmire that his critics predicted. Trump did carry a big stick when required to mitigate the ISIS and to send a decisive message when striking Syrian assets for their use of chemical weapons. On the other hand, for all his pugnacious warlike talk, he took the time to meet with foes to build a relationship of respect and transparency that led the belligerents to backdown from their aggressive overtures and military aspirations.
Biden, on the other hand, with a 40-year tenure in public office vs. Trump’s four years, is conflicted at best in allowing the politics to sway the leader and become less predictable than the portrayed unhinged Trump. Allies and enemies alike may demonstrate a superficial respect for Biden, yet they question his instincts and willingness to decisively lead, defend, or attack. When Biden does act, the foreign policy strategy can become murky, too late, or prolonged; and subsequently the US military becomes ambiguous to the strategic objective and rules of engagement.
A 2024 rematch between Biden and Trump seems almost certain if one of them announces, and the other is inclined to challenge. While high inflation, crushing gas prices, jobs, and the overall economy will weigh most heavily on Americans at the polls, foreign policy leadership will certainly be a contrasting issue to consider when deciding who can best lead and defend America in an increasingly volatile world.
Whereas U.S. voters don’t want the U.S. Government to go to World War Three against Russia over Ukraine, they do...
CNN presents Taiwan as never having been a part of China, and that is a lie. Furthermore, CNN presents the...
The Shangri-La Dialogue, is a forum for discussion among government ministers and senior officials, as well as business leaders and...
Recent days have seen Cape Town once again pummelled by heavy storms, high rainfall, severe winds and tumultuous seas giving...
What happens when society faces a dilemma on who and what to trust? In a situation where an often blurred...
Authors: Teh Zi Yee & Nory Ly* 18 months after the military coup, the ongoing political crisis in Myanmar has...
To depict the overwhelming hunger and economic distress of the Indian subcontinent in the wake of the Second World War,...
Why the EU Could End Within a Year
The Great Game of China and the United States of America in Asia
The Green China; Hindrance and Limitations of the Green Transition
Asian and Pacific Countries Preparing for the Far East Forum
Is ‘NATO-ization’ of Finland the end of ‘Finlandization’ in Europe?
Optical Gas Imaging – A New and Innovative Imaging Technology
The Angolan Factor in China’s Relations with Africa