.
.
Title: Obama scores decisive win in South Carolina
Date: January 27th, 2008
Source: CBC.ca
Link: http://www.cbc.ca/world/usvotes/story/2008/01/26/south-carolina-primary.html
Article Summary:
Obama has won the South Carolina primary with a landslide, securing 55 per cent of votes over Hilary Clinton's 27 per cent. John Edwards only had 18 per cent, even though he had won Carolinas during the last Democratic presidential campaign over John Kerry.
This is a critical victory for Obama, who had lost twice to Clinton in Nevada and New Hempshire. With this landslide victory, the race is now renewed. In fact, Clinton and Obama are tied in the number of states they had won.
Obama received 81 per cent of the Black votes, but only 24 per cent from the Whites. Yet, Obama dismissed the possibility of "racial block," reminding his victory in Iowa, a state where 94 per cent of its population is white.
Now the candidates are concentraining their efforts on Super Tuesday. Hilary seems to be leading in polls at the moment, having landslide support in California and Massachusetts. However, the polls show that no runner will be able to win enough number of delegates to win the race. This means that the race will continue even long after the Super Tuesday.
Byun's Opinion:
It was truly amazig to see the dramatic rise of Barrack Obama throughout the last two years. When I heard his name as a potential Democratic presidential candidate, in fact, I neither knew him nor really cared about who he was. Though I wasn't a fan of Hilary Clinton, I had to admit that she was going to get the Democratic ticket for sure.
But Obama was not a typical politician. His charisma and his powerful urge for change began to gain momentum among the Americans. In fact, it was a huge surprise when Obama outmanuevered Clinton in the fundraising competition. Though his polls were still significantly lower than that of Clinton, his rise was limitless. Indeed, he managed to pull his support rate up to Clinton just before the Democrat primaries began.
His suprising victory in Iowa was quite amazing. Saying "thank you" for more than nine times, his victory speech was considered one of the best speeches ever made. And the polls showed that Obama was going to win New Hempshire easily too.
But Clinton did not die. By winning New Hempshire, followed by another close victory in Nevada, Clinton showed that she was still standing strong. Obama, on the other hand, had to win South Carolina in order continue his campaigns properly. So this victory in South Carolina was basically a critical life-saving one for Obama.
And I am deeply interested in predicing how the Super Tuesday primaries will turn out. Clinton is currently ahead of Obama in large states such as California and Massachusetts; however, we do not know how the result will turn out.
One bad thing about South Carolina is that it is seen by many as a racial blocking. In fact, Obama had received the majority of the Black votes, but had won only 24 per cent of the white people. This clearly shows there is still a racial segregration tendency in the United States of America (no wonder it is a southern state).
I hope that the American politics will someday overcome this racial conflict problems someday in the near future.
.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
New Hampshire Primary
.
.
The presidential election process of the United States is interesting. Because the American politics is monopolized by two parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, an American presidential election usually means a battle between two major candidates. Of course third party members, like Ralph Nader and Ross Perro, do influence a bit, but not that much.
As a result, the two parties' presidential candidate election process is as complicated and fascinating as the actual presidential election. This party candidate nomination process utilizes something called primary elections. Before explaning it, it is important to know that the delegates from each state, just like the actual presidential electoral college, vote to nominate a party candidate. So in the past, the party nominees were not directly choosen by the American citizens, but by the delegates. So this resulted in corruptions, secret negotiatins, sellings of offices, etc. This led the states to let the common voters to choose the delegates who will be voting in the party nominee convention. This is called Primary. It is similar to the actual presidential system; commoners elect delegates, who then elect a president. Likewise, the commoners vote for state delegates, who then vote to nominate a party candidate at the party convention. Throughout the early half of the year 2008, primary elections will be held in the 50 states chronically. A big day is called Super Tuesday, when many of the most populous states, New Yok, California, and Florida, have primaries. So, the candidate who won the most number of delegates will be nominated as a presidential candidate for that party.
Hilary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and John Edwards are fighting for nomination in the Democratic Party. Up until now, Hilary was thought to be the "obvious" choice, but Obama's incredible rise in popularity, thanks to the younger generations and Oprah Winfrey, suddenly made the race unpredictable. Barrack's dramatic triumph in the Iowa caucus, however, was then balanced by the New Hempshire primary, in which Hilary unexpectedly have won. Contradicting previously taken polls, Hilary won New Hempshire with 39%; Obama had 36%. Many say that this is the result of Hilary sobbing while having a fan chat. Also, Obama's rise scared the middle-aged and old-aged Americans, who tend to look down on Obama's Black heritage and are afraid of change, to support Hilary at New Hempshire. So the Democratic race is now balanced, and we shall see who will win the next primary in Michigan. In fact, as of today Obama have won 25 delegates and Hilary won 24. Edwards won 18 delegates, but I do not think he stands a good chance.
For the Republicans, there are so many candidates. Some of them are Thompson the second Reagan, Juliani the 911 Hero, and Mccain the old rival of George W. Bush. However, Huckabee had won the Iowa caucus, thanks to the concentrated support from the conservative and religious Americans who were impressed by Huckabee's old profession as a minister. However, McCain have won the New Hempshire primary today, followed by Romni, a Massachusetts governor who had been leading the polls until Iowa Caucus. So, at the moment, it is really hard to determine who's winning. If I have to choose one, I'd say it's either Romni or Huckabee.
.
.
.
The presidential election process of the United States is interesting. Because the American politics is monopolized by two parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, an American presidential election usually means a battle between two major candidates. Of course third party members, like Ralph Nader and Ross Perro, do influence a bit, but not that much.
As a result, the two parties' presidential candidate election process is as complicated and fascinating as the actual presidential election. This party candidate nomination process utilizes something called primary elections. Before explaning it, it is important to know that the delegates from each state, just like the actual presidential electoral college, vote to nominate a party candidate. So in the past, the party nominees were not directly choosen by the American citizens, but by the delegates. So this resulted in corruptions, secret negotiatins, sellings of offices, etc. This led the states to let the common voters to choose the delegates who will be voting in the party nominee convention. This is called Primary. It is similar to the actual presidential system; commoners elect delegates, who then elect a president. Likewise, the commoners vote for state delegates, who then vote to nominate a party candidate at the party convention. Throughout the early half of the year 2008, primary elections will be held in the 50 states chronically. A big day is called Super Tuesday, when many of the most populous states, New Yok, California, and Florida, have primaries. So, the candidate who won the most number of delegates will be nominated as a presidential candidate for that party.
Hilary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and John Edwards are fighting for nomination in the Democratic Party. Up until now, Hilary was thought to be the "obvious" choice, but Obama's incredible rise in popularity, thanks to the younger generations and Oprah Winfrey, suddenly made the race unpredictable. Barrack's dramatic triumph in the Iowa caucus, however, was then balanced by the New Hempshire primary, in which Hilary unexpectedly have won. Contradicting previously taken polls, Hilary won New Hempshire with 39%; Obama had 36%. Many say that this is the result of Hilary sobbing while having a fan chat. Also, Obama's rise scared the middle-aged and old-aged Americans, who tend to look down on Obama's Black heritage and are afraid of change, to support Hilary at New Hempshire. So the Democratic race is now balanced, and we shall see who will win the next primary in Michigan. In fact, as of today Obama have won 25 delegates and Hilary won 24. Edwards won 18 delegates, but I do not think he stands a good chance.
For the Republicans, there are so many candidates. Some of them are Thompson the second Reagan, Juliani the 911 Hero, and Mccain the old rival of George W. Bush. However, Huckabee had won the Iowa caucus, thanks to the concentrated support from the conservative and religious Americans who were impressed by Huckabee's old profession as a minister. However, McCain have won the New Hempshire primary today, followed by Romni, a Massachusetts governor who had been leading the polls until Iowa Caucus. So, at the moment, it is really hard to determine who's winning. If I have to choose one, I'd say it's either Romni or Huckabee.
.
.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Turnout strong for referendum to give Chavez more power
..
Title: Turnout strong for referendum to give Chavez more power
Date: December 2nd, 2007
Source: CBC.ca
Link: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/12/02/venezuela.html
Article Summary:
The national refrendum for constitutional reforms was held in Venezuela today. Put forth by the Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, the refrendum's key features are: eliminating limits on the president's term, allowing the president to handpick provincial and municipal leaders, creating a minimum six-hour work day, lowing the voting age from 18 to 16, giving the president control over the central bank, creating communal property, and allowing the government to censor media if it declares a political emergency. If ratified, this would indisputably give a much greater political power to Chavez, who insisted that these constitutional changes were necessary in order to complete the country's transition to a socialist state. Although the refrendum result has not yet been announced, the recent polls have shown that the majority of the Venezuelans were opposing such changes. In fact, tens of thousands of protestors protested against the refrendum last week. The Venezuelans' opposition to the refrendum is due to the unprecedented shortage of food. A grocer even said that, "we have oil, but we don't have food, and we can't eat oil."
Byun's Opinion:
In my opinion, Hugo Chavez has been the most strong, charismatic, influencial, socialist, and anti-USA leader in Latin America. Declaring himself as the champion of the poor, Chavez came to power in 1998. With Venezuela's oil as a weapon, Chavez gained popularity among the Venezuelans for openly criticizing the United States and influencing the world politics. He, in fact, has been the leader of the anti-US intervention movements in Latin America. And now, he is trying to consolidate and secure his power, by making such dictatorial changes to the constitution.
Chavez's rise to power reminds me of that of Hitler. They both took the advanatge of their hostile views on foreign nations to gain popularity. Hitler cried for the revenge against the British Empire and France for defeating Germany in the First World War, and for the reversal of the Treaty of Versailies. For Chavez, the target was the United States, a country that intervened in the Latin American politics since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.
As well, their methods of consolidating power are very similar. Unlike popular beliefs, Hitler's establishment of the Third Reich was completely constitutional; he won the enough number of parliament seats to change the constitution to make the Nazis as the only legimate party in Germany. To win the parliament elections, Hitler used the fear of communism, economic recovery, anti-semitism, and revenge. Chavez is doing the same thing. He called a refrendum to make constitutional changes, which would give him the right to be the president for life. To win enough votes to ratify his amendments to the constitution, Chavez included popular features such as the six-hour work day. So the voters would vote for the totalitarian amendments in order to get the socialist programs they want. Chavez also lowered the minimum voting age from 18 to 16. Because he's popular among the young people, lowering the voting age requirements would give him more votes.
Yet, this refrendum seems very dangerous to me. If ratified, this would give Chavez the power to remain in power forever, the power to handpick provincial and municipal leaders, and even the power to censor media! Chavez's supporters argue that these measures are necessary to complete Venezuela's transition to a socialist state. And maybe it is true. But considering the amount of power the Venezuelan government will be having, this reminds me of the Soviet Union. In fact, one of the refrendum's features is the creation of communal property!
In the past, the Latin Americans' protests against the American intervention always led them to socialist revolutions. In Cuba, for example, the anti-USA sentiments established the Castro's communist government. Venezuela under Chavez is pretty much going through the same process.
I can't predict whether Chavez's constitutional reforms would be beneficial for the Venezuelans or not. What concerns me more is the spread of Chavezism among the other Latin American governments, which would eventually give a birth to another world power, the Latin American union.
.
.
Title: Turnout strong for referendum to give Chavez more power
Date: December 2nd, 2007
Source: CBC.ca
Link: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/12/02/venezuela.html
Article Summary:
The national refrendum for constitutional reforms was held in Venezuela today. Put forth by the Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, the refrendum's key features are: eliminating limits on the president's term, allowing the president to handpick provincial and municipal leaders, creating a minimum six-hour work day, lowing the voting age from 18 to 16, giving the president control over the central bank, creating communal property, and allowing the government to censor media if it declares a political emergency. If ratified, this would indisputably give a much greater political power to Chavez, who insisted that these constitutional changes were necessary in order to complete the country's transition to a socialist state. Although the refrendum result has not yet been announced, the recent polls have shown that the majority of the Venezuelans were opposing such changes. In fact, tens of thousands of protestors protested against the refrendum last week. The Venezuelans' opposition to the refrendum is due to the unprecedented shortage of food. A grocer even said that, "we have oil, but we don't have food, and we can't eat oil."
Byun's Opinion:
In my opinion, Hugo Chavez has been the most strong, charismatic, influencial, socialist, and anti-USA leader in Latin America. Declaring himself as the champion of the poor, Chavez came to power in 1998. With Venezuela's oil as a weapon, Chavez gained popularity among the Venezuelans for openly criticizing the United States and influencing the world politics. He, in fact, has been the leader of the anti-US intervention movements in Latin America. And now, he is trying to consolidate and secure his power, by making such dictatorial changes to the constitution.
Chavez's rise to power reminds me of that of Hitler. They both took the advanatge of their hostile views on foreign nations to gain popularity. Hitler cried for the revenge against the British Empire and France for defeating Germany in the First World War, and for the reversal of the Treaty of Versailies. For Chavez, the target was the United States, a country that intervened in the Latin American politics since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.
As well, their methods of consolidating power are very similar. Unlike popular beliefs, Hitler's establishment of the Third Reich was completely constitutional; he won the enough number of parliament seats to change the constitution to make the Nazis as the only legimate party in Germany. To win the parliament elections, Hitler used the fear of communism, economic recovery, anti-semitism, and revenge. Chavez is doing the same thing. He called a refrendum to make constitutional changes, which would give him the right to be the president for life. To win enough votes to ratify his amendments to the constitution, Chavez included popular features such as the six-hour work day. So the voters would vote for the totalitarian amendments in order to get the socialist programs they want. Chavez also lowered the minimum voting age from 18 to 16. Because he's popular among the young people, lowering the voting age requirements would give him more votes.
Yet, this refrendum seems very dangerous to me. If ratified, this would give Chavez the power to remain in power forever, the power to handpick provincial and municipal leaders, and even the power to censor media! Chavez's supporters argue that these measures are necessary to complete Venezuela's transition to a socialist state. And maybe it is true. But considering the amount of power the Venezuelan government will be having, this reminds me of the Soviet Union. In fact, one of the refrendum's features is the creation of communal property!
In the past, the Latin Americans' protests against the American intervention always led them to socialist revolutions. In Cuba, for example, the anti-USA sentiments established the Castro's communist government. Venezuela under Chavez is pretty much going through the same process.
I can't predict whether Chavez's constitutional reforms would be beneficial for the Venezuelans or not. What concerns me more is the spread of Chavezism among the other Latin American governments, which would eventually give a birth to another world power, the Latin American union.
.
.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Turkey considers response after deadly rebel ambush on soldiers
..
Title: Turkey considers response after deadly rebel ambush on soldiers
Date: October 21st, 2007
Source: CBC.ca
Link: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/10/21/turkey-kurds.html
Article Summary:
Following a deadly ambush on Turkish soldiers by the Kurdish rebels, the Turkish government is considering a military strike against the rebel bases in northern Iraq. The Turkish artillery, in retaliation for the ambush, have shelled rebel positions, killing at least 12 rebel soldiers. Since the Iraq-based Kurdish rebels already have been threatening Turkey's border security, this incident would most likely pressure the Turkish government to attack the Kurd camps in Iraq. In fact, the Turkish parliament actually authorized the government to carry out cross-border raids against the rebels. The Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, obviously not wanting this crisis to threaten the long-lasted stability of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, gave the rebels two choices: to lay down weapons or to get out of Iraq. Talabani noted that he will meet the Turkey's foreign minister to discuss a solution to this issue.
Byun's Opinion:
The Kurdish crisis today dates back to the beginning of the 20th century. Following the end of the First World War, the Western powers, notably Britain and France, divided the formal territories of the collapsed Ottoman Empire into many separate Arabic nations. As a result, many new countries, including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, were created. Yet, the Western powers had completely forgotten about, or purposefully ignored, the Kurdish people, whose lands have been divided and annexed by Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. Ever since they lost their independence, the Kurds have rebelled to reclaim their lands. The Iraqis, then led by Saddam Hussein, crushed such movements by killing hundreds of Kurds, and made their lands in northern Iraq autonomous. As a result, the Kurds in Iraq have been relatively quiet and peaceful. Those in Turkey, however, were not; they resented the Turkish government's attempts to assimilate them.
In fact, the Kurdish rebels' ambush attack on a Turkish patrol that happened yesterday reflects this long-lasted territorial dispute. The Kurds continuously have been raiding the Turkish soldiers from their bases in northern Iraq. The Turkish government, wanting to put an end to the Kurdish independence movements, is currently considering an option of crossing the Turkey-Iraq border to raid the rebel bases in Iraq. For the Turks, this seems to be the only option to prevent further damages by the Kurds.
The Iraqis, on the other hand, do not want the Turkish military to cross the border. The autonomous Kurdish reigion in northern Iraq has been relatively peaceful, and the Iraqi government obviously does not want the Turks to disturb the stability in this region. The Iraqi president is asking the Turkish government not to cross the border, while urging the Kurdish rebels to lay down weapons or get out of Iraq. To me, the Iraqi government has made the best decision possible. I, in fact, cannot think of any "better" alternatives.
In overall, I offer the Kurdish people my dearest sympathy. To me, they are the poorest victims of this incident. Both the Turks and the Iraqis are forcing them to stand down. The two nations only care about their own national interests, and do not pay any attention to the "homeless" Kurds. I can see now how important it is for a race to have its own lands. Meanwhile, I ask the British and the French government to formally apologize for causing this tragedy.
.
.
Title: Turkey considers response after deadly rebel ambush on soldiers
Date: October 21st, 2007
Source: CBC.ca
Link: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/10/21/turkey-kurds.html
Article Summary:
Following a deadly ambush on Turkish soldiers by the Kurdish rebels, the Turkish government is considering a military strike against the rebel bases in northern Iraq. The Turkish artillery, in retaliation for the ambush, have shelled rebel positions, killing at least 12 rebel soldiers. Since the Iraq-based Kurdish rebels already have been threatening Turkey's border security, this incident would most likely pressure the Turkish government to attack the Kurd camps in Iraq. In fact, the Turkish parliament actually authorized the government to carry out cross-border raids against the rebels. The Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, obviously not wanting this crisis to threaten the long-lasted stability of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, gave the rebels two choices: to lay down weapons or to get out of Iraq. Talabani noted that he will meet the Turkey's foreign minister to discuss a solution to this issue.
Byun's Opinion:
The Kurdish crisis today dates back to the beginning of the 20th century. Following the end of the First World War, the Western powers, notably Britain and France, divided the formal territories of the collapsed Ottoman Empire into many separate Arabic nations. As a result, many new countries, including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, were created. Yet, the Western powers had completely forgotten about, or purposefully ignored, the Kurdish people, whose lands have been divided and annexed by Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. Ever since they lost their independence, the Kurds have rebelled to reclaim their lands. The Iraqis, then led by Saddam Hussein, crushed such movements by killing hundreds of Kurds, and made their lands in northern Iraq autonomous. As a result, the Kurds in Iraq have been relatively quiet and peaceful. Those in Turkey, however, were not; they resented the Turkish government's attempts to assimilate them.
In fact, the Kurdish rebels' ambush attack on a Turkish patrol that happened yesterday reflects this long-lasted territorial dispute. The Kurds continuously have been raiding the Turkish soldiers from their bases in northern Iraq. The Turkish government, wanting to put an end to the Kurdish independence movements, is currently considering an option of crossing the Turkey-Iraq border to raid the rebel bases in Iraq. For the Turks, this seems to be the only option to prevent further damages by the Kurds.
The Iraqis, on the other hand, do not want the Turkish military to cross the border. The autonomous Kurdish reigion in northern Iraq has been relatively peaceful, and the Iraqi government obviously does not want the Turks to disturb the stability in this region. The Iraqi president is asking the Turkish government not to cross the border, while urging the Kurdish rebels to lay down weapons or get out of Iraq. To me, the Iraqi government has made the best decision possible. I, in fact, cannot think of any "better" alternatives.
In overall, I offer the Kurdish people my dearest sympathy. To me, they are the poorest victims of this incident. Both the Turks and the Iraqis are forcing them to stand down. The two nations only care about their own national interests, and do not pay any attention to the "homeless" Kurds. I can see now how important it is for a race to have its own lands. Meanwhile, I ask the British and the French government to formally apologize for causing this tragedy.
.
.
Monday, October 8, 2007
British PM announces more troop cuts in Iraq
..
Title: British PM announces more troop cuts in Iraq
Date: October 8th, 2007
Source: CBC.ca
Link: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/10/08/britain-iraq.html
Article Summary:
The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that he will carry out additional troop cuts, reducing the number of British soldiers in Iraq by nearly half. Brown stated that the security status in the British-occupied Basra province has improved significantly and thus Britain could now transfer the control of the region to the Iraqi forces. He further justified the withdrawal by insisting that Britain should let the Iraqis to step up and take over security themselves. Britain's decision to cut troops is mostly due to the fact that the Britain's participation in the invasion and its troops' stay in Iraq have been deeply unpopular. On the same day Brown announced the troop cuts, in fact, more than 2000 anti-war protestors marched from London's Trafalgar Square to the Parliament building, demanding the complete and immediate withdrawal of British troops in Iraq.
Byun's Opinion
As mentioned above, Britain's participation in the invasion of Iraq has been deeply unpopular among the British citizens. As a matter of fact, it resulted in Tony Blair's resignation as the Prime Minister. Had not Blair joined the war, he could definitely have been the longest-serving British Prime Minister in history. And obviously, the new Prime Minister Gordon Brown did not want to continue the unpopular war. In order to secure his popularity and ensure his victory in upcoming parliamentary election in 2009, Brown had no choice but to hurriedly carry out continuous troop cuts. Even if he did not want to cut troops, the Labour Party and the public polls would have forced him to do so anyway.
But for a powerful nation like Britain to pull off from the invasion, a justification was needed. So, Britain came up with one: the security status in the British-controlled Basra province has improved significantly and thus it could now safely transfer the control of the region to the Iraqi forces. To make it sound even better, Britain emphasized the principle of "self-determination," saying that the Iraqis should take care themselves. Humanistic it may sound, but we all know that it's just a bluff.
The departure of the British forces from Iraq would leave two international effects: it will encourage the Iraqi rebels to be more aggresive against the foreign invaders, and consequently it will weaken the Bush Administration's final efforts to continue the military occupation of Iraq. It is also a fortunate event for Iran because the Bush administration's attempts to sanction Iran will also be weakened.
In overall, Britain's troop cuts in Iraq indirectly reflects the failure of the American war on Iraq. In fact, Bush administration has lost nearly everything due to the war: its popularity, its key cabinet members, and now, its former greatest foreign ally, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For me, it is interesting to see that even a strong friendship cannot stand over "few" public polls.
Title: British PM announces more troop cuts in Iraq
Date: October 8th, 2007
Source: CBC.ca
Link: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/10/08/britain-iraq.html
Article Summary:
The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that he will carry out additional troop cuts, reducing the number of British soldiers in Iraq by nearly half. Brown stated that the security status in the British-occupied Basra province has improved significantly and thus Britain could now transfer the control of the region to the Iraqi forces. He further justified the withdrawal by insisting that Britain should let the Iraqis to step up and take over security themselves. Britain's decision to cut troops is mostly due to the fact that the Britain's participation in the invasion and its troops' stay in Iraq have been deeply unpopular. On the same day Brown announced the troop cuts, in fact, more than 2000 anti-war protestors marched from London's Trafalgar Square to the Parliament building, demanding the complete and immediate withdrawal of British troops in Iraq.
Byun's Opinion
As mentioned above, Britain's participation in the invasion of Iraq has been deeply unpopular among the British citizens. As a matter of fact, it resulted in Tony Blair's resignation as the Prime Minister. Had not Blair joined the war, he could definitely have been the longest-serving British Prime Minister in history. And obviously, the new Prime Minister Gordon Brown did not want to continue the unpopular war. In order to secure his popularity and ensure his victory in upcoming parliamentary election in 2009, Brown had no choice but to hurriedly carry out continuous troop cuts. Even if he did not want to cut troops, the Labour Party and the public polls would have forced him to do so anyway.
But for a powerful nation like Britain to pull off from the invasion, a justification was needed. So, Britain came up with one: the security status in the British-controlled Basra province has improved significantly and thus it could now safely transfer the control of the region to the Iraqi forces. To make it sound even better, Britain emphasized the principle of "self-determination," saying that the Iraqis should take care themselves. Humanistic it may sound, but we all know that it's just a bluff.
The departure of the British forces from Iraq would leave two international effects: it will encourage the Iraqi rebels to be more aggresive against the foreign invaders, and consequently it will weaken the Bush Administration's final efforts to continue the military occupation of Iraq. It is also a fortunate event for Iran because the Bush administration's attempts to sanction Iran will also be weakened.
In overall, Britain's troop cuts in Iraq indirectly reflects the failure of the American war on Iraq. In fact, Bush administration has lost nearly everything due to the war: its popularity, its key cabinet members, and now, its former greatest foreign ally, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For me, it is interesting to see that even a strong friendship cannot stand over "few" public polls.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
U.S., France agree on new sanctions against Iran: Rice
..
Title: U.S., France agree on new sanctions against Iran: Rice
Date: September 21, 2007
Source: CBC.ca
Link: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/09/21/rice-iran.html
Article Summary:
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner agreed not only to stand together against Iran's attempts to create nuclear weapons, but also to apply new sanctions on Iran's nuclear program. The two countries were even doing groundworks for a new UN Security Council resolution on Iran. This is due to the political shift of the French government towards the George W. Bush Administration, thanks to the establishment of a conservative regime in France. Although the two nations still have some disagreements, the French minister concluded with saying, "but we have excellent relations."
Byun's Opnion:
Frankly, this article came to me as a shock for two reasons: a dramatic shift in France's diplomatic relations with the United States, and in its Middle East policy.
For the last several years, the diplomatic relationship between France and the United States had been poor and frosty. The former French president Chirac, for instance, heavily criticized the Bush administration for declaring a war on Iraq. When the new conservative government under Nicolas Sarkozy came into power in France, however, the ice started to break. Unlike his predecessor Chirac, Sarkozy was pro-USA, pro-Israel, and most importantly, conservative. He even choose New Hampshire for his vacation couple months ago. Naturally, France's diplomatic policy leaned towards the United States, instantly forming a close coalition between the two nations. And, this 'coalition' ultimately led France to estbalish a common front with the Americans against Iran's nuclear program. Thus, this article is a minor representation of the undergoing change in France. This 'common front,' in my opinion, would fuel and give more energy to the United States' attempts to apply sanctions on Iran. As well, it is interesting for me to see that, as soon as Tony Blair resigned as the British Prime Minister, Sarcozy took Blair's former position as an American ally. Fortunately for Bush, this 'synergy effect' would delay the US from becoming a lame duck in the internationally political arena for few more months. Moreover, I'm looking forward to see how the establishment of the second conservative regime in Europe, first being Angela Merkel in Germany, would affect the European diplomatic positions towards the United States' war on terror.
Also, France's Middle Eastern policy has long been pro-Arab. This, however, also began to change with the rise of Sarkozy. Sarkozy, in fact, even vocally favoured Israel over Arab last month. I believe that Sarkozy's anti-Arab spectrum also led France to form a common front with Bush against Iran.
In conclusion, this article is perhaps a representation and prophecy of the new French Revolution. In fact, many French newspapers and media described the rise of Sarkozy as second revolution of France. The advent of Conservatism, pro-US diplomacy, capitalistic market policy, and pro-business decrees are surely new to the French. I do not know how much, but I'm sure this would change and reform France significantly.
And, this'd be a good news for the Bush administration. The leader of anti-Iraqi War suddenly became its principal ally. This would surely weaken pro-Iran sentiments and fuel the US's attempts to apply harsh sanctions on Iran.
I'm looking forward to see the results.
Title: U.S., France agree on new sanctions against Iran: Rice
Date: September 21, 2007
Source: CBC.ca
Link: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/09/21/rice-iran.html
Article Summary:
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner agreed not only to stand together against Iran's attempts to create nuclear weapons, but also to apply new sanctions on Iran's nuclear program. The two countries were even doing groundworks for a new UN Security Council resolution on Iran. This is due to the political shift of the French government towards the George W. Bush Administration, thanks to the establishment of a conservative regime in France. Although the two nations still have some disagreements, the French minister concluded with saying, "but we have excellent relations."
Byun's Opnion:
Frankly, this article came to me as a shock for two reasons: a dramatic shift in France's diplomatic relations with the United States, and in its Middle East policy.
For the last several years, the diplomatic relationship between France and the United States had been poor and frosty. The former French president Chirac, for instance, heavily criticized the Bush administration for declaring a war on Iraq. When the new conservative government under Nicolas Sarkozy came into power in France, however, the ice started to break. Unlike his predecessor Chirac, Sarkozy was pro-USA, pro-Israel, and most importantly, conservative. He even choose New Hampshire for his vacation couple months ago. Naturally, France's diplomatic policy leaned towards the United States, instantly forming a close coalition between the two nations. And, this 'coalition' ultimately led France to estbalish a common front with the Americans against Iran's nuclear program. Thus, this article is a minor representation of the undergoing change in France. This 'common front,' in my opinion, would fuel and give more energy to the United States' attempts to apply sanctions on Iran. As well, it is interesting for me to see that, as soon as Tony Blair resigned as the British Prime Minister, Sarcozy took Blair's former position as an American ally. Fortunately for Bush, this 'synergy effect' would delay the US from becoming a lame duck in the internationally political arena for few more months. Moreover, I'm looking forward to see how the establishment of the second conservative regime in Europe, first being Angela Merkel in Germany, would affect the European diplomatic positions towards the United States' war on terror.
Also, France's Middle Eastern policy has long been pro-Arab. This, however, also began to change with the rise of Sarkozy. Sarkozy, in fact, even vocally favoured Israel over Arab last month. I believe that Sarkozy's anti-Arab spectrum also led France to form a common front with Bush against Iran.
In conclusion, this article is perhaps a representation and prophecy of the new French Revolution. In fact, many French newspapers and media described the rise of Sarkozy as second revolution of France. The advent of Conservatism, pro-US diplomacy, capitalistic market policy, and pro-business decrees are surely new to the French. I do not know how much, but I'm sure this would change and reform France significantly.
And, this'd be a good news for the Bush administration. The leader of anti-Iraqi War suddenly became its principal ally. This would surely weaken pro-Iran sentiments and fuel the US's attempts to apply harsh sanctions on Iran.
I'm looking forward to see the results.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Funding for faith-based schools
..
Title: Funding for faith-based schools
Date: September 11, 2007
Source: TheStar.com
Link: http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/254043
The issue of funding for faith-based schools became a hot debate topic as the Ontario provincial election date approaches.
Article Summary
In an article sent to a group of bright SAC student, Bernie Farber speaks in favour of funding for faith-based schools, claiming that 'it is time to take action.' By mentioning Bill Davis' two pivotal decisions, Dalton McGuinty's response to Jewish parents, and the support the funding issue gets from the three parties, Farber believes that the funding issue has been approved and supported by the authority and the Ontario politics. He ends his argument with claiming that it is "to do otherwise after decades of excusing unfaiurness is unacceptable." The time seems to be ripe to him.
In contrast, Michael Fullan dismisses the pro-funding idea by simply saying that "social inclusion is better than fragmentation." Now that the teachers and schools are ready and in high morale to improve educational standards, Fullan argues, it is not a good idea to waste money and energy to fund the faith-based schools. He firmly maintains his belief that Ontario should have a single educational system. To him, one public school with religious diversity and harmony is much better than numerous segmented schools. As well, he claims that using resources for 2 million students is "vastly better" than using them for 50000 'faithful' students.
Opinion
It is reasonable to fund faith-based schools since our nation values religious diversity and recognizes individuals' rights to choose their own ways of life. I, however, believe that it is still not a good idea to fragment and separate our students. Students who go to faith-based schools might keep their religious virtues; yet, they will grow in different environments and in future it will be hard for them to co-exist with one another. In fact, learning to co-exist with others from different religions is far more important than trying to remain pure and loyal to one's own religion.
Moreover, a single, centralized public system will make it much easier for the Ontario government to carry out reforms and plans to enlighten and improve the quality of education in the province. Fragmented schools, contrastly, only makes it much difficult for the government to help them out.
Therefore, I prefer the idea of "one school, many religions,' over the idea of 'many schools, one religion.' Because we live in a multicultural society where everyone respects others' religions and share their own religion with others, it'll make much more sense to learn to co-exist with others from different religions, than to try to separate themselves from others. As well, trying to fragment the society will only cost in the waste of public money and energy.
Title: Funding for faith-based schools
Date: September 11, 2007
Source: TheStar.com
Link: http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/254043
The issue of funding for faith-based schools became a hot debate topic as the Ontario provincial election date approaches.
Article Summary
In an article sent to a group of bright SAC student, Bernie Farber speaks in favour of funding for faith-based schools, claiming that 'it is time to take action.' By mentioning Bill Davis' two pivotal decisions, Dalton McGuinty's response to Jewish parents, and the support the funding issue gets from the three parties, Farber believes that the funding issue has been approved and supported by the authority and the Ontario politics. He ends his argument with claiming that it is "to do otherwise after decades of excusing unfaiurness is unacceptable." The time seems to be ripe to him.
In contrast, Michael Fullan dismisses the pro-funding idea by simply saying that "social inclusion is better than fragmentation." Now that the teachers and schools are ready and in high morale to improve educational standards, Fullan argues, it is not a good idea to waste money and energy to fund the faith-based schools. He firmly maintains his belief that Ontario should have a single educational system. To him, one public school with religious diversity and harmony is much better than numerous segmented schools. As well, he claims that using resources for 2 million students is "vastly better" than using them for 50000 'faithful' students.
Opinion
It is reasonable to fund faith-based schools since our nation values religious diversity and recognizes individuals' rights to choose their own ways of life. I, however, believe that it is still not a good idea to fragment and separate our students. Students who go to faith-based schools might keep their religious virtues; yet, they will grow in different environments and in future it will be hard for them to co-exist with one another. In fact, learning to co-exist with others from different religions is far more important than trying to remain pure and loyal to one's own religion.
Moreover, a single, centralized public system will make it much easier for the Ontario government to carry out reforms and plans to enlighten and improve the quality of education in the province. Fragmented schools, contrastly, only makes it much difficult for the government to help them out.
Therefore, I prefer the idea of "one school, many religions,' over the idea of 'many schools, one religion.' Because we live in a multicultural society where everyone respects others' religions and share their own religion with others, it'll make much more sense to learn to co-exist with others from different religions, than to try to separate themselves from others. As well, trying to fragment the society will only cost in the waste of public money and energy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)