Ulterior Motives in Foreign Policy

Over the past couple of months there have been major civilian uprisings, starting with the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak's government in Egypt and now with the continuing attempt to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Throughout the ordeals the United States has responded variably according to alliances and relationships. The following Jon Stewart clip brings to the surface a unfortunate reality of how our government makes decisions on who to aid. While the Daily Show may be exaggerating our foreign policies, I think the message comes across clear and true.

The Daily Show - America's Freedom Packages
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

">


Across the decades, as a nation, we have supported various countries in their liberation efforts, upholding our country's image as a beacon of freedom and hope. While from a humanitarian view this is admirable, from a budgetary view, continuous intervention is surely expensive. Plus there is the factor that we are not uniform in the aid we give to other nations. We truly are a rent-a-cop nation, the amount of advantage we see available to gain directly affects how willing or even if we aid another country. We are not simply aiding other countries to "stand up for freedom, stand up for justice, and stand up for the dignity of all people," as President Obama said, we are also aiding them because they have resources that we want to exploit; mainly oil in the case of Libya. If we were merely standing up for what is morally right we would have deployed troops to Darfur a long time ago, but because they have no available oil- or anything for that matter, for us, we have stood to the side as simple mediators as genocide occurs. If we were standing up for humanity we never would have been friends with the Libyan government that we are now supporting the overthrowing of. It appears as though we support who ever is holding the oil, whether it be the corrupt government or the rebel up-risers.

I'm by no means saying that we should spend our tax dollars fighting everyone else's wars, nor am I saying that we should take special interest in helping nations that have nothing to offer as an alliance. I'm saying that we should stop protecting the oil under the guise of protecting humanity. We should carefully and responsibly utilize the resources we have while making the transition to new forms of fuel. I am pleased with President Obama's intentions for the future of energy in this country, and I can only hope that we begin to make some serious changes as a nation so that we no longer have to play the role of rent-a-cop to nations entirely based on the oil they provide, so that we can stop having ulterior motives to our "humanitarian efforts."

We have oil, but that doesn't mean we should use it.

From the online blog, Redstate, dhorowitz3 posts a commentary on the United States utilization, or rather lack of utilization, of fossil fuels. This article titled CRS Report: U.S. is Leader in Fossil Fuel Resources is directed towards republican readers to discuss the recent findings of the Congressional Research Service (CSR), and how their findings relate to and will affect the reader. The writers name, nor position, is provided giving no immediate credibility. On top of that the writer is very biased towards the right making sweeping statements such as "Barack Obama is eager to deride our ‘addiction to oil’ as some sort of pejorative.  We wear that label as a badge of honor.  If there is a prudent and meritorious addiction in the world, it is our patronage of fossil fuels." which does not lend to his credibility as a source fo unbiased opinion. The writer discussed the findings that the United States has vast oil reserves and goes on to say that we should use these reserves and begin drilling saying that "Either way, history has shown that the more we drill, the more oil there is to discover.  And, the more we drill, the more efficient, economical, and environmentally friendly the technology becomes." Although I am a conservative republican I do not agree that we should use the oil reserves we have. I agree with Obama's statement that oil is the energy provider of the past. The environment is truly suffering from our oil use and the ignorant views of this writer truly disappoint me. I think these pro-oil people need to come to grasp with the fact that eventually, we WILL run out of their beloved oil. If there is one thing worth spending government money on it is for finding efficient, environmentally friendly alternatives to oil.

Perhaps They Should Stop and Listen to Each Other

The editorial Wrong In Wisconsin discusses the current turmoil in Wisconsin over legislation dealing with public employee unions. Republican state lawmakers in Wisconsin are currently trying to strip public employee unions of the right to collective bargaining in an attempt to bridge the gap in the state deficit. The editorialist in this editorial takes the position that the lawmakers are wrong and that the unions rights should be maintained, but that overall neither side is listening to the other adequately enough to come to an agreement. They go on to say that while perhaps raising the workers contributions is necessary, taking away the unions collective bargaining rights isn't the answer. The editorialist goes on further to suggest that perhaps a solution that both sides could agree on would be the creation of panels to represent taxpayers interests in setting pension obligations or just cutting union influence on elections. The editorial is directed at any audience that would be following union issues or perhaps even towards the lawmakers themselves. The author gives no personal information to gain credibility but by mentioning facts and forming an educated opinion, comes off as someone with thoughts worth considering. Personally, I don't think that cutting collective bargaining is the answer, but I also don't think that the Republicans are in the wrong attempting to cut the budget and shouldn't be vilified for trying to do so. I agree with the editorialist in their idea that the lawmakers and union should stop to take the time to listen to each other and make a compromise.

Arizona immigration issues lead to issues with the Federal Government

An article entitled, Arizona Sues Feds Over Immigration Issues, shown in USA Today, discusses Arizona's grievances with the Federal government in relation to their lack of action when it comes to border issues and the lawsuit that has resulted. Filed on Thursday afternoon, the lawsuit is a countersuit to the lawsuit the Federal government placed on Arizona questioning the constitutionality of immigration law, SB1070. The lawsuit maintains that by suing Arizona, the Federal government has failed to uphold the 10th Amendment, maintain operational control of the border, enforce immigration laws, and protect Arizona against "invasion." Basically Arizona is just asking that the Federal government do it's job. The Federal government has informally responded to this lawsuit by saying that there are other more pressing issues that should be focused on by Arizona. The article in USA today is short and informative on the topic and gives the reader the general idea of a current issue dealing directly with the interpretation and application of the Constitution by the Federal government.