Saturday, May 24, 2008

Yea, but would he talk with Lukashenko?

Just read an article from the Wall Street Journal which deals with Barak Obama's statement that he would meet with leaders of Rogue states:

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden took to the airwaves this week to "help" the rookie Barack Obama out of a foreign-policy jam. Oh sure, admitted Mr. Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee had given the "wrong" answer when he said he'd meet unconditionally with leaders of rogue states. But on the upside, the guy "has learned a hell of a lot."

Somewhere Mr. Obama was muttering an expletive. But give Mr. Biden marks for honesty. As Mr. Obama finishes a week of brutal questioning over his foreign-policy judgments, it's become clear he has learned a lot – and is learning still.

Right now, for instance, he's learning how tough it can be to pivot to a general-election stance on the crucial issue of foreign policy. He's also learning Democrats won't be able to sail through a national-security debate by simply painting John McCain as the second coming of George Bush.

Remember how Mr. Obama got here. In a July debate, the Illinois senator was asked if he'd meet, "without preconditions," the "leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea." It was an unexpected question, and Mr. Obama rolled with his gut: "I would," he said, riffing that the Bush administration's policy of not negotiating with terror-sponsoring states was "ridiculous."
It is hard to say whether the article is pointing out a flaw in Barak's character, but I for one would be wildly thrilled at such a possibility. A genuine dialogue and reasonable relations between countries and individuals is at the epicenter of living in a reasonable world. As a current resident of the Republic of Belarus and, at least as of the moment, a citizen of the United States, I would wholeheartedly back any president who would agree to help establish better and more open relations between the two countries.

Belarus has enough problems feeding itself without the extra added weight of political manipulations and I absolutely agree with the Belarusian president's view that normal relations are what is needed from both sides. I liked Bill Clinton a lot and have long considered myself closer to the Democrats and from the beginning, had been of the mind that I wouldn't mind a Hillary White House. But now I am seriously starting to rethink my voting stance and not only due to her lack of popular support (or her Husband's open distaste for Lukashenko). If Obama would seriously state during a time of scrutiny and tension that he was interested in communication over economic fascism as a means to solve problems, he would have indeed, as the article stated, learned a lot and earned my write in vote while he was at it.

I want peace and mutually beneficial options for all of humanity and not just for the privileged few who can afford it. Monitoring the real possibility of nuclear terrorism can just as easily be accomplished during peaceful relations as they can in times of antagonism. Yea, I know there would be a lot of people who would be horrified of the thought of an American president shaking the hand of the President of Belarus, or with Hugo Chavez' or even Ahmadinejad's, a guy I personally would have a really hard time with. But I say we need to be looking at potential leaders with open and (for a change) functioning minds if there even is to be a future for humanity.

I say we have had enough of the axiom that war begets peace or that force begets agreement. We need to start solving the real problems of our world. I think we should get back to thinking about ecology, food and housing. I think we need to address the issue of reasonable population control and allowing for global opportunities. I for one would rather not look ahead to the lives of our children and think that they should never know a day of peace because our legacy was that we destroyed any possibility of its existence.

If Mr. Barak Obama would be willing to unlock The US side of the double door, I would say we would be looking at a much brighter possible future.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

please point me to the crux of your story about whey you ended up in Belarus, what your beef with Poland is etc. don't have the time to sift through everything but am interested to read it. send to:


Monday, May 26, 2008  
Blogger BEING HAD said...

Well, I would think there is quite a bit of information about the deal listed on the right half of the page. The blogger ID paragraph sort of defines things I would think and that red flash ad (Even after six years...) has several addresses including and something called "the case". You can also just click the ad and go to the website. And of course you can download the book though I… uh… do ask for at least a moderate contribution now and again for the work and all...

Tuesday, May 27, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Adam, this "blog" should have been listed in the Being Had Times, as it has more relevence there than it does in the "story" section.

As much as I like Barak Obama, especially compared to Bush or Hillary. It is important to remember the essence of what American politics is all about. "Rogue" states provide a diversion or pressure relief for politicians caught between the rock and the hard place of special interest fiefdoms, and a thoughtful and sensible public opinion.

Anotherwords, Obama is likely saving the issues of "Rogue" states as his "get out of jail free card" to be used if public opinion needs to be diverted from legitimate domestic issues that he cannont win regardless of his choices.

Belarus remains in the American minds as "terra incognita" and it would not be in Obamas best interest to actually complicate his political maze by actively deviating from the long standing political line which allows for there to be some monsters remaining in the valley to be dealt with if the need arises.

Mike Miller

Wednesday, May 28, 2008  
Blogger BEING HAD said...

I had the same thought Mike but had already printed the Times when I wrote this.

I think what is more important is that Obama said he would be open minded. I think that this (well, this and money)is really at the crux of global anti-Americanism or anti-Occidentalism, if you prefer. I do worry that the fate of any democratic president will always be that they end up spending a lot of time and energy fighting unnecessary Republican manufactured scandal and I also worry that these were just words, just as Clinton's promise about doing something for the Haitian boat people faded into the cosmos right after his first election. But still, to me it was the thought that counts and really, anything that allows for more reasonable relations works for me.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wouldn't count on it. Don't forget George Bush started out with a "friendly" relationship with Vladamir Putin. I would look at someone like Ron Paul (could run again in 2012) who has a non interventionist stance and believes in free and fair trade.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home