Nuclear missiles were being sent within range of the United States. From what I've seen, these missiles have the range of the missiles currently under discussion from Iran, in terms of Israel.
When I checked last, Israel is one of our allies.
Clearly, they are punching above their weight.
Within the last week, the Obama Administration has leaked information about Israel, and their intention to defend themselves against attack, with nuclear devastation, from Iran. And I'm reminded of a time when America had to deal with nuclear weapons, within a hundred miles of our territory.
It was known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So, let's take a look. Our President(?)'s offers to talk to Iran. International sanctions.
What would happen to Iran if we enforced a naval blockade?
And why is it, that the question isn't on the board? We want to relegate this decision to a question of existence for our ally, Israel. When we could put an iron fence around the ports of Iran. With one simple request; end your nuclear program.
Someone, somewhere said, "War is an extension of diplomacy by other means."
I know that our President is a committed advocate for the end of imperialism. I don't necessarily argue the point, since I've never felt that American foreign policy ever had an emphasis on creating an imperial America. Have we had moments when we've extended our control and authority over others who didn't have a clue who we were, or where we were from? Yep. Like chess pieces in the Grand Game. Doing a Google search isn't going to help you here. None of the sources that would elucidate your voyage to understanding world international politics, and the balance of power, get switched to your desktop. You're going to find either that you don't care to learn, or choose to go to a reasonable library, to answer for yourself, the importance of finding the answer to this question.
It seems entirely too near to find ourselves locked out of our own history and our nation's policies. But the intertubes is a controlling bitch, and simply disregards the requests of the User. We don't have to lie about the past, we need only break the link to the past.
Military force is an extension of diplomatic maneuvering. It has been, and always will be. As much as Progressives and Democrats have advocated for negotiation and conversation, existential concerns still exist around the planet. Having the wherewithal to exert positive force into the equation of determining the choice of any particular government, the lack of positive military force is a certain game changer. When the oil embargo in 1973 occurred, the head of the Saudi government asked, "how many aircraft carriers do the Japanese have?"
You don't have to be a hawk to understand that the values we hold as Americans are values worth holding. Respect for the individual, standing before law, freedom from coercion, these are the American values that our Fathers and Grandfathers fought for, and our young are dying for, today. Freedom. Liberty. These aren't foreign concepts for Americans, but they certainly are for much of the rest of the world.
Europeans talk somewhat in the manner we converse. But it's not the same thing. Europeans never believed that individuals could ever decide for themselves what it is that is appropriate for that individual to do, under any circumstance. The European mind is conditioned from decades and centuries of servility to the State. Asian nations view themselves as citizens under the authority of their national governments. African nations struggle to find the balance between national authority and individual autonomy. The number of country's that adhere closely to our American ideal of individual autonomy is a short list. And, I'm afraid, that there's every indication that England will soon fall of this list.
Canada, America, Columbia, Australia, India, Israel and in a sense, Korea and Japan, stand squarely opposed to oppression. The Malays are close. Maybe even post-Apartheid South Africa. There are smaller countries in Central America who are fighting for the values of the individual, but they are under attack, from the least likely source; the Obama Administration.
World geo-political centers exist. Europe, Russia, the former Soviet republics. In the Middle East, we're watching the slow death of Syria, without the concomitant rise of Lebanon. We tip-toe around states like Jordan. Somalia is in total disarray, and ignore the threats revolving around allies like the UAE. How many Yemens will it take to ask the question, do we have a functional, coherent, international policy?
And then, we have our President making off-camera comments to the Russian president.
"The commission of an act that is unequivocally illegal or completely wrongful.
"Malfeasance is a comprehensive term used in both civil and Criminal Law to describe any act that is wrongful. It is not a distinct crime or tort, but may be used generally to describe any act that is criminal or that is wrongful and gives rise to, or somehow contributes to, the injury of another person.
"Malfeasance is an affirmative act that is illegal or wrongful. In tort law it is distinct from misfeasance, which is an act that is not illegal but is improperly performed. It is also distinct from Nonfeasance, which is a failure to act that results in injury.
"The distinctions between malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance have little effect on tort law. Whether a claim of injury is for one or the other, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the duty was breached in some way, and that the breach caused injury to the plaintiff.
"One exception is that under the law of Strict Liability, the plaintiff need not show the absence of due care. The law of strict liability usually is applied to Product Liability cases, where a manufacturer can be held liable for harm done by a product that was harmful when it was placed on the market. In such cases the plaintiff need not show any actual malfeasance on the part of the manufacturer. A mistake is enough to create liability because the law implies that for the sake of public safety, a manufacturer warrants a product's safety when it offers the product for sale.
"malfeasance n. intentionally doing something either legally or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons. Malfeasance is distinguished from'misfeasance,' which is committing a wrong or error by mistake, negligence or inadvertence, but not by intentional wrongdoing. Example: a city manager putting his indigent cousin on the city payroll at a wage the manager knows is above that allowed and/or letting him file false time cards is malfeasance; putting his able cousin on the payroll which, unknown to him, is a violation of an anti-nepotism statute is misfeasance. This distinction can apply to corporate officers, public officials, trustees, and others cloaked with responsibility."
The President adheres to his own agenda. Americans must adhere to theirs. There is little doubt in my mind, that an American President would have taken steps in Harm's Way, to defend her Allies. I have little doubt that our current President will do everything in his power to avoid taking a stand.
It's Change. And Hope. Just no work product.