Like many people I wondered if Joe Biden was a good choice for Barack Obama. However after reading a CNN article which analyzes the first national poll taken after Obama’s selection of Biden I don't think so. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/24/election.2008.poll/index.html

I had the fortunate opportunity of attending a session at the Netroots Nation conference on "America's Role in the World after the Bush Presidency" with a specific focus on foreign policy. Prior to attending the session, I was familiar with the term, "Pax Americana," coined as a term referring to the United States' post-WWII military and economic position. A significant part of the world had looked to the United States as a nation filled with opportunity and prosperity.

Though I had planned to continue my discussion of sex trafficking in San Francisco, a conversation I had earlier today with a friend inclined me to address a different topic. I expressed my confusion and frustration at the criticism Obama has been receiving with regards to his willingness to talk with our "enemies", specifically, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. It wasn't so much the attacks on Obama that offended me; rather, the seemingly closed-mindedness of thinking we're "punishing the enemy" by cutting off communication lines. Moreover, as history shows, former U.S. presidents, including Truman, Nixon, and Reagan, have engaged in dialogue with the enemy-- how is this time any different?

Notice something missing on your hometown paper's front pages over the last couple of months?

The news this winter has been dominated by the presidential primaries, the sinking economy, and, of course, Britney Spears' latest meltdown.

What about Iraq?

Since September or so, when General David Petraeus' testimony to Congress on the status of the "surge" produced a glut of media coverage on the war, Iraq has dropped off the front pages. Nope, it's not just your imagination.

Disclaimer: This is a piece of writing that I did in my sophomore year of High School for a presentation to attend Close-Up in Washington D.C. I rediscovered it and thought how sadly it has remained relevant nearly four years later. It was also an interesting look at how I was reacting to the growing "war on terror."

11 November 2004

On one hand we are told by some that Bush is pushing war and bent on abandoning the international system of rules and instructions built up by previous presidents. Others argue that Bush has drawn a necessary line in the sand between America and a dangerous coalition of stateless terrorists and rogue nations.

Our long time allies, in this day is added to the long list of former friends, the french have not surprisingly been turned away by the near idiotic foreign policies of the Bush Administration. However, yet again we stand to learn a lesson from the French. The newly elected leader of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, is setting a shining example of a how to build a foreign policy with meaning. Even as the leader of a former colonial power, he is showing the US how to have a policy in the African continent that is not all words. A policy that is not bent on capitalist gains and military conquest in the name of fighting terrorism.

After reading the question of the title, the first country that comes to mind is Somalia and a slew of African countries. Somalia always seems to be at the top of the list and always seems to fit the necessary criteria of a failed state no matter what happens. On returning from Ghana I was talking with my uncle about Africa and was very surprised about his views and ideas especially when came to the subject of conflict. He wondered whether it would have made a difference if there had been no colonizers? Wouldn't Africans still be fighting each other regardless of the colonial 'divide and conquer' strategy? Could it have been worse if the colonizers never 'intervened?'

A few Sunday nights ago, my Dad and I were watching a program on channel 13 about Iwo Jima which, presumably as intended, sparked me to think about war. The aged military man in his button shirt and typical old man khakis recalled how he had, more than once, seen a dead Japanese soldier on the ground at Iwo Jima. Looking for a souvenir of sorts on this particular occasion, the younger version of this man approached the body and upon seeing the soldier's wallet falling out of his pocket, bent down and opened it. He immediately found a photo of this now dead man with his wife and two boys. The American soldier says he paused, prayed and then proceeded to close the wallet, putting it back deep inside the other's pocket.

I say again, war is so f stupid. And here's a few reasons why.

Foreign aid; development assistance; foreign investment; these terms are now gaining another synonym: rouge aid. In an excerpt from the Foreign Policy Blog, rogue aiders are defined as such, "Because their goal is not to help other countries develop. Rather, they are motivated by a desire to further their own national interests, advance an ideological agenda, or sometimes line their own pockets. Rogue aid providers couldn't care less about the long-term well-being of the population of the countries they 'aid'."

The title of this entry is a question that very often crosses my mind as I continue to read the news and stay up to date on the various African conflicts across the continent. How can the country with the most power sit idly as conflicts that tear nations and governments apart worsen? How can the country with the most power get involved in its own political war games and ignore the dying?

"If I look at the mass I will never act. If I look at the one, I will."