I know I say I try not to be political but the recent events in the past 12 hours had forced me to comment on the foreign policies of George W. Bush. Yesterday, after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports to the UN Security Council that not only had Iran not stop the production of nuclear fuel they had increased production. The United States as a result asked the international members to put pressure on Iran to comply with the UN resolution. Either intentional or coincident, according to American authorities, the United States had sent two aircraft carriers along with supporting battle ships, amounting to a force of over 100 thousand members of the US arm forces, to join the US carrier group that is already in the Baltic sea for a, so called, military exercise.

In another story the US government is about to approve a 90 Billion dollars military fund to support the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Why are the Americans playing the role of world police? Will this world of ours go to "hell" if they do not?

Sometimes I wonder what our society will be like if what is imagined in Star Trek is true. In which the human culture had given up on any forms of monetary denominations. Instead placing values on knowledge, science and arts.


Calling United States the "Police of the world" may seen as generous by some critics of United States' foreign polices. These critics instead may refer it as imperialism, "U.S. Global Empire".

United States' foreign policies have brought US troops to 135 countries around the world including Afghanistan and Iraq, which equates to 70% of the world's countries. These deployment range from as low as 1 to as high as 74,796. Although the total number of troops deployed in foreign soil may be lower than the average in the past 50 years, the number of territories that US troops deployed are the highest in 50 years.

The U.S. foreign policies seem to have a need to impose American believes and virtues onto other nations. Take the case of Iraq. Yes, Saddam Hussein may be a tyrant and it harsh towards Iraq's citizens. Who gives the right for the U.S. to intervene. I am not condoning dictatorship or (alleged) genocide, but no foreign government should interfere with the politics of a sovereign nation. That is what the United Nations is for.

In the case of "Osama Bin Laden" and Al Qaeda. The U.S. [government/president] has to understand that they are not fighting an individual who has a following. Bin Laden has successfully made the war against the U.S. into a religious war; a Jihad. Hence, no matter who is the leader of Al Qaeda the war will not end. The only difference along the way is how organize these individuals will be.

With the U.S. existing foreign policies, they had taken their needs to protect "American interests" to the extreme.

I do not have a solution or grand plan to resolve all the conflicts around the world, but as long as there are unequal balance of power and the ability of any one party to have leverage on the situation the conflicts will continue. I wish the respective governments would put more emphasis on local policies instead. May be then we will have "peace on earth".



The 43rd president of the United States.

Over the years there had been many criticism on George W. Bush and I definitely do not call myself an expert in US politics, but it is hard for me not to comment on some of the policies and decisions of George W. Bush.

His policies on Afghanistan, Iraq and North Korea are not without controversies, but it is hard for me to believe that all these controversies are true. It is not that I believe in George W. Bush or agrees with him, I just cannot imagine that someone in his position can do so many, alleged, bad things and behave the way he did. He has even been labeled "The War President" among its critics.

A movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11", by Michael Moore, was released in 2004 that documents Micheal Moore's version of what happened after the attack on New York City on September 11, 2001 (aka 9/11).

The evidence Moore presented are very convincing, but if all that were presented were true than the Bush family is definitely guilty of some sort of crime against the American citizens.

Not sure if it is because Bush is now on his half way mark of his second term and still coming up with policies that do not make sense, Moore is going to release a sequel called "Fahrenheit 9/11 ½" in 2007, and I suppose it is to elaborate on what had transpired since 2004.

The apparent theme of the reasoning behind Bush's actions and decisions, and how he is able to get away with it, has to do with the large amount of money involved. I guess this further proof that money talks and people are willing to do almost anything for sake of money.

So will George W. Bush legacy be known as "The War President" or will he be know as the most powerful manipulator in the history of United States, it will take many more years before that is known.

Technorati Tags:


To be accurate, I am speaking of the United States government imposing their foreign politics on other countries.

Where can I start. I don't want to get too political and start debating US foreign policies. One thing I do want to comment on is the fact that everyone pounded on Google for creating a site that is censored, and for providing information on Yahoo users whom the Chinese government wanted to locate.

Google is a business and a public company. Being so, must make money and answer to its share holders. Creating is Google's way of complying with China's policies so that it can operate in China. Like any companies that wants to do business in the United States must comply with US policies.

I am not trying to say that "censorship" is a good thing. I live in Hong Kong and I enjoy the freedom of speech that still exist here.

Mainland China for that matter is not the same as most western countries. Their standards and sense of what's right or wrong are different from most western countries. People need to realize that we cannot impose our own sense of what's right or wrong onto other cultures or countries.


Is this a trait of a successful politician? Or should should the question be - are these successful politicians? I understand that one should think clearly before one speak especially during a speech.

Although, the behaviour of some of the politicians now a day are really baffling to me.


One is "Tung Chee Hwa" of Hong Kong, SAR. His speeches can put any insomnia sufferer to sleep in seconds. Not only are his speeches in mono tone, he also speaks very slowly, pulsing every 2 to 3 words. I do not know the full medical health of Mr. Tung, but may be the pluses are the result of his health and double chins. It may be causing him to take frequent deep breaths between words.


The other politician who has this trait is "Chen Shui Bian" of Taiwan. Although, Mr. Chen does not have the physic of Mr. Tung, so may be it is because Mr. Chen does not have enough staff to write his speeches. But you do see Mr. Chen holding a stack of paper with him during his speeches.

So your guess is as good as mind.