Discussing issues that The United States face both foreign and domestic. A Non-partisan viewpoint where we believe in right and wrong not right and left, hopefully forming a more UNITED States of America.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

India...The Next Superpower?

In a recent article by the Wall Street Journal, it mentions that India wants to increase its defense spending, especially technology from foreign companies. The article mentions that "on foreign direct investment in the defense sector, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recommends tripling India’s FDI cap to 74% (from 26%) if India wants to attract state of the art technology in defense." it also mentions that ". India is the 10th largest defense spender in the world, having spent $30 billion in 2008 but imports the majority of its arms because its three major defense equipment manufacturers – Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bharat Electronics Ltd., and Mazagon Dock Ltd. – cannot match the country’s defense demands...and [India's current military states] only 15% of the equipment can be described as ’state-of-the-art’ and nearly 50% is suffering from obsolescence."

I believe India is making the right choice in looking for more foreign investment into its military. This could really help the United States too because India will probably be looking into our technology which will help American jobs. In order to be a superpower, you must be able to have a strong defense (my last article mentions how China is expanding its military).

There are some negatives for India in this as well. It is clear that India is making leaps and bounds, but, it appears their own defense companies cannot keep pace with the rest of improvements India is making in the economy. The United States, China, and even other countries such as Russia, are not dependent on foreign military technology for their own defense. In my opinion, this shows that as India looks for top military technology (instead of their own) they are becoming a powerful nation in the world, but, they are not quite a superpower yet because, they are dependent on other nations for a quality military instead of using their own technology. The United States would prefer a strong India. Although we do have to work with China, America is more comfortable when we work with democracies, so America would be more comfortable with India "spreading its sphere of influence" in Asia over China, and for India to be able to do that, they have to become a superpower.


Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/05/18/will-defense-ministry-increase-the-fdi-limit/

Image: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-IN476_idefen_D_20100518090707.jpg

Note: Article written for school project.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

The Sleeping Giant is Waking Up

The May 8th edition of The Economist features two articles, one mostly on China’s system of government/economy and another on foreign policy but each article is connected to the other. In foreign policy, the article mentions the recent trip of North Korean leader, Kim Jong IL, where he visited China and “was expected to ask for more food and aid for his blighted, benighted country. China wants him in return to agree to re-enter negotiations with itself, America, South Korea, Japan and Russia about dismantling his nuclear programmes. (Economist).”

I believe it is good for the United States, and the Eastern Asia that China is urging them to return to the six-party talks if they want more aid. If North Korea is going to work with the rest of the world, it must come to the six-party talks and work out their nuclear ambitions although recent news from Israel suggests that North Korea is shipping WMDs to Syria.

The Economist article also mentions that “China dearly wishes Mr Kim would behave normally. If there is one country where it would like to promote a “China model” of development (see The Beijing Consensus is to Keep Quiet article), it is North Korea.” I personally think China views North Korea as an “annoying younger brother.” It may be a bit harsh, but China does like North Korea and they certainly want them to remain a communist country (as seen in the Korean War) but they do not want Kim Jong IL to be too powerful because they are afraid he could launch WMD’s at Japan and South Korea (possibly World War III) and China would be partially to blame for allowing Kim Jong IL to remain on power. They also, however, do not want the North Korean government to collapse because almost everyone from North Korea would seek refuge in China, which the Chinese do not want. China has to do a “balancing act” with North Korea where the Government is just strong enough to maintain order, but not too strong and take one of the more powerful militaries in the World and spark World War III.

Another interesting article I found was from The Australian; about how China’s rapid expansion of their navy will spread their naval “sphere” of influence to Australia. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, The US Navy has by far the most powerful navy, with the Pacific being a focus point because of our allies Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, etc. It appears our influence is being challenged as the article calls for Australia to improve its navy because “China is building up its fleet of nuclear submarines and has confirmed after more than a decade of planning that it will build aircraft carriers....The [report] warned that Australia needed to massively bolster its military capacity to deal with potential threats posed by both China's rise and the possible decline of American influence in the region.” The article also mentions “A senior US admiral has suggested that [Chinese Cargo Ships] are so crucial to China's economy that they could eventually be escorted to Australia by Beijing's submarines.”

I find it very interesting that as China enters the status of “superpower” it is slowly starting to show its muscle to the world by attempting the lure North Korea back into Six-Party-Talks and that they could be the Naval Superpower in the region all the way to Australia. I also believe it is interesting that the Australian believes that Australia can no longer depend as much on the United States, and that China will fill the “gap” we are leaving in the region, which is why I consider China to be the sleeping giant that is waking up.


Economist: Asia. "Annals of weird diplomacy." The Economist 8 May 2010: 42. Print.
Artcile URL: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16064302

- - -. "The Beijing Consenus is to keep quiet." The Economist 8 May 2010: 41-42. Print.
Article URL: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16064302

Sainsbury, Michael. "Beijing bolsters navy with eye on Pacific." The Australian 27 Apr. 2010: n. pag. Web. 11 May 2010. .

Schrank, Peter. Dragon over New York city. "The Beijing consensus is to keep quiet." By Economist:
Asia. The Economist 8 May 2010: 41. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2010. .

Yahoo! News. "Israel says N.Korea shipping WMDs to Syria." Yahoo! N.p., 11 May 2010. Web. 11 May 2010. .

Note: Article written for school project

Saturday, May 1, 2010

National Enquire Claims Obama Sex Scandal-Update

National Enquire has revealed a developing story about President Obama and a sex scandal with Vera Baker in 2004. National Enquire has been known to be the first to report on stories such as the John Edwards and Tiger Woods sex scandals and many others. Here is their full story:

"PRESIDENT OBAMA has been caught in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a Washington, DC Hotel with a former campaign aide, sources say.

And now, a hush-hush security video that shows everything could topple both Obama's presidency and marriage to Michelle!

A confidential investigation has learned that Obama first became close to gorgeous 35 year-old VERA BAKER in 2004 when she worked tirelessly to get him elected to the US Senate, raising millions in campaign contributions.

While Baker has insisted in the past that "nothing happened" between them, the ENQUIRER has learned that top anti-Obama operatives are offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.

Among those being offered money is a limo driver who says that he took Vera to a secret hotel rendezvous where the President was staying.

On the condition of anonymity, the limo driver said he took Baker "from a friend's home in the DC area to the Hotel George where I learned later that Obama would be spending the night."

The driver recalled that he "waited in the lobby while she went to change her outfit.

"But to the best of my knowledge she did not have a room at the hotel and she was not staying there so I thought that it was a bit odd."

The driver said he then picked up Obama at the airport and drove both he and Baker to various locations while he was campaigning for funds. Vera accompanied him to each meeting.

"About 10:30 PM, I drove them to the hotel and they went in together!"

"My services for the evening were done - and there was no indication she was going to leave the hotel that night."

A top DC source told The ENQUIRER exclusively that the driver's account had been independently corroborated by investigators who believe the couple spent the night together at the hotel.

The ENQUIRER has also learned that on-site hotel surveillance video camera footage could provide indisputable evidence.

"Investigators are attempting to obtain a tape from the hotel (that) shows Vera and Barack together," the DC insider confided.

"If the tape surfaces, it will explode the scandal."


This could be very costly in November and to his Presidency.  The President is innocent until proven guilty, but would the National Enquirer  be putting their reputation on the line, if they thought this story was not true?

"The National Enquirer, which published a report this morning that “investigators are attempting to obtain a tape” that proved an illicit rendezvous between President Barack Obama and former US Senate campaign staffer Vera Baker, has updated their story this afternoon to retract the claim that there is video evidence of the affair with the alleged testimony of an anonymous chauffeur.
Looks like the National Enquirer Obama sex scandal is unraveling rather quickly. The latest from the paper is that “An Enquirer reporter has confirmed the limo driver’s account of the secret 2004 rendezvous.” The limo driver allegedly in the know about the affair is not a new piece of their puzzle– that claim was there last night– but in the absence of the video evidence of ambiguous age, which was the center of their report and would have been the one thing to lend them any credibility, the limo driver is the core of the story.
This clarifies that they are trying to uncover a 6-year-old maybe-affair with a testimony from the same time period, and that, rather than having footage, they just have one first-hand account of someone driving Baker to a hotel, where the President may or may not have been. The Enquirer has not made clear the changes other than adding the word “update” to the body of the report.
This also shifts the weight of the article from the story of the affair itself to the fact that, apparently, someone out there is “offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.” Why? If it indeed happened six years ago, and no one brought it up during Obama’s presidential campaign, what use is it now, halfway into his first term? The obvious go-to answer is that this could energize the far-right in time for the 2010 elections, but once it is revealed who perpetuated the rumors, true or not, about a story so aged, the tactic could easily backfire.
Truth or not, the story proved to be the first major test for the tabloid since it accurately reported theJohn Edwards affair, which restored public faith in the tabloid and resulted in the reaction to the story we saw last night. The major publicity that they elicited from that proved their one powerful foray into journalism was enough for the media to react with slightly more respect this time around given the subject at hand, and that was the reason the report surfaced here– not that the Enquirerpublished it, but that it had the journalistic capital, so to speak, for such a wild story to demand attention. As a news and media analyzer and curator, its our mission to report stories that are being reported. A story with this type of dubious, paper-thin accusation wouldn’t normally make the cut, but when a newly respected gossip forum reports it– and the story is reported solely because of the tabloid’s new reputation– it’s news in the media industry.
Unless they can pull out the kind of irrefutable evidence they found for the Edwards case, theEnquirer will return to their previous reputation as a salacious provider of specious rumor and innuendo, a stark difference from their recent placement alongside titles considered for a Pulitzer." 



  1. National Enquirer Article: Link
  2. Splash News Online Photo: Link
  3. Mediaite: Link