Demons Afire

Demons Afire Demons consume the very essence of ones soul. The monsters lurking underyour bed is very real indeed. Subconsciously we place each of these fears into ourconscious state brining nightmares to life. The demons very purpose is being hell benton brining pain and suffering to those whom they deem tainted. But those are the externaldemons; my greatest fears are the demons inside me. Sleepless nights subjugated me to alife under the moon. I drive my body to the point of exhaustion in hopes of falling into astate of unconsciousness. Anger, pain, and fear drive this demon I see every night insidemyself. From seeing this very demon in a man once a part of my life forces me toovercome this obstacle in trying to decide my own future. This man was my father;someone so cruel and monstrous couldnt be a model of my future. Experiencing firsthand the lies and deceit that a demon can unleash was minuscule compared to the purerage that boils within them.Lermontov's Demon as interpreted by Mikhail Vrub el...

Understanding the Bush Doctrine

Understanding the Bush Doctrine The term Bush Doctrine applies to the foreign policy approach that President  George W. Bush practiced during this two terms, January 2001 to January 2009. It was the basis for the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Neoconservative Framework The Bush Doctrine grew out of  neoconservative dissatisfaction with President Bill Clintons handling of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in the 1990s. The U.S. had beaten Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. That wars goals, however, were limited to forcing Iraq to abandon its occupation of Kuwait and did not include toppling Saddam. Many neoconservatives  voiced concern that the U.S. did not depose Saddam. Post-war peace terms also dictated that Saddam  allow United Nations inspectors to periodically search Iraq for evidence of programs to build weapons of mass destruction, which could include chemical or nuclear weapons. Saddam repeatedly angered neo-cons as he stalled or prohibited U.N. inspections. Neoconservatives Letter to Clinton In January 1998, a group of neoconservative hawks, who advocated warfare, if necessary, to achieve their goals, sent a letter to Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam. They said that Saddams interference with U.N. weapons inspectors made it impossible to gain any concrete intelligence about Iraqi weapons. For the neo-cons, Saddams firing of SCUD missiles at Israel during the Gulf War and his use of chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980s erased any doubt about whether he would use any WMD he obtained. The group stressed its view that containment of Saddams Iraq had failed. As the main point of their letter, they said: Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. Signers of the letter included Donald Rumsfeld, who would become Bushs first secretary of defense, and Paul Wolfowitz, who would become undersecretary of defense. America First Unilateralism The Bush Doctrine has an element of America first unilateralism that revealed itself well before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the so-called War on Terror or the Iraq War. That revelation came in March 2001, just two months into Bushs presidency, when he withdrew the United States from the U.N.s Kyoto Protocol  to reduce worldwide greenhouse gasses. Bush reasoned that transitioning American industry from coal to cleaner electricity or natural gas would drive up energy costs and force rebuilding of manufacturing infrastructures. The decision made the United States one of two developed nations not subscribing to the Kyoto Protocol. The other was Australia, which has since made plans to join protocol nations. As of January 2017, the U.S. still had not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. With Us or With the Terrorists After the al-Qaida terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush Doctrine took on a new dimension. That night, Bush told Americans that, in fighting terrorism, the U.S. would not distinguish between terrorists and nations that harbor terrorists. Bush expanded on that when he addressed a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. He said: We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. In October 2001, U.S. and allied troops invaded Afghanistan, where intelligence indicated the Taliban-held government was harboring al-Qaida. Preventive War In January 2002, Bushs foreign policy headed toward one of preventive war. Bush described Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an axis of evil that supported terrorism and sought weapons of mass destruction. Well be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the worlds most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the worlds most destructive weapons, Bush said. As Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin commented, Bush was putting a new spin on traditional war policy. Pre-emption has in fact been a staple of our foreign policy for ages and other countries as well, Froomkin wrote. The twist Bush put on it was embracing preventive war: Taking action well before an attack was imminent invading a country that was simply perceived as threatening. By the end of 2002, the Bush administration was talking openly about the possibility of Iraq possessing WMD and reiterating that it harbored and supported terrorists. That rhetoric indicated that the hawks who had written Clinton in 1998 now held sway in the Bush Cabinet. A U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003, quickly toppling Saddams regime in a shock and awe campaign. Legacy A bloody insurgency against the  American occupation of Iraq and the U.S. inability to quickly prop up a working democratic government damaged the credibility of the Bush Doctrine. Most damaging was the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Any preventive war doctrine relies on the support of good intelligence, but the absence of WMD highlighted a problem of faulty intelligence. The Bush Doctrine essentially died in 2006. By then the military force in Iraq was focusing on damage repair and pacification, and the militarys preoccupation with and focus on Iraq had enabled the Taliban in Afghanistan to reverse American successes there. In November 2006, public dissatisfaction with the wars enabled Democrats to reclaim control of Congress. It also forced Bush to usher the hawk most notably Rumsfeld out of his Cabinet.