Syria, A fallen State

!Por la Revolución de las Ideas!

After witnessing several international conflicts, and watching dictators destroy entire nations, I thought scenes of leaders ordering their own military to kill their own people would be a part of history. I thought wrong. After witnessing on TV the continuous acts of terror against the people of Syria by the Bashar regime, I can only think that it is time to take action and put this leader of genocide out of power. I can’t understand how a leader can order the killing of his people without understanding that they have a right to protest and demand a change in Government. It is not about Bashar al-Assad as a person, it is about him stepping down from government, it is about providing an opportunity for others to rule the nation where democracy can be the voice of the people, and not just one man and his family thinking they own the nation and its people. I don’t know if Syria’s president doesn’t understand this, or if he just thinks he was put in power by god. Apparently he thinks the second, because he won’t give up power without a fight, but unfortunately this fight is against his own people.

This president or sinister leader has turned Syria into a Fallen State. The people on the streets are fighting for change, a change that will guarantee a government of the people. Syrians want a more active say in what happens in their country. It has been almost one year and half since the fighting began and nothing has been done to bring this barbaric leader down from power. Although economic and other diplomatic sanctions are just one step, a firmer position is needed to stop the slaughter of the Syrian people.

Bashar al-Assad has followed Kaddafi’s footsteps in ordering the killing of his people, but opposite from Kaddafi, Assad has had more time to kill and wear down the opposition in his country, while countries like Russia and China, just sit down and watch how this insane leader kills and kills people with no remorse. Some countries have began to aid the opposition leaders with weapons and intelligence to help them in their efforts to bring down Assad, but these efforts come short compared to Russia’s aid to provide helicopters, heavy weapons and artillery to assist Assad in exterminating all who oppose him.  I’m not suggesting any intervention with ground troops, but I’m sure those rebels in Syria could use a hand to fight off the regime they are fighting every day, but a real hand, not just a few weapons and intelligence. They need real help to be able to bring down the Russian helicopters which kill rebels every day, and also enough weaponry to be able to defend them from the heavy artillery they are under from the Syrian regime. I mean the world can’t wait until AL-Assad annihilates his people to finally decide to intervene with real and effective sanctions, or restrict the airspace which would enable rebels to finally have a chance to win.

The world has been witnessing the horror for the past months and nothing effective has been put into place to stop the bloodshed.

Making a call to move on Syria’s President won’t come so fast as the rebels hope, but I’m sure soon enough a decision will be made and Bashar will be taken down by its own people with the help of the international community. Many look at United States to take a unilateral action, but that action, if it takes place, has to be well planed and studied. Moreover, I believe that a joint action has to be taken, where nations participate in bringing down this dictator and not just The United States.

Bashar has led a murderous campaign against his own people and it won’t be long for him to face a Judge for the crimes he has committed against humanity, or to follow Kaddafi’s fate.  Many think Bashar is a diplomatic man, but he is far from that. His two face personality makes him dangerous and the world community can’t wait any longer to take action. He may seem mild mannered -and reserved, and some may think this can allow a scenario for negotiations that can put an end to the bloodshed, but his duality makes him a not to be trusted leader. He will try to manipulate the international community in order to buy time until he is able to kill all the rebels and diminish any sign of uprising in the people of Syria. The world can’t just wait until he buys time and manipulates everyone. He must be taken out with no further delay. The same strategy used in Libya must be used in Syria. Aid for the rebels, restriction of the air space and then we will see how long Bashar can last.

Sometimes, I wonder why it takes so long to take action against these leaders. Why do we wait and allow these leaders to kill so many people? , Why do we act only when people have been slaughtered? I will never understand why leaders like Chavez, Kaddafi, Bashar and many others stay in power with the compliance of the international community. It seems only until thousands are killed, countries are destroyed, regions collapse to hands of socialism and communism, and then and only then, can action be taken. Although sometimes no action is taken, like in the case of Latin America, where Hugo Chavez is clearly a threat and nothing is done. I wonder why all these leaders take so long to be removed; it is not about being involved in other countries, it is about doing what needs to be done to avoid stables regions from falling into the hands of insane leaders who only use power for their own personal gain. 

What is the difference between Hugo Chavez and Assad? They are very similar. Chavez manipulates the institutions in his country in order to extend his stay in power, destroy Venezuela and the people he sees as enemies, and Assad uses his army to prolong his stay in power and surrender his people to the dark side. I guess the answer lies in diplomacy, but sometimes more than diplomacy is needed. Action and determination is needed to put an end to regimes that bring no good to mankind. Therefore, as long as the international community continues to wait and see how Assad kills his people, Syria will remain a Fallen State where no Human right or law is respected.

Cristhian Mancera Mejia

Director

LaTribunacolus

@cmancera33

@latribunacolus

MA in Law and Political Sciences

MS in Leadership

There Was Something Foreign About This Debate

!Por la Revolución de las Ideas!

www.latribunacolus.com

Two candidates with two different objectives but one goal in mind came together at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida Monday night.

President Obama showed up determined to continue a narrative that has been eroding as of late: that America’s standing in the world has strengthened by sheer force of his personality and for having killed Osama Bin Laden.

Governor Romney’s objective was to make the case we are far less safer today than we were four years ago, precisely because of President Obama’s passivity on foreign affairs, which has led many to describe his approach as “leading from behind.”

The petulance and dismissive tone displayed by our sitting president these last two debates was what I found disturbing

- Daniel Garza

Romney also had to make sure he was clear to dismiss early on any impressions that Americans might have he would be bellicose by delivering lines like, “We don't want another Iraq, we don't want another Afghanistan. That's not the right course for us.”

The Republican candidate would go on to make repeated overtures to the American people about the heightened dangers we face today while the Obama Administration merely looks from afar. “I look at what's happening around the world, and I see Iran four years closer to a bomb. I see the Middle East with a rising tide of violence, chaos, tumult.” He added “I see Syria with 30,000 civilians dead, [Bashar Hafez al-Assad] still in power."

Gov. Romney’s strongest critique came when he made references to President Obama’s “Apology Tour” to the Middle East, and particularly when referring to the impression he made on Iran, “They saw weakness where they had expected to find American strength.”

The President shot back with a different version of the tour, but this entire repartee was effective for Romney. Although President Obama has taken on a firmer tone against nations that would do us harm since then, he did indeed offer up speeches with guilt-laden phrases about America’s past actions on that trip.

In April of 2009, he told a crowd in France “America has shown arrogance, and been dismissive, and even derisive” toward Europe. President Obama would go on to point out in a speech he gave in Egypt: "It led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals” when referring to our actions after 9/11.

“America doesn't 'dictate' to other countries, we liberate them,” Romney would assert forcefully.

Even so, Governor Romney could have shown himself to be much more aggressive on recent foreign policy incidents such as Libya, which the Administration has mishandled, but chose not to. He showed restraint throughout the entire debate, choosing to allow the President to speak without interruption and looking stately as a result. He showed a demeanor and temperament that I felt gave a sense he will strike a balance between resolute firmness and wise diplomacy when it comes to foreign relations.

And although Governor Romney did express repeated agreement with President Barack Obama, he was not shy about outlining some clear distinctions throughout the night. President Obama had no response to the Governor’s sharp comment on Russia “I'm not gonna wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin and I'm certainly not gonna say to him I'll give you more flexibility after the election.”

The President interrupted repeatedly, often spoke indignantly over Governor Romney's answers, and attacked his positions so often it provoked the governor to retort in one instance “attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we're going to deal with the challenges that exist in the Middle East, and take advantage of the opportunity there, and stem the tide of this violence.” It was a strong line, it was well delivered, and it did not sit well with President Obama - mission accomplished.

President Obama’s typical self-assuredness was in full display in this debate, and in fact, seemed to grow in confidence each time Governor Romney agreed with him – which was often. President Obama showed fight of his own, was engaged, and his four years in office gave him a clear advantage when it came to displaying a deeper knowledge of current conflicts.

His line of the night came in response to Governor Romney’s statement that the Navy was cutting back on warships. To which the President replied by explaining that just like modern warfare has made certain weaponry obsolete “We also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military has changed.”

It was a clever line dripping in disdain for the challenger that will be referenced ad nauseam for some time.

The President’s repeated rude interferences and interruptions of Governor Romney came so often, they began to annoy by the end of the night – much like Biden’s snide antics. It was a conduct that made gave him look petty, desperate and one that lacked decorum. It was, well, foreign to us.

The petulance and dismissive tone displayed by our sitting president these last two debates was what I found disturbing, and I think, many other Americans also found disturbing. Made especially true for a President famous for his steady calm and cool demeanor. It was a side of him Americans had not seen prior to these past two debates – a side that might ultimately turn them off.

In the end, the third and final debate changed nothing, and nothing that was said will prove as seismic as Romney’s huge win in the first debate. Romney ran out the debate clock and now heads into the last two weeks of the election in a dead heat with President Obama.

While President Obama seemingly improved his performance in the second and third debate, overall Governor Romney’s delivered three solid performances for a series win. Moreover, he proved himself “presidential” and more than a suitable alternative for undecided voters come November 6.



Daniel Garza
Executive Director
The Libre Initiative
@libreinitiative
Columnist
latribunacolus.com



Copyrights of the article belong to Daniel Garza and Foxlatino.com
Published by latribunacolus.com Press Service

In Presidential Debate, Obama Battled for Presidency & Romney Fought for Jobs

!Por la Revolución de las Ideas!

 www.latribunacolus.com

AP

Judging a boxing match can sometimes be an imprecise exercise when both opponents show up to fight. And so it is with a political debate where both candidates engage in an epic battle to persuade voters with the assault of thoughts on their opponent.

Reeling from a universally acknowledged debate performance that lacked punch in Colorado earlier this month, President Barack Obama - we were told by democrat operatives - would come out of his corner with fight from the very start, in an effort to mitigate the self-inflicted damage resulting in a seismic shift in national polls.

His objective was to deliver a seminal performance that would win on all marks; including substance and style, while still maintaining his likability. He would have to do it facing everyday Americans in a town hall format in New York State’s Hoftsra University.

In the other corner, Mitt Romney, who had been undergoing intense debate prep with multiple questioners in long and arduous sessions, had his fight strategy: simply make the case he will improve the economy and create more jobs than his opponent has. “The middle class is getting crushed by the policies of a president who does not understand what it takes to get the economy working again,” Romney would say in one exchange.

From the first question to the very last the two candidates looked more like a Marvin Hagglar versus Tommy Hearns fight, where both combatants exhausted each other in non-stop flurry of blows, than candidates for the most powerful office in the world.

Obama pounced on Romney each time he sniffed an opportunity to accuse him of making up facts, seeming pedantic and visibly peevish each time prompting moderator, Candy Crowley, to keep Romney honest on debate rules.

The level of tension was at it’s highest during a heated exchange on energy production. The two candidates appeared to square up against each other violating each other’s personal space with all the couth of high school teens vying for the title of top jock in the gym locker room.

When responding to a question posed to President Obama from a voter who supported him in the last election but expressed he was “not as optimistic” as he was four years ago, Romney landed some tough blows by reminding viewers “He said by now we would have unemployment at 5.4 percent, but we are 7.8 percent. If you do the math, the difference equals out to nine million Americans…. He says he has created five million jobs, but only after losing 5 million jobs. There were 32 million Americans in food stamps when he took office, now there is 47 million.”

On and on, Romney listed other examples of failed promises and woeful economic results to make his point.  Romney landed devastating kidney punches to the gut, upper cuts to the glass jaw President Obama didn’t know he had, and finished the flurry with pounding haymakers to the face.

All President Obama could volley back at him were defensive jabs that came by way of charges that Romney was deliberately distorting his record, but the president offered no new plans or strategies to reverse the dismal economic reality other than the threaten he desires to raise taxes on those earning more than $250 thousand.

Candidates sparred over other issues that had gone unaddressed in the previous debate such as energy, Libya and women’s issues. A particular policy exchange of note was on the matter of immigration reform. Prefacing his comments by stating “first of all this is a nation of immigrants, we welcome immigrants” Romney did much to dispel the hardline the Obama campaign had straddled him with.

The Republican candidate used the rest of his time to underscore that our legal system must be improved to work better. “No one should have to hire a lawyer to get into this country. We need to increase visas for those with advanced skills and we should staple a green card to their diploma. But we have to stop illegal immigration” he said. While he surprised no one by reminding viewers he would not vote for amnesty, he did offer hope to many of those who are in the country illegally in declaring that he would work towards instituting an employment verification system.

Oddly, it seemed to me that President Obama scored most when he talked up America’s heritage of risk-taking, free enterprise & self-reliance near the end of the debate. Had the president aligned his legislative reforms according to these virtues, instead betting on big government policies like Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, a different mix of economic results would have probably immunized him from the body blows Romney landed on him throughout the debate.

It was a prizefight for the ages that certainly gave the people their money’s worth. It was confrontational, cringe worthy and even petty at times. There was fast action, hostile and heated repartees, and there was even an inappropriate intervention by the “moderator” on a question dealing with Libya. Indeed, never had one presidential debate provide so much richness of material for pundits to chew on.

In the final count, while it appeared that Obama’s performance was clearly more animated and lively, his fight was defensive – throwing shots at Romney and rattling off excuses for four bad years of economic results. The president barely offered any solutions and plans to the American voter on how exactly he would improve the economy other than to point to the same tired and ineffectual policies.

And while Romney did not score style points either by readily engaging in testy exchanges throughout the night, I believe he bested Obama by methodically & effectively indicting his dismal economic record and doing a better job of underscoring his alternative policies aimed at increasing jobs.

Romney made it patently clear there was only one protagonist in last night’s death match who understood that this election will be judged primarily on who offers real and concrete plans to increase jobs, growth and prosperity.

And that is precisely the criteria most undecided voters were using for their scorecard last night in deciding which one of these political pugilist gets the belt on November 6th.

                                                                           

Daniel Garza
Executive Director
The Libre Initiative
Columnist
www.latribunacolus.com
@libreinitiative

Copyrights of the article to FoxLatino.com and Daniel Garza