President Obama’s Afghanistan War speech at West Point.

President Obama announced a new project to send an additional 30,000 American soldiers to Afghanistan. His speech took place at the prestigious United States Military Academy at West Point on Thursday night, December 1, 2009. With his promise, the United States will have approximately 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. Obama called upon international political and military leaders to support his project through the sending of additional soldiers. Now, over 42 countries participate in the Afghanistan war (28 from NATO, and 14 from outside NATO).

President Obama also announced that he would terminate this war as soon as possible. Personally, I want to believe that the additional troops will end the within 18 months. But I also remember my grandfather’s words that our past is the greatest teacher of what to expect in the future. World War II, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, and the Iraq War teach us that approximate times and dates on “exit strategies” do not guarantee a speedy and successful end to war.

Michael Moore Tears Up over Obama and Afghanistan

Obama did not offer specific reasons for the war in Afghanistan. Instead, he reverted to the language of George Bush about the continued war we must wage against “terrorism”. He argued that when he took his office on the beginning of 2009, over 32,000 Americans were serving in Afghanistan, compared to the 160,000 troops in Iraq. The small number of soldiers in Afghanistan did not give the United States a chance to put in place a three-pronged strategy for success: a military presence that would create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that would reinforce positive action in the region; and an effective partnership with Pakistan. Obama said that this strategy, which is effectively, a reaction to 9/11, would, “destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and protect our common security.” I find this argument persuasive but, I still want to know if the government has been forthright and transparent with all the reasons for this war.

By taking this big gamble, President Obama has placed much of his first-term success on the outcome of the war in Afghanistan. According to General Stanley A. McChrystal, the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. And the high level of corruption in Afghanistan deters the country’s progress. But is wide-spread corruption the reason and true explanation of our unsuccessful mission in Afghanistan? If so, why didn’t we hear more about it before? Just how many American lives and how much money was lost because of this supposed widespread corruption?

People have the right to know all the facts concerning this war because, as taxpayers, they will finance it. President Obama said that, “America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America's authority.” True enough…but what he never said or mentioned was who was going to – and how we were going to – pay for this mission.

Desertions undermine Afghan army

Many Americans, along with members of the international community, no longer trust America’s “good intentions” or view America’s foreign policy mission as “peace-keeping.” America is no longer the Savior of the World. To make matters more complicated, Obama’s speech has met with opposition from Republicans and Democrats for different reasons. In his attempt to satisfy everyone, Obama has been met with stronger Republican criticism and a loss of his Democratic base. Sen. John McCain, for example, blasted Obama for suggesting a time and date for exiting Afghanistan. McCain told CBS on Wednesday morning that: "If you tell the enemy when you're leaving, it emboldens your enemies and dispirits your friends."(read more)

On the Democratic front, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., along with liberal House Democrats threatened to try to block funding for the troop increase. On the other hand, Sen. Carl Levin, said that Democrats need to generate revenue for the additional troops. He mentioned a tax increase on the wealthy or a small gasoline tax (that would be phased out if gas prices go up). (read more)

UT students react to President Obama's war strategy

Polling suggests that many voters have changed their opinion about the war after hearing Obama’s speech. Many believe that Obama has offered a plan that is both realistic and attainable. Some who believed that he did not have much of a choice with regard to a troop surge admit (often begrudgingly) that his speech was persuasive enough to change public opinion and to keep him in office for a second term if the strategy for Afghanistan works. (read more)

During President Obama’s speech, the cadets applauded him, but, as Chris Matthews of MSNBS observed, "I didn't see a lot of warmth in the crowd out there.” The next day, on his nightly TV show, he apologized for saying that President Barack Obama had traveled to West Point - an "enemy camp." (read more) His language was too strong – too incendiary –but observing the cadets’ behavior, I had the impression that they enjoyed shaking President Obama’s hand or taking pictures with him more than listening to him speak. Maybe, as some pundits noted, they would have showed more interest had he mentioned “victory” – a word strangely absent in a speech attempting to boost morale over prolonging war.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews Apologizes for 'Enemy Camp'

I hope that in the next Presidential election in 2012, I will not watch President Obama saying in a debate: “I made a mistake”, or even, “I am so sorry”, or “I misread the situation.” During the Democratic primary and 2008 Presidential election, Obama told Americans that he was against war, especially the war in Iraq. Did he change his mind during his first year as President of the U.S.? And what makes his decision making about Afghanistan all that different from the strategies and reasons for war issued by George W. Bush? Many night-time pundits discuss this on their shows, and it will certainly be brought up again and again in 2012. I really don’t want to see Obama in this embarrassing situation. I trust that he knows what he is doing now and will bring this war to a successful conclusion although the reasons for war are still not apparent. If he doesn’t, he will be enjoying the last two years of his Presidency.

Video Gaming: Violence and Graphic Content for Rest and Relaxation.

Today modern life is inextricably connected with computer technology. This technology has already changed the manner in which people live, work, and spend their spare time. According to one woman’s testimony (Santa Pit): "In the virtual world I am a fully successful woman. I drive a new Cabriolet, people recognize me everywhere I go, and I have a lot of money. When I log off from the game, I come back to real life where I have to take care of three children, where I need to clean my house and… repair my car. My neighbors don’t notice me and they think that I am a housewife. This is why I love my… Second Life."(read more)

Virtual reality, for many people, is commonplace. People choose virtual games instead of meetings with real friends. And their virtual world slowly becomes their primary reality. Gamers so strongly identify with their avatars that they can no longer live without them. The imaginary and unreal world seems better than the real world. Many people want to live in a world of magic – a fabulous and mysterious world. We can see this in the newest game Uncharted 2: Among Thieves where, "fortune hunter Nathan Drake is lured back into the treacherous world of thieves and mercenary treasure seekers. Embark on a journey to discover the real truth behind the lost fleet of Marco Polo and the legendary Himalayan valley of Shambhala." (read more)

Uncharted 2 : Among Thieves - Official E3 Trailer [HD]


The worlds of computer gaming is an anonymous entertainment of colors, sounds and excitements. They have different levels of action and desirability. And they present us with rich three-dimensional images. For example, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves has graphics that resemble an action adventure movie. And the adventures that entice gamers in this game are as expansive as the imaginations of the programmers. In these virtual worlds, gamers realize their potential, they exercise freedom and they pursue a “happiness” that might escape them in the real world.

Paradoxically, the most popular games are based on what we would normally not desire in the real world. Many games, for example, are opportunities to unleash aggression through violence. Moreover, many of the "story boards” romanticize vigilante justice, violence, and actions outside of our moral codes. The games appeal tour basest instincts, where values are relative to "winning" or completing quests. One wonders if values like kindness, compassion, and mutual aid have a place in these games. Worse than the moral void, however, is the inclusion of sadistic murders and psychopathic criminals in computer games aimed at children or impressionable young adults. In Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - one of the most violent and controversial games ever made - the player is asked to engage in a terrorist attack on a Russian airport killing hundreds of civilians. It is disturbing to think that we equate planning acts of terrorism with "enjoyable game play."

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Launch Trailer (Official HD)


The forms of destruction and force simulated in video games vary in intensity according to a game’s realism. Very brutal games are "doom games". They are shooting or fighting games where the goal is destruction or annihilation. One goal of video gaming is the killing or the mutilating of the "virtual enemy" through the use of different weapons (knife, circular saw etc.) to accomplish the task.

I searched Best Buy website and examined some of other popular PC games. Very few didn’t contain violence; indeed, many contained acts of violence, destruction and aggression necessary to destroy the enemy. Consider this box description: "Master the necromantic powers of the Death Knight – World of Warcraft’s first Hero Class. Create a new Death Knight character with a starting level of 55 and break the chains of the Lich King to forge your own destiny. Power your way through new quests and dangerous as you seize ever greater abilities." The use of force, acquiring greater strength, and powerful acts of aggression are necessary to attain the game’s goal: destruction of the enemy.

Wrath of the Lich King: "Death Knight" (Game Trailer)


RPG games (role-playing games) are based on actions embedded in an incredibly cruel virtual reality containing complex strategies of warfare and fighting. If the game’s story lines are inscribed in the real world, it is often a dimension of it that is very dangerous and violent. Often, players are, "dragged into a criminal underworld by a series of shysters, thieves and sociopaths, [and] they discover that the reality is very different from the dream. In a city that worships money and status, life is heaven for those who prosper and a living nightmare for those who don’t." (Grand Theft Auto IV)

Computer adventure simultaneously captivate and terrorize as players materialize into thieves, terrorists, gangsters engaged in innumerable murders and acts of destruction. And it is only by acting within these roles that players advance to successfully accomplishing the game’s final goals. For example, "In the Godfather II, you must think and act like a true Don. (…) Coordinate your arsenal of fronts and rackets to keep the money flowing in and the reins of power firmly in your grasp. Make the decisions that will determine your fate and that of the Family, and relive legendary moments from the feature film in a gripping open world inspired by the movie. Do whatever you need to do to stay on top, and remember, no matter what happens – it’s only business." Unlike real life, if the player doesn’t pass "the exam", he/she can always restart the game.

Lastly, music is essential to PC gaming. Suggestive sound effects intensifies a player’s emotional reaction while gaming, and can contribute to the player entering more fully into his/her character‘s psychological makeup.

Grand Theft Auto IV (GTA IV) Trailer 2 From Rockstar Games


Participation in virtual gaming is predicated on real life experiences and actions, and, more often than not, the most horrific of those real life experiences. For some, the distinction between virtual and real worlds becomes blurred to such an extent that destructive behaviors allowed in the gaming world are brought into real life. Games "copy" our everyday real life experiences: sports, (for example: Fight Night: Round 4), human relations (for example: The Sims 2, Apartment Life), soldier combat (for example: Call of Duty: World at War) or adventures (Tomb Raider: Underworld).

For many impressionable children and youth, computer games are an introduction to a "vigilante" universe where people use guns and other weapons to fight "in the name of good". Unfortunately, some of them live by this code in "real life". When resolving problems in real life and dealing with relational conflict, they view firearms as the only viable solution. The options that saved them in their virtual world, what gained them their freedom and advanced them towards their ultimate goal, is what "destroys" them in real life.

Should we restrict or censor violent games? Or is this just much ado about nothing?

Being honest about honesty. I belive in Obama's honesty.

Everyone agrees that honesty or transparency is important in political and economic decision making. But the moral dilemma resides in the fact that honesty and transparency are defined in such way to protect a ruling class’ economic and political interests. Yet, without authentic transparency, a political system risks demoralizing its citizens. Without personal integrity, political life is fraught with scandals and corruption at the national and local level, no matter how we try to cover this deception over with patriotic rhetoric and appeals to the common good. Politicians are not expected to be perfect, because everyone makes mistakes, but politicians are expected to tell the truth. They need to tell us what they really think (even if it is not agreement with their constituents), the political values they represent and uphold, and explain their decision-making process. Without this transparency and honesty, we have no way of evaluating their ability to govern and represent our needs.

Make McCain Disavow His Dishonest Obama Ad


For personal advancement and career success, many people forgo honesty as a virtue and choose a voluntary form of „silent ignorance“. In Poland, people abide by a social code where it is „civilized“ or polite to not express what they really think, especially if it makes others uncomfortable. But honesty is not synonymous with being silent or being “politically correct”. Being critical of one another – calling one another to greater authenticity - is not a breach of social protocol; indeed, it is necessary for us to do this to avoid all the social ills bred from dishonest or duplicitous behavior.

In my experience, people believe in moral virtues associated with honesty: honor, nobility, frankness, and truthfulness. And they associate these traits with their leaders. Unfortunately, they experience many of their leaders as scheming, dishonest, and duplicitous. Consequently, when people notice this disjunction between the ideal and the reality, they become disillusioned and think that they have been lied to and duped. They feel naïve. Honesty was not the path to personal and national advancement; it was the means by which a ruling class controlled the majority. The lesson learned is that it is better to appear honest than to actually be honest.

I belive in Obama's honesty. What do you think?

House Democrats said "No” to the closing of Gitmo. Is everything under control?

United States House of Representatives said "No” to President Obama’s plans to close Guantanamo in Cuba and to his request for $81 million to close this “American shame place” where 240 prisoners (terrorists) are waiting for new prison destinations.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman, David Obey said, “When the White House gets a plan together, they are welcome to come back and talk to us about it." (read more)

Obama at the beginning of his own presidency promised to close Guantanamo Bay by the end of this year.

Anonymous workers of Congress said that Democrats removed funds on Guantanamo Bay closing on the request of Republicans who oppose this liquidation. They anticipate that some prisoners will stay in prisons in U.S.A., because Obama Administration will not find other prisons abroad.

Lastly regarding the negotiation with European countries which expressed their willingness to accept some prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. For example, The U.S. government has officially asked Germany to accept as many as 10 inmates from the Guantánamo Bay prison, handing over a list to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office and the Foreign Ministry (read more).

Luxembourg: Europe divided over Guantanamo inmates


In exchange for the cancellation of 81 millions to close Guantanamo Bay, the management of Democrats got approval from Republicans for new funds for the war. This is important in the situation, when a support for these funds was refused by some Democrats who are against the war.

This is the first time that the Democrats made a show of solidarity behind Obama by standing by his programs in spite of the fact that they are concerned about the upcoming elections in 2010. They assured Obama that they would support his plan of closing down Gitmo and cooperate with White House. I am a bit skeptic about the Democrats' intention and they will not sacrifice their political future on the altar of Obama Politics. What do you think?

Retreived May 5, 2009, from: wp.pl

U.S.A. support two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian.

"Israel has to work toward a two-state solution," Vice President Joe Biden told the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). "You're not going to like my saying this, but not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement." (read more)

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden pressed Israel to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are comments and discussion about Biden’s speech addressed to the AIPAC, which is a very pro-Israel lobby in U.S.A.

Commentators noticed that the statement made by Vice President Joe Biden, would lead to a different policy in Israeli politics. This policy would be totally opposite to the President George W. Bush administration.

The new Israeli government, directed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, does not agree with Vice President Biden, to create the new Palestinian state. The president of Israel, Shimon Peres, is now in Washington and is talking about the Palestinian conflict with President Barack Obama.

Barack Obama visits Sderot, Israel, July 23, 2008


The Palestinian and Israeli war is a never-ending story for decades. I like Vice President Joe Biden’s speech. He is very brave to give his speech in front of the pro-Israel lobbyists. His speech was spectacular, but I think that the President of Israel, Shimon Peres, will try to come back to the “old politics” with the U.S.A. I really don’t believe in any changes.

Do Americans want to show to the public that they will no longer support Israel policy, because they know that the Palestinian and Israeli conflict will keep going for the next “hundred years”. Maybe Americans give the signal to another country to participate in this conflict? Another option is that Israel will start “open war” with the Palestinian people and the Americans don’t want to be identified with their “politics”. Do Americans know more?

I want to believe, that Obama’s administration will fulfill their pre-election promises. What do you think?

Israeli Palestinian Conflict, Peace propaganda and the Promise Land (1/8 episode, rest you can find at www.youtube.com)


Retreived May 5, 2009, from: wp.pl

The new American and Russian anti-ballistic missile system plans in Poland and in the Czech Republic.

American Missile Defense Agency negotiator in conversations with Russia Administration suggested new proposal to replace US plans to install an anti-ballistic missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic by soviet radar in Azerbaijan.

The Secretary of State responsible for the arms control in the US Department of State, Rose Gottemoeller, was asked what she feels about the new Russian idea, to include the radar in Gabali in Azerbaijan to monitor Iran and not placing this defense system in Poland and Czech Republic.

"I understood from talking to Russian counterparts that the offer is still on the table," said Gottemoeller, the assistant secretary of state for verification and compliance. "I think personally that it is an offer the United States should be willing to explore," said the diplomat, in comments confirmed by the State Department in Washington."At the time I lived in Moscow, when I was director of Carnegie Moscow, I thought that the offer was very interesting. And I think it deserves further exploration," she added (read more).

Russia proposed sharing their radar in Gabi in 2007. The previous George W. Bush Administration always responded to this offer negatively. Russia considers this as a threat to its own security.

I think this is another signal from President Obama's Administration of renewing dialogue with Russia. Many questions were never answered and this in this special recession moment in America is a time for “new dialog”.

European Ballistic Missile Defense

From the Polish perspective, I think that another strategic moment in Polish history is gone. Polish people always will “fight” for independence from Russia. I feel that decisions are independent from Poland and Czech Republic. Again the Europe sees that we can have any plans only, but decision are made by another country.

Does American Administration care about Poland and Czech Republic or is this only a “political game” with Russia? Or is this a consequence of U.S.A. and Russian negotiators meeting in Rome (March 24, 2009) to take the first step towards cutting hundreds of nuclear weapon from both countries' arsenals? (read more) What do you think?

Retreived May 5, 2009, from: wp.pl

Obama plans to recover billions of dollars.

White House announced new corporate tax reform on U.S. This is the beginning of the end of multinational corporations and tax havens for American billionaires.

Obama’s project established to create the new jobs in the United States. Obama’s administration said the changes would raise $210 billion in tax revenue over 10 years.

"I want to see our companies remain the most competitive in the world. But the way to make sure that happens is not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores or transferring profits to overseas tax havens," Obama said in a White House announcement.

Obama Goes After Overseas Tax Cheats


The White House and Department of the Treasury represent three proposals: Tax deferral rules ($60.1 billion), R&D credit ($74.5 billion) and Foreign tax credit ($43 billion) which Obama said, will raise $210 billion of dollars over 10 years (read more).

I don’t really like to talk about taxes, but in America two things are for sure: death and taxes. This is why we should talk about taxes. American government lost about 9 billion of dollars because rich Americans used tax loopholes. Finally, it is not the rich people, but the common people who cover the deficit in American economy.

New changes were announced in the new budget plan of Obama administration. The new plan engages about 800 new federal tax agents to enforce the system."The plan will add 800 agents to bring people to justice who hide their assets," said Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (read more).

Even I don’t like to talk about taxes. In fact who does? I like President Obama's speech. His new federal tax plan is clear and gives some substantive arguments in the debate about present economic crisis; and give some hope too. Obama said, "It will take time to undo the damage. (…) But with the steps I am announcing today ... we're beginning to restore (tax) fairness and balance." What do you think?

Tax and Spend by Barack Obama


Retreived May 4, 2009, from: onet.pl