"... ..Damage to the ecology, year after year, still going on, so we really need serious study and we have a plan for environmental protection. This is very, very important." Dalai Lama - Tibet leader.
Mrs. president Barack Obama and Congressists the U.S. look for one question!!!
The climate is more urgent that Health from the USA?
Think in CHANGE CLIMATE Today for life of tomorrow at the world!
During a summit on world hunger of the United Nations (UN) in Rome, Italy, the exiled Buddhist leader warned that rivers fed by glaciers of Tibet and the snow-capped mountains could disappear between 15 and 20 years. He called on China to study the problem from experts Tibetans.
The Dalai Lama called that China would act to prevent the melting of glaciers in Tibet, saying that the environmental crisis is more urgent than a political solution on the future of Tibet.
A political solution (for Tibet) can take time, but that's okay, we can expect," said the Dalai reporters this week in Europe."But damage to the ecology, year after year, still going on, so we really need serious study and we have a plan for environmental protection. This is very, very important."The Qinghai-Tibet plateau is the source of many rivers in Asia, including the Yangtze and Mekong. Source: Reuters. Edition e add by Clayton Fernandes, signatory Global Compact UN. São Paulo Brazil, www.royalbusinessconsult.com.br/home and http://mixideias.blogspot.com
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
Thomas Jefferson (Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, 1802).
See http://mixideias.blogspot.com
THE FORTY-FOURTH PRESIDENT will face a series of critical, complex, and interrelated challenges in the Middle East that will demand his immediate attention: an Iran apparently intent on approaching or crossing the nuclear threshold as quickly as possible; a fragile situation in Iraq that is straining the U.S. military; weak governments in Lebanon and Palestine under challenge from stronger Hezbollah and Hamas militant organizations; a faltering Israeli-Palestinian peace process; and American influence diluted by a severely damaged reputation. The president will need to initiate multiple policies to address all these challenges but will quickly discover that time is working against him.President Barack Obama will have to reprioritize and reorient U.S. policy toward the Middle East. For the past six years that policy has been dominated by Iraq. This need not, and should not, continue to be the case. The next president can gradually reduce the U.S. troop presence and combat role in Iraq, increasingly shifting responsibility to Iraqi forces. But because the situation is still fragile there, the drawdown should be done carefully and not so quickly or arbitrarily that it risks contributing to the undoing of progress achieved at great cost over the past two years. All this would be consistent with the accord governing U.S. troop presence being negotiated by U.S. and Iraqi officials.
Instability generated by a too rapid withdrawal could distract the next president from the other priority initiatives he will need to take and create opportunities in Iraq for Iran and al Qaeda to exploit. However, a too slow withdrawal would leave American forces tied down in Iraq and unavailable for other priority tasks, including backing his diplomacy visà-vis Iran in particular with the credible threat of force. He will need to strike a balance.In no way should this call for retrenchment in Iraq be interpreted as a recommendation for a more general American pullback from the region. The greater Middle East will remain vital to the United States for decades to come given its geostrategic location, its energy and financial resources, the U.S. commitment to Israel, and the possibility both for terrorism to emanate from the region and for nuclear materials and weapons to spread there. Reduced American involvement will jeopardize all these interests.
Instead, President Obama’s principal focus will need to be on Iran, because the clock is ticking on its nuclear program. He should offer direct official engagement with the Iranian government, without preconditions, along with other incentives to attempt to prevent Iran from developing a capacity to produce substantial amounts of nuclear weapons-grade fuel in a short amount of time. Simultaneously, he will need to concert an international effort to impose harsher sanctionson Iran if it rejects an outcome the United States and others can accept. The objective is simple to describe but will be difficult to achieve: to generate a suspension of Iran’s enrichment program before it builds the capacity to enrich enough uranium to provide it with this “breakout” capability.
Preventive military action, by either the United States or Israel, in the event that this diplomatic initiative fails, appears unattractive given its risks and costs. However, the option should be examined closely, both for what it could accomplish and given the dangers of living with a near or actual Iranian nuclear weapons capability. Because of Israel’s vulnerability to an Iranian nuclear first strike, its fuse will necessarily be shorter than America’s. And negotiations—as well as stepped-up sanctions— will inevitably take time to work. To increase Israel’s tolerance for a more drawn-out diplomatic engagement, President Obama should bolster Israel’s deterrent capabilities by providing a nuclear guarantee and an enhanced antiballistic missile defense capability.A second emphasis should be on promoting peace agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors, in particular Syria, which is currently allied with Iran and its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies. The Syrian government is in a position to fulfill a peace agreement, and the differences between the parties appear to be bridgeable. Moreover, the potential for a strategic realignmentwould benefit the effort to weaken Iran’s influence in the sensitive core of the region, reduce external support for both Hezbollah and Hamas, and improve prospects for stability in Lebanon. In other words, it would give President Obama strategic leverage on Iran at the same time as he would be offering its leaders a constructive way out of their security dilemma.
President Obama should also make a serious effort from the outset to promote progress between Israel and the Palestinians. Here, though, factors related to timing appear contradictory. There is an urgent need for a diplomatic effort to achieve a final peace agreementbased on a two-state solution while it is still feasible. Yet deep divisions within the Palestinian leadership (not to mention divisions within Israel’s body politic), and the Palestinian Authority’s questionable ability to control territory from which Israel would withdraw, sharply reduce prospects for a sustainable peace agreement no matter what the outside effort. This dilemmadoes not argue for neglect, which is sure to be malign, but it does call for a devoted effort to create the conditions on the ground for more ambitious diplomacy to succeed. What these Iranian and Arab-Israeli initiatives have in common is a renewed emphasis on diplomacy as a tool of American foreign policy—certainly more than has been the norm over the past eight years. The United States will want the backing of the world’s other powers— Russia, China, and Europe—and the partnership of America’s regional allies, including Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Consulting and concerting with all of these actors will also take time and patience.
Realities on the ground also call for a new approach to the promotion of reform in the region. Authoritarian regimes that are repressive and largely unresponsive to legitimate popular needs have set in motion a dynamic in which opposition has gathered in the mosque. Such polarization needs to be avoided. The answer is not early elections, especially not when parties with militiascontest them, but rather a gradual, evolutionary process of democratization that emphasizes the building of civil society, the opening of political space, and the strengthening of independent institutions (including political parties, the media, and the judiciary). The parallel encouragement of a market economy can buttress this effort.
The nastier this recession gets, the more people will talk about the discrediting of markets and the failure of deregulation. So the next time the Dow dives off a cliff, splash your face with ice water and remember two things: This end-of-capitalism talk is bunk, and it distracts us from the debate we should be having. The real question is how to manage the necessary shift in the balance of our mixed economy. Outlandish though it may sound now, red-blooded capitalism must be part of the answer. Even before the financial crisis, government was expanding. Public spending as a share of the economy jumped under President Bush, and regulation increased, too, notably in the form of the Sarbanes-Oxley law on corporate financial disclosure. Commentators trumpeting the abrupt death of free-market, small-government Republicanism appear to have slept through the Bush years. Yes, the financial crisis has triggered an added surge in government. But this has happened in every recession since 1980 and does not represent an intellectual U-turn. Mainstream economists have always been pro-market, but they have also always recognized numerous qualifications and exceptions. The crisis has triggered two important ones. The first is that, in an acute recession, government spending has to expand aggressively to make up for weak private spending. As a top adviser to Bill Clinton in the 1990s, Larry Summers supported reducing the deficit; as a top adviser to Barack Obama now, Summers supports massive deficit spending. This is not a flip-flop. Summers favors crisis spending now because we are in a crisis. In five years, he will again preach budget discipline. There is no paradox, no tarnished ideology.
By Sebastian Mallaby, Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies and Paul A. Volcker Senior Fellow for International Economics
See blog http://mixideias.blogspot.com
View full text of article
Congratulations Mr. President Obama.
I am one citizen from Brazil is very happy for this day historic at the humanity. The world is one place best at presence the Obama in White House. Thanks God for amazing grace...
Mr. president see life the Joshua and people the Israel (Old testament - Holy Bible)
JOSH 1:6 Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them.
JOSH 1:7 Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.
Amazing party the democracy the U.S. and the world ... The Brazil is the Obama!!!!
Clayton Fernandes
http://mixideias.blogspot.com
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/ton
See: www.mixideias.com.br
Through most of the 1990s energy supplies were plentiful and prices were low. The Economist speculated about the political consequences of a world in which oil declined to $5 per barrel. U.S. foreign policy generally accorded little attention to energy, except in special circumstances such as the location of strategic pipelines in Central Asia.
In recent years, energy prices have surged. President George W. Bush, in this year’s State of the Union address, warned of an addiction to imported oil and its perils. Yet there is no consensus on what should be done to shake the addiction. Virtually everything concerning energy has changed—except U.S. policy.
See new opportunity the energy at from Brazil!!! Guess in new order the energy global, but no disturby climate the world.
My company is factory the machines hi-tec for generation the energy hydroeletric. Project Turbines and generators from aplicance and river from Brazil at the world. Our machines are construction at tecnology based in plataforms nuclear the navys mariners the Brazil. See my blog terms the BBT Energia.
The U.S is important for development the nations in progress. No more energy no clean. Save the world at new energy and change for Obama, new president the U.S.A.
With many economists now pointing to a looming recession, spending constraints are likely to further complicate the foreign policy options of the next U.S. president. So far, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are giving few signs as to how they would alter their priorities.
McCain, suggested a spending freeze on all but defense and entitlement programs. Obama said in an interview he might have to delay plans to double foreign assistance. Font: CFR/2008.
By http://mixideias.blogspot.com
If the world could vote?
People from U.S. VOTE in our candidate!!!! Democratic.
The world nations see from Obama!
November 4th 2008 the American people will choose a new president. The president of the United States of America is the most powerful person in the world.
We would like to know who would be the next president of the United States of America - if the world could vote!
In the presidential election in 2004 122,267,553 people voted. 6,500,000,000 people did not.
Our mission is to get more people to vote than voted in the last election. Mission impossible, we know, but still, wouldn't it be great to see what the whole world thinks?
If we are to have any chance of reaching that goal we need your help. Tell all your friends around the world about iftheworldcouldvote.com. You can send them email, share it on Facebook (we also have a group you can join), digg it, reddit, save to delicious ... Or all of it. So go ahead. Let's see who would be the next president of the United States of America - if the world could vote;)
Link for vote: http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results
