Thursday, January 29, 2009

HOT5 Daily 1/29/2009

1. "'Hope and Change?' Not for tyrants" It's early yet, but the signs aren't good for foreign policy under Obama.

Representative Sample: the thugs and tyrants of the world - especially in the middle east - can breathe a sigh of relief now that Obama is in charge of American foreign policy:

2. "Top IDF reserve officer: Israel passed up 'historic opportunity' to wipe out Hamas" Instead they settled for another half-measure.

Representative Sample: we should have expanded our operation. We were on the move and they were at the breaking point

3. "The Drumbeat of "Humanitarian Intervention?" Will this type of intervention return during the Obama administration? Let's hope not.

Representative Sample: In recent years, the many people of a liberal persuasion suggested that it would have been perfectly appropriate to engage in an armed invasion of Myanmar/Burma on humanitarian grounds

4. "French Frigate FLOREAL Captures Nine More Pirates"  Viva La France!

Representative Sample:  Includes pictures and bad English translation of French naval report.

5. "Snow daze: In which I agree with Barack Obama"  Me too. Not exactly a major issue, but one that resonates with parents.

Representative Sample: Schools in New Jersey cancel classes if the relevant bureaucrat spots a slushball when he peers out his front door. This morning we had two inches of melting snow on the road and schools all over the state closed.


To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.

2 comments:

  1. "In recent years, the many people of a liberal persuasion suggested that it would have been perfectly appropriate to engage in an armed invasion of Myanmar/Burma on humanitarian grounds."

    Most people of a liberal persuasion I've read viewed the idea of invading Burma as idiotic. Also, most people of a liberal persuasion did in fact consider humanitarianism to be grounds for attacking Iraq. Thomas Friedman supported the Iraq war for that reason, as did several others; most didn't, simply because they figured the attack would cause more damage than it would prevent. Two Lancet studies later, the latter group's been proven right.

    ReplyDelete