Help us to keep our home
Disclaimer

This article reflects my personal views and understanding based on publicly available information. To be honest, I am not a historian, political analyst, journalist, or international relations expert, so some information or opinions may be incomplete or open to different interpretations.

I shared this article to encourage respectful discussion and the free exchange of ideas, not to promote any political, religious, or ideological agenda. I welcome constructive comments and different perspectives, provided they are expressed with courtesy and mutual respect. Please don't be hesiate to share your ideas, suggestion, and comments here

Thank you one more time my friend for reading. 

Happy reading


The U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that without the United States, Israel would not survive. There is no doubt that the United States has been Israel's strongest ally, providing unwavering extensive military aid, diplomatic support, intelligence cooperation, and advanced defense technology for many decades. Moreover, while the U.S. is Israel's largest ally, it is not the only country that has supported Israel in various ways.

Recently, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee made a statement on X (formerly Twitter) that attracted worldwide attention. He wrote:"Without the Jewish people, America would never have existed."  I have enclosed herewith a copy or screenshoot of the topic that I would like to discuss with

Source GBX
Source GBX


Many people agreed with his statement, while others strongly disagreed. This raises an important question: Is this statement historically true, or is it simply a personal belief? To answer this question fairly, we need to look at history, facts, and evidence instead of emotions or political opinions.


Who is Mike Huckabee 
To understand the statement, it is helpful to know Mike Huckabee's background. Before becoming a politician, Huckabee was a Baptist pastor. Many evangelical Christians believe that Christianity cannot exist without Judaism because Jesus, the apostles, and the earliest followers of Christianity were Jewish.

They also believe the Old Testament forms the foundation of Christian faith. From this religious viewpoint, someone might argue that America's Christian heritage ultimately began with the Jewish people. This is a theological or religious belief.

America Was Founded by Many Different Influences
The United States of America did not suddenly appear overnight. It was created through many events that happened over hundreds of years.

Some of the most important influences were:
• British colonization beginning in 1607.
• English law and political traditions.
• The ideas of the European Enlightenment.
• The American Revolution against Great Britain.
• The writing of the U.S. Constitution.


Historians agree that America was built from many different cultural, political, and philosophical traditions. No single group or nation can claim full credit for creating the United States.

Israel and the US flag side by side.
Israel and the US flag side by side.


The Influence of England
Perhaps the biggest influence on early America was England.

The thirteen colonies that later became the United States were British colonies. The colonists spoke English, followed English laws, and inherited English political traditions.

Important English documents helped shape American democracy. These included the Magna Carta (1215) and the English Bill of Rights (1689). Both documents limited the power of the king and protected certain rights of the people.

The American legal system still reflects many principles from English common law today. Without England, historians generally agree that American history would have looked very different.


The Enlightenment Played a Major Role
Another important influence was the European Enlightenment during the 17th and 18th centuries. Thinkers such as John Locke, Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote about freedom, equality, natural rights, and government by the people.

Their ideas greatly influenced the Founding Fathers of the United States. For example, Thomas Jefferson used many Enlightenment ideas when writing the Declaration of Independence in 1776. One famous sentence says: "All men are created equal."

This idea came mainly from Enlightenment philosophy rather than from religious teachings.


The Founding Fathers
The United States was founded by leaders such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams.

None of these men were Jewish.

They came from different Christian backgrounds, although some were more religious than others.

Their writings show that they were influenced by several sources:
• The Bible
• Greek philosophy
• Roman government
• English law
• Enlightenment thinkers


Instead of depending on one single source, they combined many ideas into a new system of government.


Did Judaism Influence America?
The answer is yes, however only in certain ways.

Many early American settlers were Christians, especially the Puritans. The Puritans loved reading the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Old Testament. They often compared themselves with the ancient Israelites.

You may read- Judaism vs. Zionism: Why They're Not the Same and Why It Matters

For example, they believed they were leaving oppression in Europe just as Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. Some American leaders also admired biblical ideas about justice, morality, and freedom. Therefore, Judaism influenced America mainly through the Bible that Christians also consider sacred. However, this does not mean the Jewish people themselves created America.

How Many Jewish People Lived in Colonial America?
Historical records show that the Jewish population in colonial America was very small. By the time of the American Revolution in 1776, only about 2,000 to 3,000 Jews lived among a colonial population of roughly 2.5 million people.

That means Jewish people made up around one-tenth of one percent of the population. Most Jewish communities lived in cities such as New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, Newport, and Savannah. They contributed to local business and trade, but they were not the main political leaders during the founding of the United States.


Jewish Contributions to America Are Very Important
Although Jewish people were a small minority during America's founding, their later contributions to American society have been enormous.

In science, medicine, law, business, education, entertainment, and technology, Jewish Americans have helped shape the modern United States.

Some famous examples include:
• Albert Einstein, whose scientific work changed modern physics.
• Jonas Salk, who developed one of the first successful polio vaccines.
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who became one of the most respected justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many Jewish immigrants also helped build businesses, universities, hospitals, and charitable organizations across America.

These achievements deserve recognition and respect.

However, most of these contributions happened long after the United States became an independent nation in 1776. It is not the same as saying that historians have proved America would never have existed without Jewish people.


What Do Historians Say?
Professional historians generally explain America's founding using several major causes.

These include:
• British colonial history.
• English constitutional traditions.
• Enlightenment philosophy.
• Economic conflicts with Britain.
• The American Revolution.
• The leadership of the Founding Fathers.


These are supported by thousands of historical documents, letters, government records, and academic studies. Mainstream historians do not argue that America would never have existed without the Jewish people. Instead, they describe America's birth as the result of many different historical forces working together.


Is Huckabee's Statement really True?

I would not say that what he stated was correct or wrong. The answer depends on how people interpret it.

If the statement is understood literally as a historical claim, the available evidence does not support it. History shows that America was founded through the combined influence of England, Europe, Christianity, classical philosophy, and the political decisions of its founders.

The Jewish people certainly influenced Western civilization and Christianity, but historians do not identify them as the sole or indispensable reason for America's existence. If Huckabee meant his statement in a religious or symbolic sense, then many evangelical Christians would understand what he meant. In that case, the statement reflects a theological opinion rather than a historical conclusion.


My perspective and opinions
History is often more complex than political slogans or social media posts.

The United States owes much to many peoples and traditions. England gave America its language and legal system. The Enlightenment inspired ideas about liberty and democracy. Christianity influenced moral thinking. Greek and Roman civilizations shaped political philosophy. Immigrants from every continent later strengthened the nation through their work and talents.

Jewish people have made remarkable contributions to the United States and continue to do so today. Their role in American science, medicine, business, education, and public life is widely respected.

However, based on historical evidence, it is not accurate to say that America would never have existed without the Jewish people.

Such a statement expresses a religious or political belief rather than a conclusion supported by mainstream historical scholarship.

When discussing history, it is important to distinguish between faith, opinion, and verifiable evidence. Respecting every community's contributions while remaining faithful to the historical record allows us to better understand how the United States truly came into existence

I need your own opinion my friends

What do you think about Mike Huckabee's statement?
Do you agree that the Jewish people were essential to the creation of America, or do you believe the nation's founding was shaped by many different historical influences? I would love to hear your thoughts.

Please share your opinion in the comments below. Let's keep our discussion respectful, constructive, and based on facts, history, and mutual understanding. Every thoughtful perspective is welcome..















A Message From Asep Haryono

 

"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well.  Please leave any comment down below.  Let me hear from you.  Greetings from Indonesia"

Disclaimer 

This article is a personal opinion of the author based on experience and observations while working at SPPG Darul Ulum Kuala Dua, Kubu Raya Regency, INDONESIA, since November 2025, and does not represent the official views of the National Nutrition Agency (BGN), SPPG, or any other government institution. 

The article is written in Indonesian for local readers. International readers may use translation features such as Google Translate to understand the content. The author tries to present accurate information, but data and policies related to the Free Nutritious Meal Program (MBG) may change at any time in line with the latest developments

Happy reading my friends


Program Makan Bergizi Gratis (MBG) merupakan salah satu program nasional yang bertujuan meningkatkan kualitas gizi masyarakat Indonesia, khususnya anak-anak sekolah, balita, serta ibu hamil dan menyusui. Program ini lahir dari kesadaran bahwa gizi yang baik merupakan fondasi penting bagi pembangunan sumber daya manusia yang unggul.

Melalui penyediaan makanan bergizi secara rutin, pemerintah berharap dapat membantu menurunkan angka stunting, meningkatkan kesehatan anak, dan mendukung proses belajar yang lebih optimal. Dalam jangka panjang, program ini diharapkan dapat melahirkan generasi Indonesia yang lebih sehat, cerdas, dan produktif.

Namun, mewujudkan tujuan besar tersebut bukanlah tugas yang mudah. Sebagai negara kepulauan dengan wilayah yang luas dan kondisi geografis yang beragam, Indonesia menghadapi sejumlah tantangan dalam pelaksanaan Program Makan Bergizi Gratis.


This photo was taken about three months ago. I was photographed next to a vehicle operating under the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) program. TOur kitchen located in Kuala Dua, Kubu Raya Regency, West Kalimantan, Indonesia



This food tray is being filled with healthy food, and when everything is set and ready, it is prepared for everyday delivery. Our kitchen has nutrition experts who determine the daily menu, and all the food is obviously delicious, tasty, and nutritious. Photo Asep Haryono


Suasana berbuka puasa bersama karyawan di lingkungan SPPG Darul Ulum Kuala Dua pada bulan Ramadan 1447 H (Maret 2026). Kegiatan ini menjadi momen mempererat kebersamaan dan kekompakan tim di tengah aktivitas mendukung Program Makan Bergizi Gratis (MBG). Foto: Dokumentasi pribadi penulis.
Suasana berbuka puasa bersama karyawan di lingkungan SPPG Darul Ulum Kuala Dua pada bulan Ramadan 1447 H (Maret 2026). Kegiatan ini menjadi momen mempererat kebersamaan dan kekompakan tim di tengah aktivitas mendukung Program Makan Bergizi Gratis (MBG). Foto: Dokumentasi pribadi penulis.


This is a short clip of my activityin the kitchen. The guy in the video is me
wearing food safety standard outfit




Menjangkau Daerah Terpencil dan Sulit Diakses
Salah satu tantangan terbesar dalam pelaksanaan MBG adalah memastikan bahwa seluruh penerima manfaat mendapatkan layanan yang sama, tanpa memandang lokasi tempat tinggal mereka.

Indonesia memiliki ribuan pulau yang tersebar dari Sabang hingga Merauke. Banyak daerah yang masih menghadapi keterbatasan infrastruktur, akses transportasi, dan sarana distribusi. Di beberapa wilayah, bahan pangan harus menempuh perjalanan yang panjang sebelum sampai ke lokasi pengolahan makanan.

Kondisi cuaca juga dapat menjadi hambatan. Gelombang tinggi, hujan deras, atau kerusakan jalan dapat mengganggu proses distribusi dan menyebabkan keterlambatan pengiriman bahan makanan.

Karena itu, diperlukan strategi yang tepat agar anak-anak di daerah terpencil tetap memperoleh manfaat yang sama dengan mereka yang tinggal di wilayah perkotaan. Salah satu pendekatan yang dapat dilakukan adalah memperkuat dapur layanan di tingkat lokal sehingga makanan dapat diproduksi lebih dekat dengan penerima manfaat.


Menjaga Kualitas dan Kandungan Gizi Makanan

Program MBG tidak hanya bertujuan menyediakan makanan, tetapi juga memastikan bahwa makanan yang diberikan memiliki kandungan gizi yang seimbang. Setiap menu idealnya mengandung karbohidrat, protein, sayuran, dan buah dalam jumlah yang sesuai dengan kebutuhan penerima manfaat. Kualitas makanan menjadi faktor penting karena tujuan utama program ini adalah meningkatkan status gizi masyarakat.

Tantangannya, kebutuhan dan ketersediaan bahan pangan di setiap daerah tidak selalu sama. Harga bahan pokok dapat berfluktuasi, sementara pasokan bahan tertentu mungkin terbatas di wilayah tertentu.

Selain itu, aspek keamanan pangan juga harus menjadi perhatian. Makanan harus diproses secara higienis, disimpan dengan baik, dan disajikan dalam kondisi yang aman untuk dikonsumsi. Oleh karena itu, pelatihan bagi tenaga pengelola, pengawasan kualitas, serta evaluasi berkala menjadi bagian penting dalam menjaga keberhasilan program.


Mengelola Logistik di Negara Kepulauan
Logistik merupakan salah satu aspek paling kompleks dalam pelaksanaan Program MBG. Sebagai negara kepulauan terbesar di dunia, Indonesia menghadapi tantangan distribusi yang tidak sederhana. Pengiriman bahan pangan antarwilayah sering kali memerlukan waktu dan biaya yang cukup besar.

Bahan makanan segar seperti sayuran, ikan, dan daging membutuhkan penanganan khusus agar kualitasnya tetap terjaga selama proses pengiriman. Jika rantai distribusi terganggu, kualitas bahan pangan dapat menurun sebelum sampai ke tangan penerima manfaat.

Untuk mengatasi hal tersebut, penggunaan bahan pangan lokal menjadi salah satu solusi yang menjanjikan. Dengan melibatkan petani, peternak, nelayan, dan pelaku usaha lokal, kebutuhan bahan baku dapat dipenuhi dari wilayah terdekat.

Selain mengurangi biaya distribusi, pendekatan ini juga memberikan manfaat ekonomi bagi masyarakat setempat dan membantu menggerakkan perekonomian daerah.


Pentingnya Tata Kelola dan Pengawasan yang Baik

Program berskala nasional seperti MBG memerlukan sistem tata kelola yang kuat dan transparan. Dengan cakupan yang luas serta melibatkan banyak pihak, mulai dari pemerintah pusat, pemerintah daerah, sekolah, penyedia layanan, hingga pemasok bahan pangan, koordinasi menjadi faktor yang sangat penting.

Pengawasan yang efektif diperlukan untuk memastikan bahwa program berjalan sesuai tujuan. Setiap proses, mulai dari pengadaan bahan makanan hingga distribusi kepada penerima manfaat, perlu dilakukan secara transparan dan dapat dipertanggungjawabkan.

Tata kelola yang baik juga akan membantu meningkatkan kepercayaan masyarakat terhadap program. Ketika masyarakat melihat bahwa program dijalankan secara profesional dan terbuka, dukungan publik akan semakin kuat.

Selain itu, sistem evaluasi yang berkelanjutan dapat membantu pemerintah mengidentifikasi berbagai kendala di lapangan dan menemukan solusi yang lebih efektif.


Membangun Kolaborasi dengan Berbagai Pihak
Keberhasilan Program MBG tidak hanya bergantung pada pemerintah. Program ini juga membutuhkan dukungan dari berbagai pihak, termasuk sekolah, komunitas lokal, pelaku usaha, dan masyarakat.

Kolaborasi yang baik dapat membantu mempercepat distribusi, meningkatkan kualitas layanan, serta memperkuat pengawasan di tingkat lokal.

Pelaku usaha lokal, misalnya, dapat berperan sebagai pemasok bahan pangan atau penyedia layanan pendukung. Sementara itu, masyarakat dapat memberikan masukan dan ikut mengawasi pelaksanaan program agar tetap berjalan sesuai tujuan.

Semakin banyak pihak yang terlibat secara positif, semakin besar pula peluang keberhasilan program dalam jangka panjang.


Harapan untuk Masa Depan Program MBG
Program Makan Bergizi Gratis merupakan investasi jangka panjang bagi masa depan Indonesia. Program ini tidak hanya berupaya mengatasi persoalan gizi saat ini, tetapi juga mempersiapkan generasi yang lebih sehat dan berkualitas di masa mendatang.

Meski menghadapi berbagai tantangan, peluang keberhasilan program ini tetap terbuka lebar. Dengan perencanaan yang matang, pengawasan yang baik, serta kerja sama dari berbagai pihak, berbagai kendala yang ada dapat diatasi secara bertahap.

Pada akhirnya, keberhasilan Program MBG tidak hanya diukur dari jumlah makanan yang dibagikan setiap hari. Lebih dari itu, keberhasilannya akan terlihat dari meningkatnya kualitas kesehatan, pendidikan, dan kesejahteraan generasi muda Indonesia.

Jika dikelola dengan baik dan terus dievaluasi secara berkelanjutan, Program Makan Bergizi Gratis berpotensi menjadi salah satu langkah penting dalam membangun Indonesia yang lebih sehat, kuat, dan siap menghadapi tantangan masa depan


Asep Haryono
Bekerja bagian Packing di SPPG Darul Ulum, Kuala Dua
KabupateN Kubu Raya
Kalimantan Barat

A Message From Asep Haryono

 

"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well.  Please leave any comment down below.  Let me hear from you.  Greetings from Indonesia"

Disclaimer:
Hello my friend. How is it gong?.  Its been a while.   By the way this article is a personal opinion written from the perspective of an ordinary citizen. I am not a politician, a government official, or a foreign policy expert. I am simply a citizen of the world who is observing international events and sharing personal thoughts and concerns.

Thank you so much.

The world is once again watching rising tensions in the Middle East. Recent news reports about military strikes involving the United States, Israel, and Iran have raised serious concerns about the possibility of a wider conflict in the region.

For many people around the globe, events like these are deeply worrying. War in one part of the world can quickly affect many other countries, whether through economic instability, political tensions, or humanitarian crises.

As an ordinary citizen of The Republic of Indonesia, living far away from the Middle East, I can only follow the news and try to understand what is happening. However, like many others, I cannot ignore the serious questions that arise when military actions take place between sovereign nations.

The flags of Israel and the United States flying side by side with a military tank behind them, symbolizing military alliance among them
The flags of Israel and the United States flying side by side with a military tank behind them, symbolizing military alliance among them



Rising Military Tensions
According to international news reports, the United States and Israel launched military strikes on targets inside Iran. These attacks reportedly focused on military facilities and strategic locations. In simple opinion.

The United States and Israel started a war


Supporters of these actions argue that such strikes are necessary for national security and self-defense. However, Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks, increasing the risk of a wider conflict.

When tensions escalate like this, the situation can quickly become dangerous not only for the countries involved but also for the entire region especially in the region of the middle east.


The Human Cost of War
History has repeatedly shown that the greatest victims of war are often ordinary people. Civilians or even school students can lose their homes, their safety, and sometimes their loved ones.

Beyond the battlefield, wars also create economic hardship, displacement, and long-term instability. These humanitarian consequences can affect generations.

For that reason, many people around the world feel deeply concerned whenever new military conflicts begin.


My Questions About International Law
Another important issue raised by this conflict is the question of international law. Iran is a sovereign nation, and the use of military force against another country often raises legal and ethical questions under international law.

The United Nations Charter, established after the Second World War, was designed to prevent countries from using force against each other except in limited situations. In general, military action is considered legitimate only in cases of self-defense or when authorized by the United Nations Security Council.

Because of this principle, some observers argue that attacks on another sovereign country without clear international authorization could be seen as a violation of international law. Others, however, believe the strikes may be justified as defensive measures.

These debates are complex and often involve political, legal, and security considerations.


The Need for Diplomacy
Despite these disagreements, one thing remains clear: war rarely brings lasting solutions. Diplomacy, dialogue, and negotiation are often the most effective ways to resolve international disputes. Many global organizations and leaders have repeatedly called for de-escalation and peaceful solutions.

In a world that is increasingly interconnected, conflict in one region can quickly affect the stability of many others.


The Role of the United Nations
Many people around the world are asking: Where is the United Nations in this conflict?

The United Nations was created after World War II with the main goal of maintaining international peace and preventing wars between countries. In situations like the current tensions involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, the UN is expected to encourage dialogue and reduce the risk of a wider conflict.

The United Nations Security Council can hold emergency meetings and discuss possible diplomatic solutions. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has also urged all parties to avoid further escalation and to respect international law.

However, the UN has limitations. Decisions in the Security Council often depend on powerful member states, and disagreements among them can make it difficult to take strong action. Because of this, the UN’s role is often focused on diplomacy, mediation, and encouraging peaceful solutions rather than directly stopping conflicts.


My Final Reflection
As someone who lives far from the Middle East, I may not fully understand every political detail behind this conflict. But as a human being and a citizen of the world, it is difficult not to feel concerned when military actions escalate between nations.

History has shown that wars often begin with strong words and military actions, but they leave behind deep wounds that can last for generations.As ordinary citizens, we may not hold political power, but we can still hope and speak for peace, respect for international law, and dialogue between nations.

In the end, the future of our world should not be decided only by weapons and military power, but by wisdom, diplomacy, and the shared hope that humanity will choose peace over conflict.


I have a few questions by the way

I really have no idea what the President of the United States was thinking when he decided to bomb another sovereign country with Israel without approval from the United Nations.
Why is Trump so sure that the American people want this war? Why does he bring America into harm’s way and put the country in a dangerous position, possibly becoming isolated from the world?
Why does he send American troops to be sacrificed and die for Israel, a country whose citizens do not pay taxes to the United States?
Why does America, under the administration of President Trump, seem to prioritize Israel and put Israel first instead of Americans?


A Message From Asep Haryono

 

"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well.  Please leave any comment down below.  Let me hear from you.  Greetings from Indonesia"

Disclaimer 

This article reflects the author’s personal perspective and is intended solely for discussion and informational purposes. It does not promote hatred, violence, or discrimination in any form. On this occasion, the article is written in Indonesian for readers in Indonesia. International readers and fellow bloggers are welcome to use translation tools or translate the content into their preferred language.


Sejarah Singkat Perubahan Rezim yang Didukung Amerika Serikat

Pada 3 Januari 2026, Amerika Serikat melancarkan operasi militer di Venezuela, menyerang target-target di Caracas dan menangkap Presiden Nicolás Maduro serta istrinya, Cilia Flores, dalam sebuah operasi mendadak yang mengejutkan dunia. Keduanya diterbangkan ke New York, di mana mereka dihadapkan ke pengadilan federal dan menyatakan tidak bersalah atas tuduhan termasuk narkoterorisme dan perdagangan narkoba.

Operasi tersebut, yang diberi nama Operation Absolute Resolve, dibenarkan oleh pemerintah AS sebagai tindakan terhadap apa yang mereka sebut sebagai “negara narkoba.” Namun, langkah ini menuai kecaman luas dari banyak negara, pakar hukum, dan pengamat internasional karena dianggap sebagai pelanggaran serius terhadap hukum internasional dan kedaulatan Venezuela.

Bagi banyak pihak di luar Amerika Serikat, peristiwa ini memunculkan pertanyaan penting: Apakah ini tindakan yang luar biasa, atau hanya kelanjutan dari pola lama yang sudah sering terjadi?

Sejarah menunjukkan bahwa ini lebih merupakan pola yang berulang.

Ini bukan pertama kalinya Amerika Serikat bertindak secara sepihak tanpa mandat Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa untuk mencampuri urusan dalam negeri negara lain. Baik melalui operasi rahasia, sanksi ekonomi, perang melalui pihak ketiga, maupun intervensi militer langsung, AS berulang kali menempatkan dirinya sebagai aktor yang bertindak seolah berada di atas hukum internasional, dengan pembenaran atas nama keamanan, demokrasi, atau tanggung jawab moral.

Maka muncul pertanyaan lain: Apakah era perubahan rezim yang dipimpin Amerika Serikat sudah berakhir sejak Perang Dingin? Ataukah hanya berubah bentuk dan terus berlanjut hingga hari ini?

Dengan Amerika Serikat kini kembali aktif mengancam dan mengintervensi negara-negara lain setelah Venezuela, berikut adalah sepuluh contoh yang terdokumentasi dengan baik di mana Washington memainkan peran menentukan dalam menggulingkan pemerintahan asing sering kali tanpa menghiraukan hukum internasional.

1. 1953 – Iran
Perdana Menteri Mohammad Mossadegh terpilih secara demokratis dan mendapat dukungan luas rakyat Iran. Keputusannya untuk menasionalisasi industri minyak Iran mengancam kepentingan perusahaan Inggris dan dominasi Barat atas sumber daya Iran. Amerika Serikat, yang khawatir terhadap pengaruh Uni Soviet di tengah Perang Dingin, bekerja sama dengan Inggris mengatur kudeta melalui CIA.

Kudeta tersebut mengembalikan kekuasaan penuh kepada Shah yang pro-Barat. Selama lebih dari 26 tahun, pemerintahannya semakin otoriter hingga akhirnya Revolusi Iran 1979 meletus dan membawa Iran berbalik secara tegas melawan Amerika Serikat.

United Nations headquarters in New York with international flags and a peace symbol, representing diplomacy, international law, and global cooperation.
The United Nations headquarters in New York, a global symbol of diplomacy, international law, and efforts toward peace



2. 1954 – Guatemala
Presiden Jacobo Árbenz memperkenalkan reformasi agraria untuk mengatasi ketimpangan kepemilikan tanah yang ekstrem. Kebijakan ini mengancam kepentingan korporasi Amerika Serikat, khususnya United Fruit Company. Washington kemudian melabeli Árbenz sebagai komunis dan mendukung kudeta yang menggantikannya dengan rezim militer.

Yang terjadi setelahnya adalah puluhan tahun penindasan, perang saudara, dan genosida terhadap penduduk pribumi konsekuensi yang jarang dibahas dalam narasi resmi kebijakan luar negeri AS.

3. 1960 – Kongo
Perdana Menteri Patrice Lumumba, yang terpilih secara demokratis, berupaya membebaskan Kongo dari kontrol politik dan ekonomi Barat. Dipandang sebagai ancaman terhadap kepentingan Barat, Lumumba digulingkan dan dibunuh dengan keterlibatan Amerika Serikat.

Kematian Lumumba menjerumuskan Kongo ke dalam ketidakstabilan berkepanjangan. Saat ini, ia dikenang sebagai pahlawan nasional dan martir gerakan Pan-Afrika, simbol harga mahal dari perlawanan terhadap dominasi asing.

4. 1964–1973 – Amerika Latin
Di seluruh Amerika Latin, dari Brasil hingga Chili, pemerintahan sayap kiri digulingkan dengan dukungan Amerika Serikat. Periode ini memuncak dalam Operasi Condor, sebuah jaringan lintas negara di mana AS mendukung kediktatoran militer sayap kanan.

Rezim-rezim ini melakukan penyiksaan sistematis, penghilangan paksa, dan pembunuhan politik. Generasi demi generasi mengalami trauma atas nama anti-komunisme dan “stabilitas.”

5. 1983 – Grenada
Setelah terjadinya kudeta internal, Amerika Serikat menginvasi Grenada dan menggulingkan pemerintahan militer Marxis. Karena Grenada merupakan bagian dari Persemakmuran Inggris, Presiden Ronald Reagan kemudian meminta maaf kepada Perdana Menteri Inggris Margaret Thatcher karena tidak memberi pemberitahuan sebelumnya sebuah pengakuan langka atas sifat sepihak invasi tersebut.

6. 1989 – Panama
Manuel Noriega, yang sebelumnya merupakan sekutu AS, mulai menantang kendali Amerika Serikat atas Terusan Panama dan dituduh terlibat perdagangan narkoba. AS kemudian menginvasi Panama, menggulingkan Noriega, dan menggunakan perang psikologis termasuk memutar musik rock keras di luar Kedutaan Vatikan tempat Noriega berlindung untuk memaksanya menyerah.

Pesan yang disampaikan jelas: sekutu hanya diterima selama mereka tetap patuh.

7. 2001 – Afghanistan
Setelah serangan 11 September, Amerika Serikat meluncurkan “Perang Melawan Teror” dan menggulingkan Taliban karena melindungi al-Qaeda. Yang terjadi kemudian adalah 20 tahun perang, korban sipil dalam jumlah besar, dan pengeluaran triliunan dolar.

Pada tahun 2021, Taliban kembali berkuasa, memunculkan pertanyaan serius tentang tujuan dan hasil nyata dari intervensi tersebut.

8. 2003 – Irak
Saddam Hussein digulingkan berdasarkan tuduhan kepemilikan senjata pemusnah massal tuduhan yang kemudian terbukti tidak benar. Runtuhnya negara Irak memicu konflik sektarian, ketidakstabilan regional, dan kemunculan kelompok-kelompok ekstremis.

Dampak jangka panjangnya masih terasa hingga kini di Timur Tengah.

9. 2011 – Libya
Selama Arab Spring, serangan udara NATO yang didukung Amerika Serikat menggulingkan Muammar Gaddafi. Meski dibingkai sebagai intervensi kemanusiaan, Libya kemudian terjerumus ke dalam perang saudara, dengan berbagai milisi dan kekuatan asing berebut pengaruh.

Negara Libya pada akhirnya terpecah dan gagal membangun stabilitas baru.

10. 2026 – Venezuela
Kasus Venezuela mencerminkan pola yang sudah dikenal: sanksi ekonomi, perang ekonomi, isolasi diplomatik, operasi rahasia, dan akhirnya aksi militer langsung yang semuanya dibenarkan dengan narasi moral dan hukum yang ditolak oleh banyak pihak di komunitas internasional.

Penutup
Dan kini Amerika Serikat punya niat dengan Greenland yang merupakan bagian dari Denmark yang juga anggota NATO. Greenland kini semakin mendapat perhatian dari Amerika Serikat karena letaknya yang strategis di kawasan Arktik, kekayaan sumber daya alam, serta meningkatnya kepentingan geopolitik seiring mencairnya es di wilayah kutub.

Pada tahun 2019, Presiden AS saat itu, Donald Trump, secara terbuka menyampaikan ketertarikannya untuk “membeli” Greenland, sebuah gagasan yang langsung ditolak oleh Denmark dan pemerintah lokal Greenland.

Meskipun usulan tersebut menuai kritik luas dan dianggap tidak realistis, pernyataan itu mencerminkan ambisi strategis Amerika Serikat di kawasan Arktik, terutama terkait kehadiran militer, akses sumber daya, dan persaingan dengan Rusia serta Tiongkok. Apakah Amerika Serikat juga akan menggulingkan pemimpin Greenland seperti negara negara lainnya yang sudah dikendalikan oleh Amerika Serikat? Pertanyaan saya lucu, konyol tapi tidak apa karena ini pertanyaan yang ada dikepala saya

Jika dilihat secara keseluruhan, kasus-kasus ini menunjukkan sebuah strategi yang konsisten, bukan sekadar kejadian terpisah. Selama puluhan tahun dan di berbagai belahan dunia, Amerika Serikat berulang kali berupaya mengendalikan pemerintahan, mengamankan sumber daya strategis, dan membentuk tatanan dunia sesuai kepentingannya.


Bahasa dan pembenaran mungkin berubah dari anti-komunisme, perang melawan teror, hingga perang melawan narkoba namun logika dasarnya tetap sama. Pertanyaannya kini bukan lagi apakah sejarah ini benar-benar ada, melainkan apakah dunia akan terus menerimanya sebagai sesuatu yang normal.

Bagaimana dengan pendapat kalian? Silahkan tulis komentar kalian terhadap topik ini Perbedaan pendapat adalah hal yang biasa, dan setiap pendapat yang berbeda tentu diapresiasi dan dihargai

A Message From Asep Haryono

 

"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well.  Please leave any comment down below.  Let me hear from you.  Greetings from Indonesia"

Disclaimer:
This article represents the author’s personal perspective and is intended for discussion and informational purposes only. It does not encourage hatred, violence, or discrimination in any form.


Happy weekend my friends.

The whole world, including me in Indonesia, have witnessed through social media platforms that In January 2026, an ICE agent in Minneapolis fatally shot Renée Nicole Good during an enforcement operation. Officials claim Good posed an imminent threat, but eyewitness videos show a different perspective, suggesting she was calm before the shooting.


The incident has led to protests and calls for an independent investigation. As of now, the investigation is ongoing, and the community is waiting for more clarity on what happened.

My question is simple.
Why Do Immigration Officers Use Lethal Force?

Recently, a tragic incident in Minnesota shocked many people around the world. A woman was fatally shot during an immigration-related operation conducted by U.S. officers. This event has sparked serious attentions, not only about what exactly happened in that case, but also about how immigration enforcement is handled in the United States, and whether such extreme force is really necessary.

As an ordinary observer, I want to reflect on this issue from a human perspective, not a political one instead of I am not good at confrontation. I would like to find an answer to my question mentioned above. Why Do Immigration Officers Use Lethal Force? They are Civilian, Not a Criminal. You are not at war. Why did you do that?

Dramatic video purportedly shows the moment an ICE agent fatally opened fire on a woman in Minneapolis, who DHS says attempted to barrel her SUV into the path of an office.I marked with a circle to show you the guy's firearms. Image courtesy of New Your Post Yputube Channel
Dramatic video purportedly shows the moment an ICE agent fatally opened fire on a woman in Minneapolis, who DHS says attempted to barrel her SUV into the path of an office.I marked with a circle to show you the guy's firearms.
Image courtesy of New Your Post Yputube Channel



One of the most important points to understand is this:Illegal immigrants are civilians, not armed criminals or terrorists. In most cases, they are unarmed people workers, parents, or families who entered or stayed in a country without proper documents. That is a legal issue, yes, but it is not the same as violent crime. I want to say one more time my friends/ My other big question is: Why do officers need to carry lethal weapons when dealing with unarmed civilians?

From a moral and humanitarian point of view, this feels deeply troubling. Immigration enforcement should be about administrative law, not battlefield tactics.

You guys said it was “Self-Defense”.
O come on. 


The U.S. government and law enforcement agencies often explain that officers are armed for self-defense. The argument is that officers never know what situation they will face and must be prepared for danger.But many people find this reasoning difficult to accept in immigration cases.

Self-defense usually applies when there is a clear and immediate threat

If the person being arrested is unarmed, surrounded by officers, and not committing violence, then using lethal force feels disproportionate. This is why many people describe such actions as excessive, unnecessary, and even cruel.

Militarization of Immigration Enforcement
Another my major concern is the militarization of immigration officers in the United States. Through many videos I have watched recently clearly showed that many ICE agents are equipped with: Firearms, Tactical gear and Military-style equipment. Just like at war zone

This creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, especially in immigrant communities. When officers look and act like soldiers, people naturally panic even if they have done nothing violent. Fear escalates situations. Panic leads to mistakes. And mistakes, when weapons are involved, can end in death.

I compare this with countries like Border Security Australia, the difference is striking. Australia also enforces immigration laws strictly. They search for undocumented immigrants and conduct operations. However, in many recorded cases, officers: Do not carry visible lethal weapons. Focus on questioning and verification. No bullet was fired

Use calm, firm communication. The emphasis is on control and procedure, not intimidation. This comparison shows that immigration enforcement does not have to involve deadly force.  I love that

As far as I am concerned, In the United States, immigration enforcement is deeply connected to race, history, and systemic inequality. Even when officers say race is not a factor, the outcomes often suggest otherwise.

Communities of color feel targeted. Immigrants feel hunted rather than protected by the law. This erodes trust and creates long-term damage to social cohesion.

After a fatal incident like the one in Minnesota, many people ask: I would like you guys to investiage this issue as soon as possible. We do not have to wait so long for justice even tough you will need more time for Investigations because multiple agencies are involved, Evidence must be reviewed carefully and Legal standards are strict. While this process is important to ensure fairness, long delays also create frustration, anger, and suspicion among the public. Transparency during investigations is essential. Silence only deepens mistrust.

Whether the case will go to trial depends on Evidence, Witness accounts, Body camera footage and Legal interpretation of “use of force”Justice is not guaranteed but public pressure, media attention, and independent investigations can play a crucial role in ensuring accountability. Justice is not just about punishment. It is also about acknowledging wrongdoing and preventing future tragedies.

POV : What the U.S. Government Should Do Next
If the U.S. truly wants to prevent similar tragedies, several changes are necessary like limit the use of lethal weapons in immigration operations, Prioritize de-escalation training, not tactical aggression, Separate immigration enforcement from criminal policing, Ensure independent oversight for any use of deadly force and Treat undocumented immigrants as civilians, not enemies

Immigration is a legal issue. It should not be handled like a war.

At the end of the day, this is not only about laws or borders. It is about human life. A person died. A family lost someone. A community was traumatized. No policy, no law, and no enforcement operation should forget that basic truth.  If governments want respect for the law, they must first show respect for human dignity.  A Human Issue, Not Just a Legal One

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Do you believe immigration enforcement should prioritize humanity and de-escalatio?
Feel free to share your perspective respectfully in the comments below

Happy weekend my friend

Stay safe.

Do not forget to be happy



A Message From Asep Haryono

 

"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well.  Please leave any comment down below.  Let me hear from you.  Greetings from Indonesia"

Disclaimer:
This article is an opinion-based analysis written using information available from international media reports, public statements, and open-source sources at the time of writing. It reflects the author’s personal perspective on international law and global governance and does not claim to represent definitive legal judgment or official positions of any government or institution.


When a powerful country can launch airstrikes inside another sovereign nation and forcibly remove its president without international authorization, the question is no longer about politics it is about whether international law still has meaning.

The recent United States military operation in Venezuela has sent shockwaves far beyond Latin America. Regardless of one’s opinion of Venezuela’s leadership, the act itself challenges the very foundation of the rules-based international order and raises an uncomfortable but urgent question: are some countries now operating beyond the reach of international law?

My friends

The recent reports surrounding a United States military operation in Venezuela involving airstrikes and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife have triggered intense global debate. Beyond political alignment or personal views of the Venezuelan leadership, the incident raises a far more important question: does international law still apply equally to all states, especially powerful ones?

For many observers, this event is not simply about Venezuela. It is about the credibility of the international legal order itself. If a powerful country can unilaterally use military force inside another sovereign state and remove its head of government without clear authorization under international law, then the rules designed to protect global stability are at serious risk.

International Law and the Use of Force

At the heart of this controversy lies the United Nations Charter, the cornerstone of modern international law. Article 2(4) clearly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in two limited circumstances: self-defense against an armed attack or authorization by the UN Security Council.

In the case of Venezuela, critics argue that neither condition was clearly met. Venezuela did not launch an armed attack on the United States, and no explicit Security Council authorization was granted. From a legal perspective, this places the operation in a highly questionable position.

International law does not allow states to conduct military operations in another country simply to enforce domestic criminal charges or political objectives. Doing so risks transforming law enforcement into warfare a dangerous precedent that undermines sovereignty worldwide.

The Presiden Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and his wife. Photo courtesy of KOMPAS Indonesia Official Youtube channel
The Presiden Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and his wife.
 Photo courtesy of KOMPAS Indonesia Official Youtube channel



Sovereignty and the Arrest of a Head of State
The forced capture of a sitting president inside his own country raises another serious legal issue: Sovereign immunity. While international law recognizes that heads of state may be held accountable for crimes, the process typically requires international courts, extradition agreements, or multilateral cooperation not unilateral military action.

When one country claims the right to arrest a foreign leader by force, it challenges the principle that states are legally equal. If this logic is accepted, then no government especially in smaller or weaker countries can feel secure.

This concern explains why many states react strongly, even if they strongly criticize the Venezuelan government itself. The issue is not about defending Maduro as a leader, but about defending the rules that protect all nations from coercion by force.

The Question of Double Standards
One of the most damaging consequences of such actions is the perception of double standards. International law is often presented as universal and neutral, yet in practice it appears selectively enforced.

Smaller or weaker states are frequently sanctioned, investigated, or condemned for violations, while powerful countries often face limited consequences. This inconsistency erodes trust in the international system and fuels accusations that international law is applied based on power, not principle.

Read also - Double Standards in Western Media

When the rules seem optional for the strongest players, they lose legitimacy for everyone.

Why the United Nations Struggles to Respond
Many people ask why the United Nations appears unable to respond decisively to such actions. The answer lies in the structure of the UN Security Council, where five permanent members including the United States hold veto power.

This veto allows any one of these states to block resolutions, including those condemning their own actions. As a result, the Security Council often becomes paralyzed precisely when decisive action is most needed.

The UN General Assembly may pass resolutions expressing concern or condemnation, but these are not legally binding. Without enforcement mechanisms, such responses remain symbolic rather than effective.

This structural imbalance has led many countries, particularly from the Global South, to argue that the veto system no longer reflects today’s world and is increasingly used as a political shield rather than a tool for peace.

The Dangerous Precedent
Perhaps the most serious implication of this incident is the precedent it sets. If one powerful state can justify military intervention to arrest a foreign leader, others may follow.

What happens if

• A regional power adopts the same logic?
• A rival state uses similar justification?
• Political disagreements become militarized?

History shows that once norms are weakened, instability follows. International law exists not because it is perfect, but because it helps prevent chaos. When those norms erode, the risk of conflict increases especially for countries without the means to defend themselves militarily.

Reconsidering the Veto System
This situation strengthens calls to rethink the UN veto system. Many countries now argue that while veto power may have made sense in 1945, it is increasingly incompatible with a world that claims to value equality, accountability, and rule-based order.

Proposed reforms include:

• Limiting veto use in cases involving clear violations of international law
• Requiring multiple vetoes instead of one
• Suspending veto power in cases of mass violence or aggression
• Increasing transparency and justification for veto decisions

While these reforms face political resistance, the growing number of crises blocked by vetoes suggests that reform is no longer optional it is necessary. Beyond Venezuela: A Global Issue

This issue goes far beyond Venezuela or the United States. It affects: 
• Small and medium-sized countries
• Developing nations 
• Regions with ongoing conflicts 
 The future credibility of international institutions

If international law is perceived as a tool of the powerful rather than a shield for the vulnerable, countries may increasingly turn to self-help, alliances, or force exactly what the UN was created to prevent.

Conclusion: Law Must Stand Above Power
The alleged U.S. attack on Venezuela and the capture of its president represent a critical moment for international law. The question is not whether the Venezuelan government is controversial or flawed. The real question is whether any country, regardless of power, should be allowed to act outside the rules that bind all others.

No state should be above the law. If international law is to survive as a meaningful system, it must apply consistently especially to the strongest actors.

This moment should serve as a wake-up call. The world must decide whether it wants an international order governed by rules, or one governed by power alone. The answer will shape global stability for generations to come.

What do you think about the future of international law and global accountability?

Share your thoughts respectfully in the comments and join the discussion.

A Message From Asep Haryono

 

"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well.  Please leave any comment down below.  Let me hear from you.  Greetings from Indonesia"

Bandara Supadio Pontianak From Bali With Love Selfie Dengan Selebritis
| Copyright © 2013 Asep Haryono Personal Blog From Indonesia