Craig Peterson Jr.'s Blog, page 13
July 17, 2019
Does the President Really Want Four Non-White Congresswomen to Leave the United States?
Recently, President Trump has been under fire for suggesting that four congresswomen should go back to their “home” countries and fix the mess there before criticizing the United States. There are many things wrong with these tweets, but it is important to understand that this type of thinking is both dangerous and racist. He and other Americans who may agree with him on this have the right to say what they want, but they must understand that there may be consequences for making such opinions public. Although I am skeptical of society dictating what is or is not acceptable speech on the premise that it may be detrimental to free speech and lead to fascism, these four congresswomen (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, and Ilhan Omar) are Americans and should not be treated like foreign agents or scum because of their race or ethnicity.
When the president made comments like these, he was implying that if someone is a race or ethnicity other than white or has a national origin other than that from the United States, he or she is not capable of being American or making decisions to benefit the country. I disagree with much of the politics of these four congresswomen and do not believe that moving towards socialism equals progress, but they are no less Americans than anyone else, nor are they any less capable of helping to lead the country. Three of the four were actually born in the United States, and Congresswoman Omar, a Somali refuge, became an American citizen years ago. Racist thinking has not disappeared in the twenty-first century, and there are still remnants of white supremacy, even if it is not always blatant. Racist and anti-immigrant attitudes are detrimental to our society and create divisions among the populace.
The next line of thinking that is dangerous from these tweets is the idea that if one disagrees with his or her government and believes change is necessary, that person should leave the country. So, we are not permitted to criticize our government now? We cannot suggest changes that would be a better fit from the status quo? What happened to free speech? Our founding fathers did not keep quiet and allow the government to continue down the road of tyranny. Why is our time period any different? Governments are often corrupt and need correcting. Americans are patriots when they speak out against ills in the government, and the idea is to effect change in the country and around the world. The people who want to shut down speech that they deem as hateful towards the United States should go back and relearn American history and regain an understanding of the principles upon which our country was founded. Whether we are talking about racial issues, policies of war, or being over-taxed, Americans should speak out.
Another perspective that the president’s tweets brought up is that other countries are inferior to the United States and should be treated as if the people there are less than human. Granted, there are many countries that are undesirable for living and do not provide a place for the people to exercise their rights, but this type of thinking goes deeper than just being proud to be American. It causes Americans to believe that because these countries are not ideal democracies or whatever, they should be subject to and victim of the American-dominated economic and military systems that exist. This leads to the justification for invasion or economic sanctions against countries that do not comply with the United States government, which then leads to further problems in those countries and causes them to become even more impoverished. It is good to be proud of your country, but when it crosses the line and begins to justify the destruction of another one, it becomes problematic.
Representative Omar has been further targeted because of her stances on foreign policy, but in a number of ways, she brings up difficult issues that many are not willing to talk about. President Trump and others have gone as far as to erroneously claim that she supports al Qaeda and is anti-Semitic. She has made comments about how Muslims are discriminated against because of the actions of a few radical ones and has even suggested that American foreign policy is partly to blame for terrorist attacks, both ideas that are true. She has also lashed out against how politicians are bought by the Israeli lobby to further the interests of the Israeli government, which also has merit. The thought in the United States is that if you criticize the Israeli government or the big lobby bucks associated with it, you are somehow anti-Semitic. Just like if you criticize the American government and its policies towards the status quo of war and bullying, you are considered anti-American or unpatriotic.
When did we get to the point of a fascist-leaning mindset that prevents us from speaking freely and engaging in political discourse? Instead, we are going to condemn and marginalize those who have a difference of opinion, and it is often worse for non-whites. Let us stop with our nativist and racist attitudes, our ideas that American dominance around the globe is a just cause because we have the power to do so, and false patriotism that leads to the blind acceptance of governmental actions.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website .
When the president made comments like these, he was implying that if someone is a race or ethnicity other than white or has a national origin other than that from the United States, he or she is not capable of being American or making decisions to benefit the country. I disagree with much of the politics of these four congresswomen and do not believe that moving towards socialism equals progress, but they are no less Americans than anyone else, nor are they any less capable of helping to lead the country. Three of the four were actually born in the United States, and Congresswoman Omar, a Somali refuge, became an American citizen years ago. Racist thinking has not disappeared in the twenty-first century, and there are still remnants of white supremacy, even if it is not always blatant. Racist and anti-immigrant attitudes are detrimental to our society and create divisions among the populace.
The next line of thinking that is dangerous from these tweets is the idea that if one disagrees with his or her government and believes change is necessary, that person should leave the country. So, we are not permitted to criticize our government now? We cannot suggest changes that would be a better fit from the status quo? What happened to free speech? Our founding fathers did not keep quiet and allow the government to continue down the road of tyranny. Why is our time period any different? Governments are often corrupt and need correcting. Americans are patriots when they speak out against ills in the government, and the idea is to effect change in the country and around the world. The people who want to shut down speech that they deem as hateful towards the United States should go back and relearn American history and regain an understanding of the principles upon which our country was founded. Whether we are talking about racial issues, policies of war, or being over-taxed, Americans should speak out.
Another perspective that the president’s tweets brought up is that other countries are inferior to the United States and should be treated as if the people there are less than human. Granted, there are many countries that are undesirable for living and do not provide a place for the people to exercise their rights, but this type of thinking goes deeper than just being proud to be American. It causes Americans to believe that because these countries are not ideal democracies or whatever, they should be subject to and victim of the American-dominated economic and military systems that exist. This leads to the justification for invasion or economic sanctions against countries that do not comply with the United States government, which then leads to further problems in those countries and causes them to become even more impoverished. It is good to be proud of your country, but when it crosses the line and begins to justify the destruction of another one, it becomes problematic.
Representative Omar has been further targeted because of her stances on foreign policy, but in a number of ways, she brings up difficult issues that many are not willing to talk about. President Trump and others have gone as far as to erroneously claim that she supports al Qaeda and is anti-Semitic. She has made comments about how Muslims are discriminated against because of the actions of a few radical ones and has even suggested that American foreign policy is partly to blame for terrorist attacks, both ideas that are true. She has also lashed out against how politicians are bought by the Israeli lobby to further the interests of the Israeli government, which also has merit. The thought in the United States is that if you criticize the Israeli government or the big lobby bucks associated with it, you are somehow anti-Semitic. Just like if you criticize the American government and its policies towards the status quo of war and bullying, you are considered anti-American or unpatriotic.
When did we get to the point of a fascist-leaning mindset that prevents us from speaking freely and engaging in political discourse? Instead, we are going to condemn and marginalize those who have a difference of opinion, and it is often worse for non-whites. Let us stop with our nativist and racist attitudes, our ideas that American dominance around the globe is a just cause because we have the power to do so, and false patriotism that leads to the blind acceptance of governmental actions.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website .
July 11, 2019
Lost in the Ocean of Wars, Is Land in Sight in Afghanistan?
Is the war in Afghanistan finally coming to an end? Will the troops be brought back home? Will the U.S.-backed Afghan government and the Taliban agree on some kind of deal to rule the country without American influence? Will the violence and slaughter of civilians be ended? We should have some optimism about an upcoming agreement, but what is the catch? Why is the Trump administration seemingly so eager to disengage from the conflict? Could it be because it has plans for another war theater in a bordering country?
The negotiations in Doha, Qatar did not produce too many detailed results, due in part to the differing ideologies and tactics between the parties for the future of Afghanistan. For example, the Taliban recently was responsible for the deaths of fourteen civilians and injury to 180 people with a terrorist-style attack involving a car bomb. In addition, the Taliban has been hesitant about negotiating with the Afghan government because of the influence that the United States has on it . However, the United States and the Taliban did agree that ending civilian casualties needs to become a priority.
It will be interesting to see if the United States and the Taliban will come to an agreement where American troops are withdrawn in exchange for the Taliban not allowing the country to become a haven for terrorism, but it may be even more interesting to understand why President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo want the agreement to be reached before the Afghan election in September.
Leaving before the election may assure the Afghan government and people that the United States is not looking to colonize the country and maintain a long-term presence, but why is a time frame being set during a period of reheating tensions with Iran? The Trump administration is desperately trying to portray Iran as an enemy that must be stopped, and it seems like a war with that country could begin in the not-so-far future. Could it be that the president is looking to utilize some of the resources and troops currently occupied by the Afghan conflict towards a new conflict? Could we be looking at war with Iran this coming fall or winter since a deal with the Taliban is set to be reached by September? Perhaps all of this timing is just a coincidence, but this is hard to believe given the history of the United States’ foreign policy.
Will our pointless nineteen-year war be concluded this year? Will the Taliban agree to share power with the current Afghan government, or will it reconquer the majority of the country upon a U.S. withdrawal and hold power as it did prior to the U.S. invasion? Experts will likely argue that immediate withdrawals lead to terrible conditions later on, but the problems we face are not with the withdrawals. The conflicts should be avoided in the first place by exhausting all diplomatic options, but if we find ourselves in a conflict, we should be looking for ways to end the fighting and bring our troops home. We cannot indefinitely keep troops in a country to force it to become a good, little democracy in our image, and occupying a country ends up taking a toll on all parties involved (with casualties, infrastructure destruction, and financial burdens).
The United States is willing to talk with the Taliban now after years of conflict, but where was that same sentiment in 2001? President Bush was not willing to entertain the idea of negotiating with the former Afghan ruling party at that time, despite the attempts by the Taliban to offer to hand over bin Laden if proof of his guilt could be provided, because his administration wanted its war to bolster the military-industrial complex. President Obama was not much different, as the senseless War on Terror was continued straight into the Trump presidency. President Trump has continued in his predecessors’ footsteps and is waiting for a moment to strike at Iran, but maybe we can give him some credit for trying to end the war in Afghanistan. In all reality, however, a small American presence will likely be in Afghanistan indefinitely, but we will see what happens in the next few months.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
The negotiations in Doha, Qatar did not produce too many detailed results, due in part to the differing ideologies and tactics between the parties for the future of Afghanistan. For example, the Taliban recently was responsible for the deaths of fourteen civilians and injury to 180 people with a terrorist-style attack involving a car bomb. In addition, the Taliban has been hesitant about negotiating with the Afghan government because of the influence that the United States has on it . However, the United States and the Taliban did agree that ending civilian casualties needs to become a priority.
It will be interesting to see if the United States and the Taliban will come to an agreement where American troops are withdrawn in exchange for the Taliban not allowing the country to become a haven for terrorism, but it may be even more interesting to understand why President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo want the agreement to be reached before the Afghan election in September.
Leaving before the election may assure the Afghan government and people that the United States is not looking to colonize the country and maintain a long-term presence, but why is a time frame being set during a period of reheating tensions with Iran? The Trump administration is desperately trying to portray Iran as an enemy that must be stopped, and it seems like a war with that country could begin in the not-so-far future. Could it be that the president is looking to utilize some of the resources and troops currently occupied by the Afghan conflict towards a new conflict? Could we be looking at war with Iran this coming fall or winter since a deal with the Taliban is set to be reached by September? Perhaps all of this timing is just a coincidence, but this is hard to believe given the history of the United States’ foreign policy.
Will our pointless nineteen-year war be concluded this year? Will the Taliban agree to share power with the current Afghan government, or will it reconquer the majority of the country upon a U.S. withdrawal and hold power as it did prior to the U.S. invasion? Experts will likely argue that immediate withdrawals lead to terrible conditions later on, but the problems we face are not with the withdrawals. The conflicts should be avoided in the first place by exhausting all diplomatic options, but if we find ourselves in a conflict, we should be looking for ways to end the fighting and bring our troops home. We cannot indefinitely keep troops in a country to force it to become a good, little democracy in our image, and occupying a country ends up taking a toll on all parties involved (with casualties, infrastructure destruction, and financial burdens).
The United States is willing to talk with the Taliban now after years of conflict, but where was that same sentiment in 2001? President Bush was not willing to entertain the idea of negotiating with the former Afghan ruling party at that time, despite the attempts by the Taliban to offer to hand over bin Laden if proof of his guilt could be provided, because his administration wanted its war to bolster the military-industrial complex. President Obama was not much different, as the senseless War on Terror was continued straight into the Trump presidency. President Trump has continued in his predecessors’ footsteps and is waiting for a moment to strike at Iran, but maybe we can give him some credit for trying to end the war in Afghanistan. In all reality, however, a small American presence will likely be in Afghanistan indefinitely, but we will see what happens in the next few months.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
June 20, 2019
We Are Edging Closer to War with Iran
The Trump administration continues to beat the war drums with the announcement of 1,000 additional troops being deployed to U.S. Central Command to act in a “defensive” role against the “threat” from Iran. This comes after the administration instantly blamed Iran for the attack against Japanese and Norwegian oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman on shaky evidence. The United States government stands ready to defend the Strait of Hormuz from anyone who would threaten its oil shipping routes and disrupt the American domination of the global oil market. Therefore, it has to justify making moves towards military conflict, and on the same hand, it has to pretend like it does not want war.
Even the Japanese government casts doubt on whether the Iranians were responsible for the attack on its country’s ship, and it has so far refused to label Iran as a threat that requires combative action. It is also interesting that a government source in Japan made a comparison between this event and the false intelligence used to justify war in Iraq. The crew of the Kokuka Courageous stated that the ship was attacked by a flying object and not a mine, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has claimed.
So, what is going on in the American intelligence community and with government officials? It seems as if they are concocting yet another false narrative in order to blame Iran and rally Americans to support war with that country. Maybe Americans should also start questioning the official reports on chemical weapons attacks in Syria and the Russian hacking of the American elections because the intelligence agencies are seemingly being used to further the government’s cause of moving towards war. This appears to no longer be about intelligence gathering, but rather, it is about the spread of propaganda. Americans will believe the rhetoric because the intelligence agencies are considered credible sources by most.
After the president withdrew from the nuclear agreement last year, he destroyed any hopes of resolving the conflict peacefully. Iran has announced that it will now enrich uranium to pre-agreement levels, which will be used by the Trump administration to justify a war. The irrationality of this is astounding. Let us pull out of an agreement that was preventing Iran from enriching uranium to weapons grade and then condemn them when they start increasing their enrichment again. Does this make sense to you? It can ultimately only mean one of two things. The Trump administration has been planning a war with Iran for some time and is looking for any justification it can to start one. The other explanation could be that the Trump administration is irrational and incompetent, but this is likely not the case. From watching their moves, it appears that they know what they are doing, and they want a war with Iran.
With the United States sanctioning Iran’s oil and metal exports, threatening any countries that purchase Iranian oil, and beefing up its presence in the Middle East to intimidate Iran, it seems as if war is inevitable at this point. We can hope that the Trump administration will change course and allow talks to occur, but this does not seem likely.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
This morning, it has been reported that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard shot down an American spy drone flying over its airspace. U.S. officials claim that the drone was flying over international airspace, but this incident will likely be used to further justify war with Iran. Regardless of whose account is correct, why was the American drone flying so close to Iranian territory in the first place? Were U.S. officials hoping for such an incident?
Even the Japanese government casts doubt on whether the Iranians were responsible for the attack on its country’s ship, and it has so far refused to label Iran as a threat that requires combative action. It is also interesting that a government source in Japan made a comparison between this event and the false intelligence used to justify war in Iraq. The crew of the Kokuka Courageous stated that the ship was attacked by a flying object and not a mine, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has claimed.
So, what is going on in the American intelligence community and with government officials? It seems as if they are concocting yet another false narrative in order to blame Iran and rally Americans to support war with that country. Maybe Americans should also start questioning the official reports on chemical weapons attacks in Syria and the Russian hacking of the American elections because the intelligence agencies are seemingly being used to further the government’s cause of moving towards war. This appears to no longer be about intelligence gathering, but rather, it is about the spread of propaganda. Americans will believe the rhetoric because the intelligence agencies are considered credible sources by most.
After the president withdrew from the nuclear agreement last year, he destroyed any hopes of resolving the conflict peacefully. Iran has announced that it will now enrich uranium to pre-agreement levels, which will be used by the Trump administration to justify a war. The irrationality of this is astounding. Let us pull out of an agreement that was preventing Iran from enriching uranium to weapons grade and then condemn them when they start increasing their enrichment again. Does this make sense to you? It can ultimately only mean one of two things. The Trump administration has been planning a war with Iran for some time and is looking for any justification it can to start one. The other explanation could be that the Trump administration is irrational and incompetent, but this is likely not the case. From watching their moves, it appears that they know what they are doing, and they want a war with Iran.
With the United States sanctioning Iran’s oil and metal exports, threatening any countries that purchase Iranian oil, and beefing up its presence in the Middle East to intimidate Iran, it seems as if war is inevitable at this point. We can hope that the Trump administration will change course and allow talks to occur, but this does not seem likely.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
This morning, it has been reported that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard shot down an American spy drone flying over its airspace. U.S. officials claim that the drone was flying over international airspace, but this incident will likely be used to further justify war with Iran. Regardless of whose account is correct, why was the American drone flying so close to Iranian territory in the first place? Were U.S. officials hoping for such an incident?
June 14, 2019
The Sanctions Keep Coming Against Iran
The rhetoric back and forth between Iran and the United States has fired up again, which is to be expected since the collapse of the JCPOA. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that after President Trump withdrew from the Iran agreement, the Persian nation would again ramp up its uranium enrichment. When we realize that the Trump administration’s goal is to feed the coffers of the defense industry, it helps us understand why it would want to move towards war with Iran and undermine any attempt to negotiate in a peaceful manner. However, the real aggression in this situation is not the rhetoric, but rather, it is the economic warfare waged against Iran in an effort to force the country into compliance.
Since the United States’ failed coup attempt in Venezuela, the focus has been on the eighteenth most populous nation on earth (at over 81 million people, it has an equivalent population to California, Texas, and Pennsylvania combined). The mainstream media in the United States parrots the words of the government officials and builds the narrative that Iran is a bad actor in the region that must be stopped. The preferred tactic at this stage is to strangle the enemy economically in the hopes that the government will buckle under the pressure or the people will rebel, but it is important to understand that the United States used a similar tactic of sanctions prior to full-out invasion of Iraq. Also, sanctions against Japan were one of the largest contributors to that country's attack against Pearl Harbor. It is not a question of whether the United States will commit to a hot war with Iran, but it is a question of when it will happen.
Recently, the United States government has targeted Iran’s metals export sector and policies made by European countries to bypass U.S. sanctions in order to relieve Iran and normalize relations. American efforts to cripple Iran’s economy have so far been successful, as Iran’s oil industry has been hurt, and now its second largest industry, steel, copper, aluminum, and iron, will face hardship. In addition, European countries have set up a method for getting around U.S. sanctions through Instex, and Iran has followed suit with the Special Trade and Finance Institute (STFI) arm of its central bank. The purpose of this is to allow some trade between countries like France, the United Kingdom, and Germany and Iran, especially trade related to humanitarian aid, despite the obstacles set by the United States and threats of sanctions against European countries. The United States is looking to prevent these types of actions from continuing because it takes place outside of the American Empire’s financial system and disrupts sanctions policies.
The United States government keeps blaming Iran for the destruction of oil tankers with little or no evidence for the claims, which may be used as justification for war. As tensions between the United States and Iran continue to deteriorate, we must understand that it is our officials that are leading us down the war path. Although sanctions seem like a less aggressive and alternative technique than committing troops, they have real consequences for the civilians, who are often harmed as a result. This is often the point, as the United States government would like to see the people struggle and take action against that government, but this economic form of terrorism has consequences for Americans too. Anti-American sentiment and the potential for war increase, which benefits government officials and military-linked corporations. However, we are left to pay the bill, send our family members overseas to fight a war for the governing elite, and suffer from any civil liberty violations that are arbitrarily deemed necessary to keep us safe.
Plus, we are edging closer to a large-scale global war, as countries have now started to choose whether they support the American Empire and its current global economy or alternative methods through countries like Russia and China. Will a war with Iran lead to a global war? Why take the chance? Iran is not going to attack the United States unprovoked because doing so would be suicidal, so why must our government continue this economic and rhetorical war?
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
Since the United States’ failed coup attempt in Venezuela, the focus has been on the eighteenth most populous nation on earth (at over 81 million people, it has an equivalent population to California, Texas, and Pennsylvania combined). The mainstream media in the United States parrots the words of the government officials and builds the narrative that Iran is a bad actor in the region that must be stopped. The preferred tactic at this stage is to strangle the enemy economically in the hopes that the government will buckle under the pressure or the people will rebel, but it is important to understand that the United States used a similar tactic of sanctions prior to full-out invasion of Iraq. Also, sanctions against Japan were one of the largest contributors to that country's attack against Pearl Harbor. It is not a question of whether the United States will commit to a hot war with Iran, but it is a question of when it will happen.
Recently, the United States government has targeted Iran’s metals export sector and policies made by European countries to bypass U.S. sanctions in order to relieve Iran and normalize relations. American efforts to cripple Iran’s economy have so far been successful, as Iran’s oil industry has been hurt, and now its second largest industry, steel, copper, aluminum, and iron, will face hardship. In addition, European countries have set up a method for getting around U.S. sanctions through Instex, and Iran has followed suit with the Special Trade and Finance Institute (STFI) arm of its central bank. The purpose of this is to allow some trade between countries like France, the United Kingdom, and Germany and Iran, especially trade related to humanitarian aid, despite the obstacles set by the United States and threats of sanctions against European countries. The United States is looking to prevent these types of actions from continuing because it takes place outside of the American Empire’s financial system and disrupts sanctions policies.
The United States government keeps blaming Iran for the destruction of oil tankers with little or no evidence for the claims, which may be used as justification for war. As tensions between the United States and Iran continue to deteriorate, we must understand that it is our officials that are leading us down the war path. Although sanctions seem like a less aggressive and alternative technique than committing troops, they have real consequences for the civilians, who are often harmed as a result. This is often the point, as the United States government would like to see the people struggle and take action against that government, but this economic form of terrorism has consequences for Americans too. Anti-American sentiment and the potential for war increase, which benefits government officials and military-linked corporations. However, we are left to pay the bill, send our family members overseas to fight a war for the governing elite, and suffer from any civil liberty violations that are arbitrarily deemed necessary to keep us safe.
Plus, we are edging closer to a large-scale global war, as countries have now started to choose whether they support the American Empire and its current global economy or alternative methods through countries like Russia and China. Will a war with Iran lead to a global war? Why take the chance? Iran is not going to attack the United States unprovoked because doing so would be suicidal, so why must our government continue this economic and rhetorical war?
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
May 14, 2019
Venezuela, North Korea, or Iran: Which One is Next?
When it comes to the next war that the United States engages in, it appears that the government is experiencing a bit of flip flop syndrome. It is like a child who cannot decide what it wants. “Mommy, I don’t want war with North Korea anymore. I want to go into Iran…I mean Venezuela…no, North Korea is better…Wait…no, I want Iran.” War is inevitable, and to appease the military-industrial complex, it is a necessary, yet imprudent, aspect of our war culture. We as Americans have been convinced that we must be the dominant empire and must dictate what other countries can and cannot do. It is just a question of where the next war will be, not whether one will occur, because not every country on the planet will roll over for its master. Will the next war be with North Korea, Iran, or Venezuela? Which one would you bet on?
Venezuela became the crowd favorite early this year because of the disaster plaguing the oil-rich South American nation. After years of economic mismanagement through socialism and the effects of American-imposed sanctions that were intended to coerce the current president from his position, self-declared president, Juan Guaido, attempted to seize power from the actually-elected Nicolas Maduro. This scenario would be like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declaring that President Trump was illegitimately elected and that she is the interim president of the United States. Then, most of the major countries around the world would recognize the Pelosi regime over the Trump one. This is ludicrous, yet, the United States and its allies have supported just that in Venezuela. The neoconservatives, like National Security Advisor John Bolton, have been waiting for the right moment to be able to justify military action. After the failed coup attempt by the American-backed rebels, it appears that the United States government may have to focus on another war front for now.
For the past several months, it has seemed like there would be some calm in the tensions between the United States and North Korea, but with the latest short-range missile tests conducted by the North Korean government and the seizure of a North Korean ship by the United States for an alleged violation of arbitrarily imposed economic sanctions, it is possible that war may erupt. North Korea seems like the least likely of the three locations for another war because President Trump may foresee a Nobel Peace Prize in the future, if he can successfully negotiate with Kim Jong-un. For Pete’s sake, President Obama won the prize once, and then he went on to bomb countries to the ground. As long as the United States is not willing to negotiate on nuclear weapons, there will be tensions in the region. North Korea will not give up its bargaining chip, especially after the United States broke its promise with our third contestant on the list.
Just like with North Korea, the United States’ bad relations with Iran goes back to the 1950’s. Iran became an American puppet state until its independence in 1979. Since then, the United States has considered Iran an enemy, and it has constricted the Persian nation with tight economic sanctions, military bases and war ships in surrounding countries, and military operations near its borders. Although Iran is far from a perfect or peaceful nation, it has complied with its nuclear obligations under the 2015 treaty (that was dubbed an agreement in order to avoid needing a two-third’s majority in the U.S. Senate), despite President Trump’s withdrawal. Iran wants peace with the United States, but the American government does not want this, especially war hawks like John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. After the United States government dispatched an air carrier and bomber strike group to the Strait of Hormuz upon unproven evidence that Iran was about to attack American forces in the region, the possibility of war became more of a reality. Are the war hawks in the government looking for a Gulf of Tonkin incident in the Persian Gulf?
In all of these regions, it will only take one wrong move to spark a military conflict. Based on their actions, our politicians seem more exhilarated at the notion of war than they do peace, yet they are not the ones who have to do the fighting when the time comes. Which country will become the next victim of an American invasion? Your guess is as good as mine, but one thing we can be certain about is that the United States government will not just sit by while any of its children misbehave. Another war is on the horizon, unless our politicians come to their senses.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
Venezuela became the crowd favorite early this year because of the disaster plaguing the oil-rich South American nation. After years of economic mismanagement through socialism and the effects of American-imposed sanctions that were intended to coerce the current president from his position, self-declared president, Juan Guaido, attempted to seize power from the actually-elected Nicolas Maduro. This scenario would be like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declaring that President Trump was illegitimately elected and that she is the interim president of the United States. Then, most of the major countries around the world would recognize the Pelosi regime over the Trump one. This is ludicrous, yet, the United States and its allies have supported just that in Venezuela. The neoconservatives, like National Security Advisor John Bolton, have been waiting for the right moment to be able to justify military action. After the failed coup attempt by the American-backed rebels, it appears that the United States government may have to focus on another war front for now.
For the past several months, it has seemed like there would be some calm in the tensions between the United States and North Korea, but with the latest short-range missile tests conducted by the North Korean government and the seizure of a North Korean ship by the United States for an alleged violation of arbitrarily imposed economic sanctions, it is possible that war may erupt. North Korea seems like the least likely of the three locations for another war because President Trump may foresee a Nobel Peace Prize in the future, if he can successfully negotiate with Kim Jong-un. For Pete’s sake, President Obama won the prize once, and then he went on to bomb countries to the ground. As long as the United States is not willing to negotiate on nuclear weapons, there will be tensions in the region. North Korea will not give up its bargaining chip, especially after the United States broke its promise with our third contestant on the list.
Just like with North Korea, the United States’ bad relations with Iran goes back to the 1950’s. Iran became an American puppet state until its independence in 1979. Since then, the United States has considered Iran an enemy, and it has constricted the Persian nation with tight economic sanctions, military bases and war ships in surrounding countries, and military operations near its borders. Although Iran is far from a perfect or peaceful nation, it has complied with its nuclear obligations under the 2015 treaty (that was dubbed an agreement in order to avoid needing a two-third’s majority in the U.S. Senate), despite President Trump’s withdrawal. Iran wants peace with the United States, but the American government does not want this, especially war hawks like John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. After the United States government dispatched an air carrier and bomber strike group to the Strait of Hormuz upon unproven evidence that Iran was about to attack American forces in the region, the possibility of war became more of a reality. Are the war hawks in the government looking for a Gulf of Tonkin incident in the Persian Gulf?
In all of these regions, it will only take one wrong move to spark a military conflict. Based on their actions, our politicians seem more exhilarated at the notion of war than they do peace, yet they are not the ones who have to do the fighting when the time comes. Which country will become the next victim of an American invasion? Your guess is as good as mine, but one thing we can be certain about is that the United States government will not just sit by while any of its children misbehave. Another war is on the horizon, unless our politicians come to their senses.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
May 1, 2019
Trump's Second Veto Is Deadly
Both houses of Congress recently passed a resolution to limit the president’s imaginary powers to wage and support wars without legislative approval. Although the resolution only covered the civil war in Yemen, it should not surprise anyone that President Trump was not thrilled with the idea and vetoed it. Presidents generally do not like to have power stripped from them. Despite the unconstitutional nature of presidents waging wars without congressional approval, the war in Yemen has ominous implications beyond even that. The Saudi Arabian military is committing war crimes, and yet, the United States government is turning a blind eye to this and continuing its support.
One must first be aware of the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia in order to grasp the concept behind why there is so much support for the theocratic kingdom. Although there have been pushbacks by politicians and Americans due to the Khashoggi murder, the link between Saudi Arabia and the hijackers of the 9-11 attacks, the mistreatment of women and minorities, and the beheadings of political dissidents (see this article); the overall relationship between the two countries is strong. Why is that the case?
There are several reasons. First, Saudi Arabia is compliant when it comes to oil. The kingdom supports the use of the American dollar for oil sales and helps keep the United States as the dominating force in the global economy. Second, Saudi Arabia is the largest supporter of the United States’ arms dealing habits, purchasing roughly twenty percent of all weapons exports. Third, the Saudi government spends millions of dollars to lobby American politicians. Fourth, the United States government views the kingdom as an important ally to counter Iranian influence throughout the Middle East.
Given all of the above, it is understandable why President Trump would be hesitant to cut off support to Saudi Arabia in its Yemeni pursuits or to discontinue the intelligence gathering and logistical assistance that began under the Obama administration, but the question of war crimes and excessive civilian casualties must not be of much concern to him. He wants to stay on the good side of the Saudis for political and business reasons, but supporting terrorism in a country far, far away is not prudent.
The Saudi-led coalition has been bombing the country without regard for civilians. As a result of the war and between 2015 and 2018, the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission (OHCHR) has stated that there have been roughly 17,000 civilian casualties, and it is estimated that twenty to twenty-four million people have seen famine, starvation, and disease, some of which has been done intentionally by the Saudis in order to wage economic war against Houthi-controlled areas. Saudi Arabia has also been accused of recruiting child soldiers to the war effort. In addition and unrelatedly, the United States has conducted a couple hundred airstrikes in Yemen since 2002, further complicating the situation.
Congress stood up to try to stop the barbarism on the Arabian Peninsula, but somehow, President Trump believes that our government is justified in continuing it. Aside from the constitutional argument, how many more people have to die and face economic destruction before we realize that we do not have the moral high ground? Why do we continue to send weapons to an ally that commits acts of terrorism? Why is it so important that an Iranian ally does not take over control of a country thousands of miles away? It appears that business will continue as usual with Saudi Arabia in Yemen, both literally and figuratively.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website for more information.
One must first be aware of the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia in order to grasp the concept behind why there is so much support for the theocratic kingdom. Although there have been pushbacks by politicians and Americans due to the Khashoggi murder, the link between Saudi Arabia and the hijackers of the 9-11 attacks, the mistreatment of women and minorities, and the beheadings of political dissidents (see this article); the overall relationship between the two countries is strong. Why is that the case?
There are several reasons. First, Saudi Arabia is compliant when it comes to oil. The kingdom supports the use of the American dollar for oil sales and helps keep the United States as the dominating force in the global economy. Second, Saudi Arabia is the largest supporter of the United States’ arms dealing habits, purchasing roughly twenty percent of all weapons exports. Third, the Saudi government spends millions of dollars to lobby American politicians. Fourth, the United States government views the kingdom as an important ally to counter Iranian influence throughout the Middle East.
Given all of the above, it is understandable why President Trump would be hesitant to cut off support to Saudi Arabia in its Yemeni pursuits or to discontinue the intelligence gathering and logistical assistance that began under the Obama administration, but the question of war crimes and excessive civilian casualties must not be of much concern to him. He wants to stay on the good side of the Saudis for political and business reasons, but supporting terrorism in a country far, far away is not prudent.
The Saudi-led coalition has been bombing the country without regard for civilians. As a result of the war and between 2015 and 2018, the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission (OHCHR) has stated that there have been roughly 17,000 civilian casualties, and it is estimated that twenty to twenty-four million people have seen famine, starvation, and disease, some of which has been done intentionally by the Saudis in order to wage economic war against Houthi-controlled areas. Saudi Arabia has also been accused of recruiting child soldiers to the war effort. In addition and unrelatedly, the United States has conducted a couple hundred airstrikes in Yemen since 2002, further complicating the situation.
Congress stood up to try to stop the barbarism on the Arabian Peninsula, but somehow, President Trump believes that our government is justified in continuing it. Aside from the constitutional argument, how many more people have to die and face economic destruction before we realize that we do not have the moral high ground? Why do we continue to send weapons to an ally that commits acts of terrorism? Why is it so important that an Iranian ally does not take over control of a country thousands of miles away? It appears that business will continue as usual with Saudi Arabia in Yemen, both literally and figuratively.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website for more information.
April 17, 2019
The Case against Assange: Is the Exposure of War Crimes a Threat Worth Silencing?
When Ecuador decided to strip journalist Julian Assange of his asylum status, it was really sentencing him to the full wrath of the United States government. Although extradition from the United Kingdom may take some time, when he does arrive on the shores of the “freest” nation on earth, he will likely be awarded a false trial and harsh punishment because he exposed the ominous truth about American activities overseas. Exposing government corruption or providing embarrassing evidence that the government spies on its citizens or harms civilians in other countries is a big no-no. If we are not allowed to do this, freedom of speech and the press do not really exist, and we have begun on the road to totalitarianism.
The stated reasons that Assange lost his asylum status in Ecuador are that he had bad hygiene and a negative attitude toward others in the embassy, and that Ecuador’s new president, Lenin Moreno, was seeking better relations with the United States; however, there may be another reason. It is abundantly clear that the United States has wanted the extradition of Assange for years, and this may have led to U.S. pressure against Ecuador. What we do know for sure is that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) loaned $4.2 billion to Ecuador in order to bolster the economic situation there. Although on the surface, this may not seem like a big deal to most people, but consider this. The United States pays a significantly higher amount of taxpayer money towards this body than any other member nation, and therefore, it has unproportioned power in the decisions. Is it possible that handing over Assange was part of a bribe to receive the economic bailout?
Assange, whether or not you like him on a personal level, did something that most people would be afraid to do. He exposed war crimes committed in Afghanistan and Iraq and challenged the federal government’s claim that the wars were being fought successfully and with utmost ethical considerations. It was revealed that the government was actually killing more civilians than what it was admitting. A video was even released where military members were enjoying the opportunity to slaughter civilians.
What kind of sick and twisted culture has the government created in the military? When I served in the military, I remember the pep rallies ensuring us that no other country comes close in military might. Subtle hints were made that we can do whatever we want around the world and that people in the countries that we are at war with are less than human, and these are ways to ensure that military members are ready to pull the trigger on their fellow humans when necessary. The Black Mirror episode “Men Against Fire” sums up this mentality and strategy well. Around 2010, we were even prohibited from viewing WikiLeaks because it might cause us to question the war effort.
This is not the fault of the military members, however. The problem exists with the politicians and others who perpetually push the country into unwinnable and unjust wars and cause a trickle-down effect of disinformation into the military. In addition, the mainstream media thrives on reporting these wars and propagandizing people to accept them as routine procedures that help us maintain our freedom. Yet, ironically, these wars make us less safe and less free.
It is difficult to know exactly what has transpired between Assange, Ecuador, and the United Kingdom, or what will occur in the extradition hearings, but it seems far more likely that future potential whistleblowers, journalists, and protestors will think twice about sounding the alarm to corruption and human rights abuses by the United States government. Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and others who have had the courage to challenge the government paid a price, but let us hope that their sacrifices do not ultimately fall on deaf ears. It is indeed a sad day when the people must be silenced for fear of retribution, and this is a threat to freedom of speech and the press. Let us hope that our government changes its course and encourages more transparency, but we should not hold our breaths.
Thank you for reading, and if you would like to learn more about my work, please check out my book, The Global Bully, or website.
The stated reasons that Assange lost his asylum status in Ecuador are that he had bad hygiene and a negative attitude toward others in the embassy, and that Ecuador’s new president, Lenin Moreno, was seeking better relations with the United States; however, there may be another reason. It is abundantly clear that the United States has wanted the extradition of Assange for years, and this may have led to U.S. pressure against Ecuador. What we do know for sure is that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) loaned $4.2 billion to Ecuador in order to bolster the economic situation there. Although on the surface, this may not seem like a big deal to most people, but consider this. The United States pays a significantly higher amount of taxpayer money towards this body than any other member nation, and therefore, it has unproportioned power in the decisions. Is it possible that handing over Assange was part of a bribe to receive the economic bailout?
Assange, whether or not you like him on a personal level, did something that most people would be afraid to do. He exposed war crimes committed in Afghanistan and Iraq and challenged the federal government’s claim that the wars were being fought successfully and with utmost ethical considerations. It was revealed that the government was actually killing more civilians than what it was admitting. A video was even released where military members were enjoying the opportunity to slaughter civilians.
What kind of sick and twisted culture has the government created in the military? When I served in the military, I remember the pep rallies ensuring us that no other country comes close in military might. Subtle hints were made that we can do whatever we want around the world and that people in the countries that we are at war with are less than human, and these are ways to ensure that military members are ready to pull the trigger on their fellow humans when necessary. The Black Mirror episode “Men Against Fire” sums up this mentality and strategy well. Around 2010, we were even prohibited from viewing WikiLeaks because it might cause us to question the war effort.
This is not the fault of the military members, however. The problem exists with the politicians and others who perpetually push the country into unwinnable and unjust wars and cause a trickle-down effect of disinformation into the military. In addition, the mainstream media thrives on reporting these wars and propagandizing people to accept them as routine procedures that help us maintain our freedom. Yet, ironically, these wars make us less safe and less free.
It is difficult to know exactly what has transpired between Assange, Ecuador, and the United Kingdom, or what will occur in the extradition hearings, but it seems far more likely that future potential whistleblowers, journalists, and protestors will think twice about sounding the alarm to corruption and human rights abuses by the United States government. Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and others who have had the courage to challenge the government paid a price, but let us hope that their sacrifices do not ultimately fall on deaf ears. It is indeed a sad day when the people must be silenced for fear of retribution, and this is a threat to freedom of speech and the press. Let us hope that our government changes its course and encourages more transparency, but we should not hold our breaths.
Thank you for reading, and if you would like to learn more about my work, please check out my book, The Global Bully, or website.
March 27, 2019
The United States and Blind Acceptance of the Actions of Israel
As Hamas and the Israeli military continue to exchange rockets near the Gaza Strip, President Trump made an unexpected action that may end up causing detriment to the United States. The proclamation that he signed on his own authority is dangerous because it may cause tensions between the Syrians and Jews living in a disputed piece of land, and therefore, it could also lead to more animosity towards the United States in the Arab world. This action, along with moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, does not help our national security.
Terrorist groups in the Middle East generally do not take these types of actions lightly, and supporting the Israeli government unconditionally is often seen as an affront to their countries and religion. President Trump insists on antagonizing the Arab world at the expense of the American people. Why not make Americans more susceptible to terrorist attacks in order to appease Israel?
Ironically, the United States government condemned Russia for annexing Crimea, and yet, the Crimean people overwhelmingly voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. I guess because Israel is involved, the territorial integrity argument goes out the window.
Israel currently occupies about two-thirds of the Golan Heights, a region roughly the size of my county of residence in upstate New York (Rensselaer), and this land was stolen from Syria during the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel argues that it is necessary to have the Golan Heights as a buffer between itself and Iran, Hezbollah, and other groups that may decide to attack it. However, would it then be acceptable for the United States to invade parts of Mexico to act as a buffer against drug cartels and illegal immigrants? Or, better yet, would it be tolerable for Canada to cross into the United States to occupy certain neighborhoods and force the residents to adhere to its laws?
Why then, is it acceptable if Israel does this to its neighbors? Is it because we as Americans blindly believe what our government tells us? Is it because we are afraid that God will judge us if we oppose the actions of a secular, Zionist nation? Why is it not even considered satisfactory to have a conversation about the practicality and prudence of our unwavering alliance with Israel? Could it be the massive amounts of lobbying in the United States by Israeli groups? Are American politicians and the mainstream media bought and paid for?
Regardless, many of the actions taken by the Israeli government, whether it is building settlements in the West Bank or the superfluous force utilized in retaliation to rockets launched from the Gaza Strip (Hamas is also in the wrong), should be condemned by everyone. Most Americans would not want a foreign power seizing and occupying their land, putting them under martial law, or demolishing their homes in order to build more suitable settlements, but yet, somehow we believe that this type of behavior is morally justifiable when Israel does it. Our history books condemn the United States’ seizure of Native American lands, but we celebrate when Israel does it to the Palestinians. Our government even rewards Israel with billions of dollars in foreign aid. Does this make sense?
Recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israeli territory does not benefit Americans, nor is it a step in the right direction when attempting to find a peaceful solution to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians and other nations in the region. Americans should understand the implications of this on the world stage, and how accepting Israeli occupation of stolen land ends up putting us in more jeopardy because it causes animosity and tension with other nations and groups of people.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, or website.
Terrorist groups in the Middle East generally do not take these types of actions lightly, and supporting the Israeli government unconditionally is often seen as an affront to their countries and religion. President Trump insists on antagonizing the Arab world at the expense of the American people. Why not make Americans more susceptible to terrorist attacks in order to appease Israel?
Ironically, the United States government condemned Russia for annexing Crimea, and yet, the Crimean people overwhelmingly voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. I guess because Israel is involved, the territorial integrity argument goes out the window.
Israel currently occupies about two-thirds of the Golan Heights, a region roughly the size of my county of residence in upstate New York (Rensselaer), and this land was stolen from Syria during the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel argues that it is necessary to have the Golan Heights as a buffer between itself and Iran, Hezbollah, and other groups that may decide to attack it. However, would it then be acceptable for the United States to invade parts of Mexico to act as a buffer against drug cartels and illegal immigrants? Or, better yet, would it be tolerable for Canada to cross into the United States to occupy certain neighborhoods and force the residents to adhere to its laws?
Why then, is it acceptable if Israel does this to its neighbors? Is it because we as Americans blindly believe what our government tells us? Is it because we are afraid that God will judge us if we oppose the actions of a secular, Zionist nation? Why is it not even considered satisfactory to have a conversation about the practicality and prudence of our unwavering alliance with Israel? Could it be the massive amounts of lobbying in the United States by Israeli groups? Are American politicians and the mainstream media bought and paid for?
Regardless, many of the actions taken by the Israeli government, whether it is building settlements in the West Bank or the superfluous force utilized in retaliation to rockets launched from the Gaza Strip (Hamas is also in the wrong), should be condemned by everyone. Most Americans would not want a foreign power seizing and occupying their land, putting them under martial law, or demolishing their homes in order to build more suitable settlements, but yet, somehow we believe that this type of behavior is morally justifiable when Israel does it. Our history books condemn the United States’ seizure of Native American lands, but we celebrate when Israel does it to the Palestinians. Our government even rewards Israel with billions of dollars in foreign aid. Does this make sense?
Recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israeli territory does not benefit Americans, nor is it a step in the right direction when attempting to find a peaceful solution to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians and other nations in the region. Americans should understand the implications of this on the world stage, and how accepting Israeli occupation of stolen land ends up putting us in more jeopardy because it causes animosity and tension with other nations and groups of people.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, or website.
March 19, 2019
President Trump and the Constitutionality of the Wall
President Trump has decided to veto Congress’ attempt to rein in the executive usurpation of power taken during the declaration of his national emergency at the southern border. Proponents of the president’s actions will continue to argue that the national emergency is legitimate, goes along with the National Emergencies Act of 1976, and the funds will be re-appropriated. However, few of them will take the time to review the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the supreme law of the land, because they do not want anything to hinder their agenda.
In Article I, it specifically states that all matters regarding appropriations and spending are the responsibility of Congress, and the closest thing to spending money that Article II authorizes the president is the ability to receive compensation for his or her work. The money that President Trump wants to spend has already been appropriated, and therefore, any change to this would be unconstitutional. Yet, President Trump does not care about the constitutionality because his mind is made up that there is an emergency at the border, and not even reason can alter his perspective.
In addition, the vetoing of the bill against the national emergency is backward from a constitutional point-of-view. According to the Constitution, the president does indeed have the authority to veto bills. But, this is supposed to occur when Congress passes bills that the president believes are unconstitutional or against the best interests of the people. In this case, Congress explicitly told the president that he did not have the authority to fund his wall, and he bypassed the legislature to create his own law despite this. This veto was not to prevent a bad law from going into place, but rather, it was a veto to keep his bad law in place. Congress should not even have had to pass a resolution to attempt to halt the actions of the executive because the president should not have had that authority.
It is a sad state of affairs when the American people must accept that their president has monarchical powers to make any decisions that he or she sees fit by just simply declaring a situation as a national emergency. With republicanism fading and authoritarianism on the rise, is it only a matter of time before Congress becomes just a figurehead?
Now let us try to decipher that wise, Washington logic. Republicans were opposed to President Obama’s unilateral executive actions, but now that the tide has turned, it magically became acceptable. Either the fairies of Caesar, Hitler, and Stalin cast their magic to sway their opinions, or they are hypocrites. But, it is not different for Democrats, as those same fairies must have cast their “anti-Trump” spells to change the attitudes in that party to that of opposition to extraconstitutional actions. Hypocrisy is a useful tool for politicians of all parties who care about their agendas and ability to stay in power over all else, despite the degradation of the foundation that keeps the system in check.
Now that President Trump has successfully issued his monarchical edict and gotten rid of pesky Congress’ opposition (unless somehow both houses of Congress can muster up two-thirds of their members to override the veto), he can rest easy knowing that he accomplished his goal of building a wall through usurpation.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
In Article I, it specifically states that all matters regarding appropriations and spending are the responsibility of Congress, and the closest thing to spending money that Article II authorizes the president is the ability to receive compensation for his or her work. The money that President Trump wants to spend has already been appropriated, and therefore, any change to this would be unconstitutional. Yet, President Trump does not care about the constitutionality because his mind is made up that there is an emergency at the border, and not even reason can alter his perspective.
In addition, the vetoing of the bill against the national emergency is backward from a constitutional point-of-view. According to the Constitution, the president does indeed have the authority to veto bills. But, this is supposed to occur when Congress passes bills that the president believes are unconstitutional or against the best interests of the people. In this case, Congress explicitly told the president that he did not have the authority to fund his wall, and he bypassed the legislature to create his own law despite this. This veto was not to prevent a bad law from going into place, but rather, it was a veto to keep his bad law in place. Congress should not even have had to pass a resolution to attempt to halt the actions of the executive because the president should not have had that authority.
It is a sad state of affairs when the American people must accept that their president has monarchical powers to make any decisions that he or she sees fit by just simply declaring a situation as a national emergency. With republicanism fading and authoritarianism on the rise, is it only a matter of time before Congress becomes just a figurehead?
Now let us try to decipher that wise, Washington logic. Republicans were opposed to President Obama’s unilateral executive actions, but now that the tide has turned, it magically became acceptable. Either the fairies of Caesar, Hitler, and Stalin cast their magic to sway their opinions, or they are hypocrites. But, it is not different for Democrats, as those same fairies must have cast their “anti-Trump” spells to change the attitudes in that party to that of opposition to extraconstitutional actions. Hypocrisy is a useful tool for politicians of all parties who care about their agendas and ability to stay in power over all else, despite the degradation of the foundation that keeps the system in check.
Now that President Trump has successfully issued his monarchical edict and gotten rid of pesky Congress’ opposition (unless somehow both houses of Congress can muster up two-thirds of their members to override the veto), he can rest easy knowing that he accomplished his goal of building a wall through usurpation.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
March 7, 2019
When Conducting Airstrikes, Civilians Do Not Matter
Drone strikes performed by the American military and other agencies such as the CIA have generally had a negative impact on the target countries, and many civilians have been killed in these attacks. Within the last few days, President Trump ended an Obama-era policy that required the intelligence community to report on civilian deaths during airstrikes that were conducted outside of conventional war zones. Although these numbers were often fabricated in order to convince viewers that the United States government is moral and doing everything in a proper manner, is it possible that this now means that the Trump administration is planning to ramp up its covert warfare in these types of zones or to increase CIA drone strikes?
Maybe his argument that this type of reporting diverts time and resources away from the primary focus is the real reason for his decision, but does it really hurt the intelligence community that much to have to estimate civilian casualties? Plus, since the operations by the CIA are not included in a congressional law requiring reports of civilian casualties in all areas of operations, this could allow the agency to run wild without accountability. The CIA has a history of doing awful things, such as torture, experimenting on people (including American soldiers and civilians), and overthrowing democratically-elected leaders just because it does not like the government in place. Violence and intimidation are its key specialty.
Why not continue letting the agency do what it does best? Killing a few poor farmers in famine-stricken regions is no big deal, right? As long as we get those terrorists, we can tolerate some collateral damage. It does not make us terrorists when we take these actions because we are the good guys, right? Plus, an advantage is that we have the largest military force on the planet and the terrorism charge luckily does not apply to governments. Our government can kill as many civilians as it wants without repercussions, and if anyone does not like it, that is just too bad, and so sad.
Jeremy Scahill, author of Dirty Wars, discusses the issues involved in covert warfare. He quotes a Yemeni tribal leader, Mullah Zabara, “The US see al Qaeda as terrorism, and we consider the drones terrorism. The drones are flying day and night, frightening women and children, disturbing sleeping people. This is terrorism”. Yet, many Americans believe that our airstrikes are necessary to prevent terrorism against the United States, but they do not consider the perspective of those on the receiving end.
In addition, as I have written in my book, The Global Bully, drone strikes and other covert operations have only made things worse. If our officials think that we can eradicate radical Islamic terrorism by perpetuating wars and airstrikes, they are either naïve or have sinister intentions. In fact, killing civilians through covert means will only create more terrorists, as many seek revenge for the invasion of their lands. Even though President Obama was also a master at using drone warfare and was responsible for the deaths of many civilians, President Trump’s reversal of some of his policies related to these actions represents disregard for humanity.
Thank you for reading, and if you are interested in reading more about covert operations, please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
Maybe his argument that this type of reporting diverts time and resources away from the primary focus is the real reason for his decision, but does it really hurt the intelligence community that much to have to estimate civilian casualties? Plus, since the operations by the CIA are not included in a congressional law requiring reports of civilian casualties in all areas of operations, this could allow the agency to run wild without accountability. The CIA has a history of doing awful things, such as torture, experimenting on people (including American soldiers and civilians), and overthrowing democratically-elected leaders just because it does not like the government in place. Violence and intimidation are its key specialty.
Why not continue letting the agency do what it does best? Killing a few poor farmers in famine-stricken regions is no big deal, right? As long as we get those terrorists, we can tolerate some collateral damage. It does not make us terrorists when we take these actions because we are the good guys, right? Plus, an advantage is that we have the largest military force on the planet and the terrorism charge luckily does not apply to governments. Our government can kill as many civilians as it wants without repercussions, and if anyone does not like it, that is just too bad, and so sad.
Jeremy Scahill, author of Dirty Wars, discusses the issues involved in covert warfare. He quotes a Yemeni tribal leader, Mullah Zabara, “The US see al Qaeda as terrorism, and we consider the drones terrorism. The drones are flying day and night, frightening women and children, disturbing sleeping people. This is terrorism”. Yet, many Americans believe that our airstrikes are necessary to prevent terrorism against the United States, but they do not consider the perspective of those on the receiving end.
In addition, as I have written in my book, The Global Bully, drone strikes and other covert operations have only made things worse. If our officials think that we can eradicate radical Islamic terrorism by perpetuating wars and airstrikes, they are either naïve or have sinister intentions. In fact, killing civilians through covert means will only create more terrorists, as many seek revenge for the invasion of their lands. Even though President Obama was also a master at using drone warfare and was responsible for the deaths of many civilians, President Trump’s reversal of some of his policies related to these actions represents disregard for humanity.
Thank you for reading, and if you are interested in reading more about covert operations, please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
