Craig Peterson Jr.'s Blog, page 15
June 13, 2018
Air Force One in Singapore
The anticipated summit between the United States and North Korea has occurred, and with it, comes the hope that these two countries will reconcile their differences and perhaps embark on a more diplomatic journey into the future. Peace is something that every person should desire, and this meeting shows promise towards that end. However, will things continue to go as planned, and is there more going on than what meets the eyes? Amid the celebration and good feelings that have taken hold due to this historic meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un, hard diplomatic work and compromise are still needed to keep this ship afloat.
So, what have we learned from the summit so far? We know that a document was signed by President Trump and Kim outlining a plan towards ending hostilities on the peninsula and improving relations between the two countries, which includes the denuclearization of Korea. Improved relations with other countries would also assist in turning North Korea into an economic and diplomatic member of the world community, which would in turn benefit the struggling people in that country. Another statement that came as a shock was that of Trump suggesting that military exercises in the region would halt due to the perceived threat that they pose to the Kim regime. If this occurs, it would be a great diplomatic feat that would contribute towards Kim’s trust of the United States and the likelihood that a peaceful solution to the conflict is possible. In addition, Kim agreed to dismantle a major missile-testing site.
However, it was announced that economic sanctions would remain in place until it was deemed appropriate by American officials. This likely means that North Korea would have to prove that it no longer has an active nuclear weapons program before the sanctions would be removed. As you may be aware from my past work, economic sanctions are provocative and nothing short of an act of war, but hopefully this can be overlooked by Kim’s government so the diplomacy can continue.
Despite the optimism that came out of Monday’s meeting, we have to consider the possibility that this whole thing is a way to have an interim peace with North Korea in order to deal with Iran. The United States withdrew from the nuclear treaty with Iran, announced the re-issuing of previous economic sanctions against the country, and began the anti-Persian rhetoric in the last few months. Could this North Korea summit be a stunt for Trump to win the Nobel Peace Prize and make it look like the United States is going down a road of peace, only to find out that in the upcoming months or years, American troops will be landing or flying in Iran? President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, and then he proceeded to constantly bomb the Middle East for the next seven years. Plus, withdrawing from the nuclear treaty with Iran may cause wariness on the part of North Korea because it may show that the United States is not willing to commit to its agreements.
The bigger question, though, is whether the United States government will abandon its quest to dominate the world. The answer to this would be an unequivocal “no.” There will always be an enemy for the United States to chase and rid the world of, whether it is the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, ISIS, Bashar al-Assad, Iran, the Russian Federation, or China. If we can predict the future using history, it will be safe to say that there will be another war front somewhere in the world within the next couple of years. Now that diplomacy may be taking hold in Korea, Iran seems like the likely candidate for an invasion. I hope that I am wrong on this and that I am just being overly pessimistic, but history often has a habit of repeating itself. Time will tell, but at least the summit that took place in Singapore between the United States and North Korea was a step in the right direction.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, as well as my website.
So, what have we learned from the summit so far? We know that a document was signed by President Trump and Kim outlining a plan towards ending hostilities on the peninsula and improving relations between the two countries, which includes the denuclearization of Korea. Improved relations with other countries would also assist in turning North Korea into an economic and diplomatic member of the world community, which would in turn benefit the struggling people in that country. Another statement that came as a shock was that of Trump suggesting that military exercises in the region would halt due to the perceived threat that they pose to the Kim regime. If this occurs, it would be a great diplomatic feat that would contribute towards Kim’s trust of the United States and the likelihood that a peaceful solution to the conflict is possible. In addition, Kim agreed to dismantle a major missile-testing site.
However, it was announced that economic sanctions would remain in place until it was deemed appropriate by American officials. This likely means that North Korea would have to prove that it no longer has an active nuclear weapons program before the sanctions would be removed. As you may be aware from my past work, economic sanctions are provocative and nothing short of an act of war, but hopefully this can be overlooked by Kim’s government so the diplomacy can continue.
Despite the optimism that came out of Monday’s meeting, we have to consider the possibility that this whole thing is a way to have an interim peace with North Korea in order to deal with Iran. The United States withdrew from the nuclear treaty with Iran, announced the re-issuing of previous economic sanctions against the country, and began the anti-Persian rhetoric in the last few months. Could this North Korea summit be a stunt for Trump to win the Nobel Peace Prize and make it look like the United States is going down a road of peace, only to find out that in the upcoming months or years, American troops will be landing or flying in Iran? President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, and then he proceeded to constantly bomb the Middle East for the next seven years. Plus, withdrawing from the nuclear treaty with Iran may cause wariness on the part of North Korea because it may show that the United States is not willing to commit to its agreements.
The bigger question, though, is whether the United States government will abandon its quest to dominate the world. The answer to this would be an unequivocal “no.” There will always be an enemy for the United States to chase and rid the world of, whether it is the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, ISIS, Bashar al-Assad, Iran, the Russian Federation, or China. If we can predict the future using history, it will be safe to say that there will be another war front somewhere in the world within the next couple of years. Now that diplomacy may be taking hold in Korea, Iran seems like the likely candidate for an invasion. I hope that I am wrong on this and that I am just being overly pessimistic, but history often has a habit of repeating itself. Time will tell, but at least the summit that took place in Singapore between the United States and North Korea was a step in the right direction.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, as well as my website.
May 24, 2018
Do As I Say, Or No Deal
Amid the news of the possibility of the collapse of a diplomatic deal between the United States and North Korea due to the United States’ insistence on continuing joint military drills with South Korea and new economic sanctions on Venezuela for its alleged rigged election that brought Nicolas Maduro back into the presidency of that South American country, the United States has begun the process to re-impose economic sanctions against Iran. The new demands that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spewed at the Islamic republic will do nothing to bring about peace in the Middle East, but they do push an agenda for American imperialism and bullying in the region.
These demands and the economic sanctions are an act of terrorism and war because the United States government is attempting to worsen the quality of life of the Iranian people by blocking goods and services from entering or leaving the country and force the Iranian government into compliance. The ultimate goal of this is to get the Iranian people so infuriated about the situation that they will protest and rebel against the Iranian leadership. Using violence or intimidation to make a point or enact change is what terrorism is, and this is exactly what the United States government is doing to Iran. Iran has not actually threatened the United States, so there is little justification for doing this.
Yet, in the mainstream media and during government announcements, all you hear is how much of a threat Iran poses to the United States and its allies and how economic sanctions or the nuclear deal that the United States just withdrew from are the only solutions to curtailing this alleged threat. On the contrary, if the United States ended its military and economic coercion against other nations, there would be no threat against the United States and no reason to believe that other countries’ weapons programs were targeted at American troops and civilians. It is exactly because the United States government involves itself in so many conflicts and regions around the world that it has so many enemies. Some countries view this involvement as imperialism and a threat to their national sovereignty, and is this really an unreasonable perspective given the recent invasion of Iraq and the bombings of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen? This is in addition to the constant covert operations that the United States has been involved in since the Cold War to get rid of unfavorable leaders in noncompliant countries. Do we really expect other countries to view us positively after behaving so badly?
So, what are these demands that the Trump administration has put forth? There are twelve points that range from completely halting Iran’s uranium enrichment to allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to its nuclear sites, to the releasing of all detainees of the United States or its allies, to the terminating of all groups that are arbitrarily determined by the United States to be considered terrorists or acting against the interests of the United States government (including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen), to the complete withdrawal from Syria of all of its military forces. Only after these unrealistic items are met satisfactorily will the United States consider an agreement with Iran and possibly remove economic sanctions. This ludicrous diplomatic policy (or lack thereof) has the United States changing “when I move you move” to “when I make demands you act.”
We strangle Iran’s economy, surround it with military bases, attempt to influence its elections and the political positions of the people, and talk about how we wish the Iranian government were replaced with something more compliant to American interests. Yet, we expect the Iranian government to bend over backwards to do whatever we want. We are the most powerful nation on earth and have the power to force Iran into compliance (barring intervention from Russia or China), but we must ask if this is the right thing to do and whether or not it is prudent. If we really want Iran to halt its nuclear and missile programs and its anti-American rhetoric, perhaps the best course of action would be to just leave it alone.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and my website for more information.
These demands and the economic sanctions are an act of terrorism and war because the United States government is attempting to worsen the quality of life of the Iranian people by blocking goods and services from entering or leaving the country and force the Iranian government into compliance. The ultimate goal of this is to get the Iranian people so infuriated about the situation that they will protest and rebel against the Iranian leadership. Using violence or intimidation to make a point or enact change is what terrorism is, and this is exactly what the United States government is doing to Iran. Iran has not actually threatened the United States, so there is little justification for doing this.
Yet, in the mainstream media and during government announcements, all you hear is how much of a threat Iran poses to the United States and its allies and how economic sanctions or the nuclear deal that the United States just withdrew from are the only solutions to curtailing this alleged threat. On the contrary, if the United States ended its military and economic coercion against other nations, there would be no threat against the United States and no reason to believe that other countries’ weapons programs were targeted at American troops and civilians. It is exactly because the United States government involves itself in so many conflicts and regions around the world that it has so many enemies. Some countries view this involvement as imperialism and a threat to their national sovereignty, and is this really an unreasonable perspective given the recent invasion of Iraq and the bombings of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen? This is in addition to the constant covert operations that the United States has been involved in since the Cold War to get rid of unfavorable leaders in noncompliant countries. Do we really expect other countries to view us positively after behaving so badly?
So, what are these demands that the Trump administration has put forth? There are twelve points that range from completely halting Iran’s uranium enrichment to allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to its nuclear sites, to the releasing of all detainees of the United States or its allies, to the terminating of all groups that are arbitrarily determined by the United States to be considered terrorists or acting against the interests of the United States government (including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen), to the complete withdrawal from Syria of all of its military forces. Only after these unrealistic items are met satisfactorily will the United States consider an agreement with Iran and possibly remove economic sanctions. This ludicrous diplomatic policy (or lack thereof) has the United States changing “when I move you move” to “when I make demands you act.”
We strangle Iran’s economy, surround it with military bases, attempt to influence its elections and the political positions of the people, and talk about how we wish the Iranian government were replaced with something more compliant to American interests. Yet, we expect the Iranian government to bend over backwards to do whatever we want. We are the most powerful nation on earth and have the power to force Iran into compliance (barring intervention from Russia or China), but we must ask if this is the right thing to do and whether or not it is prudent. If we really want Iran to halt its nuclear and missile programs and its anti-American rhetoric, perhaps the best course of action would be to just leave it alone.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and my website for more information.
May 10, 2018
Farewell Treaty that Was Preventing War with Iran
President Trump just announced that he was pulling the United States out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (simply known as JCPOA or the Iran nuclear deal). This action does not necessarily mean that the entire deal is automatically trumped, but it does mean that tensions between the United States and Iran will deteriorate, possibly worse than before, due to Iran’s mistrust of the United States for going back on its word. In turn, the deal will likely fall apart because the United States will restart its economic strangle on the Persian nation, and Iran will get the worst of both worlds: scrutiny and sanctions. Therefore, it is extremely likely that the deal will crumble in a short period of time, and the pre-deal status quo will likely continue.
Will the lack of American participation in the “bad deal” lead to an isolation of the Iranian regime and compliance to the American demand of halting its nuclear program, or should we fear that this means a war with Iran is just on the horizon? My guess is the latter. I do not foresee a positive outcome associated with withdrawing from the agreement. If Iran was developing nuclear weapons prior to the treaty, it will now have justification to continue doing so, and if Iran was not developing nuclear weapons prior to the treaty, the United States is imposing an unfair policy that harms the Iranian people through economic isolation without changing the attitude of the leaders. Exiting the deal makes very little sense because Iran was being watched very closely, which is what the United States wanted, by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and its uranium enrichment supply, number of centrifuges, and ability to enrich uranium in the future were reduced. Iran would not have been able to develop a nuclear weapon for at least ten years, giving diplomats the ability to achieve a more long-term deal down the road. If the deal ends now, Iran could elect to develop a weapon at any time (this is theoretical being that it was never conclusively proven that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, and its nuclear program could have been solely for peaceful purposes), plus war could erupt between the United States and Iran.
Although the Iran nuclear deal was not perfect, it was better than the alternative. However, in the United States, it was a double-edged sword due to the procedure surrounding its passage. Just as President Obama exceeded his authority in enacting the treaty, President Trump will take unilateral executive action to end it. The Constitution explicitly says that the president can only enact treaties in conjunction with a two-thirds vote in the affirmative by the Senate, and this clearly did not occur when Obama accepted American participation in the agreement. Some will attempt to escape the constitutional argument by calling it an executive agreement or some other variation, and they will claim that other presidents have done this type of action, so it must be acceptable. I will respond to these claims with two clichés. If it lays eggs and has a beak like a duck but has the body like a beaver and a venomous ankle spur like a platypus, it is a platypus, not a duck. You can call it a duck if you would like, but that does not change the fact that it is a mammal. Also, if people kept pushing others off of a bridge from year to year without the consent of the victims, would that mean that it was justified for you to then push people off of the bridge too? You might say it is illegal to push people off of a bridge. Yes, but it is also unconstitutional for presidents to act unilaterally in making treaties (the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 does not count for anything).
As Israel continues to bomb Syria and Iranian targets in that country and the United States restarts its economic sanctions against the “evil” Iranian regime, pay attention at how the subsequent events unfold and how the anti-Iran rhetoric becomes more prevalent. The United States and Iran have had bad blood since 1953, and it looks like there will be no reconciliation in the near future. The neoconservatives and war hawks are chomping at the bit over the possibility of yet another war in the Middle East.
If people claim that Iran begins to develop nuclear weapons after the crumbling of this nuclear deal, the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence that this is indeed the case. Do not be fooled by those who claim that Iran wants nuclear weapons to annihilate Israel or the United States. A simple glance at a map of American installations surrounding Iran, along with the rhetoric of regime-change (which would not be the first time that the United States has done this to Iran) and demands for an end to its alleged nuclear weapons program (Iraq was invaded for its alleged chemical weapons program), may assist in understanding why Iran would want nuclear weapons. The United States government advocates for Israel to have the right of self-defense, and it has nuclear weapons. Israel also acts in an offensively defensive manner, but yet, the United States does not think that Iran should be able to defend itself against perceived aggression. President Trump is continuing the hypocrisy and ludicrousness that is American foreign policy.
Please check out my website and book, The Global Bully, for more information and past blogs. Thank you for reading!
Will the lack of American participation in the “bad deal” lead to an isolation of the Iranian regime and compliance to the American demand of halting its nuclear program, or should we fear that this means a war with Iran is just on the horizon? My guess is the latter. I do not foresee a positive outcome associated with withdrawing from the agreement. If Iran was developing nuclear weapons prior to the treaty, it will now have justification to continue doing so, and if Iran was not developing nuclear weapons prior to the treaty, the United States is imposing an unfair policy that harms the Iranian people through economic isolation without changing the attitude of the leaders. Exiting the deal makes very little sense because Iran was being watched very closely, which is what the United States wanted, by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and its uranium enrichment supply, number of centrifuges, and ability to enrich uranium in the future were reduced. Iran would not have been able to develop a nuclear weapon for at least ten years, giving diplomats the ability to achieve a more long-term deal down the road. If the deal ends now, Iran could elect to develop a weapon at any time (this is theoretical being that it was never conclusively proven that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, and its nuclear program could have been solely for peaceful purposes), plus war could erupt between the United States and Iran.
Although the Iran nuclear deal was not perfect, it was better than the alternative. However, in the United States, it was a double-edged sword due to the procedure surrounding its passage. Just as President Obama exceeded his authority in enacting the treaty, President Trump will take unilateral executive action to end it. The Constitution explicitly says that the president can only enact treaties in conjunction with a two-thirds vote in the affirmative by the Senate, and this clearly did not occur when Obama accepted American participation in the agreement. Some will attempt to escape the constitutional argument by calling it an executive agreement or some other variation, and they will claim that other presidents have done this type of action, so it must be acceptable. I will respond to these claims with two clichés. If it lays eggs and has a beak like a duck but has the body like a beaver and a venomous ankle spur like a platypus, it is a platypus, not a duck. You can call it a duck if you would like, but that does not change the fact that it is a mammal. Also, if people kept pushing others off of a bridge from year to year without the consent of the victims, would that mean that it was justified for you to then push people off of the bridge too? You might say it is illegal to push people off of a bridge. Yes, but it is also unconstitutional for presidents to act unilaterally in making treaties (the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 does not count for anything).
As Israel continues to bomb Syria and Iranian targets in that country and the United States restarts its economic sanctions against the “evil” Iranian regime, pay attention at how the subsequent events unfold and how the anti-Iran rhetoric becomes more prevalent. The United States and Iran have had bad blood since 1953, and it looks like there will be no reconciliation in the near future. The neoconservatives and war hawks are chomping at the bit over the possibility of yet another war in the Middle East.
If people claim that Iran begins to develop nuclear weapons after the crumbling of this nuclear deal, the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence that this is indeed the case. Do not be fooled by those who claim that Iran wants nuclear weapons to annihilate Israel or the United States. A simple glance at a map of American installations surrounding Iran, along with the rhetoric of regime-change (which would not be the first time that the United States has done this to Iran) and demands for an end to its alleged nuclear weapons program (Iraq was invaded for its alleged chemical weapons program), may assist in understanding why Iran would want nuclear weapons. The United States government advocates for Israel to have the right of self-defense, and it has nuclear weapons. Israel also acts in an offensively defensive manner, but yet, the United States does not think that Iran should be able to defend itself against perceived aggression. President Trump is continuing the hypocrisy and ludicrousness that is American foreign policy.
Please check out my website and book, The Global Bully, for more information and past blogs. Thank you for reading!
May 3, 2018
Is Netanyahu Taking Us Down the War Path?
As the world celebrates the likelihood of a future peace deal on the Korean Peninsula, another conflict is stirring in the Middle East, and I am not talking about President Trump’s pointless bombing campaign against the Assad regime, for the still unproven gas attacks, that was a compromised gesture to appease the war hawks without starting a major conflict with Russia. It appears that now there is a pivot towards Iran. Warmongering Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a presentation he made in English to persuade the United States that Iran is not in compliance with the nuclear deal . Is Israel lobbying the United States for yet another war? At the very least, it seems as if Israel is attempting to gain the support of the United States in weakening Iranian influence in Syria and other countries in the region.
Will the Trump administration fall for the Israeli propaganda? It seems that this would be likely, being that the president has not been thrilled with the deal from the beginning. If the United States pulls out of the deal (this could be announced on May 12) and it falls apart, Iran would have an excuse to restart its nuclear program, and conflict, whether verbal or physical, would ensue. This may be in the best interest of the military-industrial complex, but this would not benefit Americans. Netanyahu’s presentation did not reveal anything that would suggest Iranian cheating on the deal, and even France, Britain, and Germany were not swayed by what the prime minister presented. The only thing his presentation revealed was that Iran had a nuclear program that it abandoned and that the documents that Israel procured during a January raid by the Mossad were not stored securely (suggesting that securing these documents was not a top priority by the Iranians).
Netanyahu’s push for a war with Iran may be disturbing, but Israel is actively attacking Iranian targets in Syria, which could eventually be used as justification for Iran to strike back. Israel has been on the offensive against Iranian interests and targets for years, but there have been two key attacks this past month, the first of which Iran vowed retaliation against Israel. One was against Tiyas Military Base, where Iranian drones and personnel were lodged, and the other against an arms depot in Hama, which killed roughly twenty-four Iranians. This dangerous scenario has the possibility of dragging the United States into conflict with Iran due to our alliance with Israel. A selfish act by Netanyahu could force American taxpayers to have to bail him out with money and American lives, all because the Israeli government is not willing to negotiate with its enemy. Entangling alliances were one of the causes of World War I, and one assassination was the trigger that brought the world to war (remember, Russia is also in Syria and is an ally to Iran and the Syrian government). Are we doomed to repeat history?
The media and the United States government do a good job at convincing the public that Israel is a key ally and friend that should never be questioned for its merits and that it is innocently minding its own business and is constantly threatened from its neighbors, but are these false claims finally being challenged? Israel is the only nuclear state in the Middle East, and it arguably has the most powerful military in the region. It also has a very appalling human rights record. For example, the Palestinians are currently holding peaceful protests in the Gaza Strip regarding a return to their homes that the Israeli government stole from them years ago (this seizure of Palestinian homes and replacement with Israeli settlements is a common practice), and thus far, roughly fifty Palestinians have been killed and about 5,500 have been injured. Well, the Palestinians must have deserved it, right? How many Israelis have they killed during the protests? There have been zero reports of Israeli casualties so far. Yet, Israel is our unconditional ally, so no condemnation is necessary. When the Syrian government was claimed to have killed roughly the same number of people in an alleged gas attack, the response from Washington, D.C. was airstrikes without conclusive proof of culpability. The hypocrisy is astounding.
As Israel beats the war drums with Iran and commits atrocities against the Palestinians, let us think about what a war with Iran would look like. It would not certainly be as easy as a war with Iraq or Afghanistan, and look at how long we were in those countries. In the upcoming weeks as the Trump administration decides whether or not to continue American participation in the nuclear deal with Iran, let us hope that we do not follow the advice of Netanyahu.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my website for past blogs and my book, The Global Bully.
Will the Trump administration fall for the Israeli propaganda? It seems that this would be likely, being that the president has not been thrilled with the deal from the beginning. If the United States pulls out of the deal (this could be announced on May 12) and it falls apart, Iran would have an excuse to restart its nuclear program, and conflict, whether verbal or physical, would ensue. This may be in the best interest of the military-industrial complex, but this would not benefit Americans. Netanyahu’s presentation did not reveal anything that would suggest Iranian cheating on the deal, and even France, Britain, and Germany were not swayed by what the prime minister presented. The only thing his presentation revealed was that Iran had a nuclear program that it abandoned and that the documents that Israel procured during a January raid by the Mossad were not stored securely (suggesting that securing these documents was not a top priority by the Iranians).
Netanyahu’s push for a war with Iran may be disturbing, but Israel is actively attacking Iranian targets in Syria, which could eventually be used as justification for Iran to strike back. Israel has been on the offensive against Iranian interests and targets for years, but there have been two key attacks this past month, the first of which Iran vowed retaliation against Israel. One was against Tiyas Military Base, where Iranian drones and personnel were lodged, and the other against an arms depot in Hama, which killed roughly twenty-four Iranians. This dangerous scenario has the possibility of dragging the United States into conflict with Iran due to our alliance with Israel. A selfish act by Netanyahu could force American taxpayers to have to bail him out with money and American lives, all because the Israeli government is not willing to negotiate with its enemy. Entangling alliances were one of the causes of World War I, and one assassination was the trigger that brought the world to war (remember, Russia is also in Syria and is an ally to Iran and the Syrian government). Are we doomed to repeat history?
The media and the United States government do a good job at convincing the public that Israel is a key ally and friend that should never be questioned for its merits and that it is innocently minding its own business and is constantly threatened from its neighbors, but are these false claims finally being challenged? Israel is the only nuclear state in the Middle East, and it arguably has the most powerful military in the region. It also has a very appalling human rights record. For example, the Palestinians are currently holding peaceful protests in the Gaza Strip regarding a return to their homes that the Israeli government stole from them years ago (this seizure of Palestinian homes and replacement with Israeli settlements is a common practice), and thus far, roughly fifty Palestinians have been killed and about 5,500 have been injured. Well, the Palestinians must have deserved it, right? How many Israelis have they killed during the protests? There have been zero reports of Israeli casualties so far. Yet, Israel is our unconditional ally, so no condemnation is necessary. When the Syrian government was claimed to have killed roughly the same number of people in an alleged gas attack, the response from Washington, D.C. was airstrikes without conclusive proof of culpability. The hypocrisy is astounding.
As Israel beats the war drums with Iran and commits atrocities against the Palestinians, let us think about what a war with Iran would look like. It would not certainly be as easy as a war with Iraq or Afghanistan, and look at how long we were in those countries. In the upcoming weeks as the Trump administration decides whether or not to continue American participation in the nuclear deal with Iran, let us hope that we do not follow the advice of Netanyahu.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my website for past blogs and my book, The Global Bully.
April 26, 2018
Ahead of Friday’s Summit between North and South Korea, Will There be Progress?
The world seems to be optimistic about the upcoming dialogues between the United States, South Korea, and North Korea, and the important step of both parties acknowledging that something needs to change is a welcomed sight. However, as I have said before, the United States is often more comfortable with making demands and not giving up anything itself, and diplomacy requires that both parties compromise. Will we see a change of course on the Korean Peninsula? Perhaps we will, especially if the White House turns to Syria and Iran as the next victims of American imperialism.
On April 13, roughly a week after the alleged chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people by the Assad regime, the executive branch of the United States government launched airstrikes in a war without congressional approval targeting what it claimed were a few facilities that were used in producing and testing these types of agents and weapons. There was bad luck, as it appears that the attacks did little harm to the Syrian government, but it proved to be a way to impress neoconservatives, war hawks, and the military-industrial complex, all of which need to act tough and constantly have an enemy to justify their warmongering agenda and bloated profits. Ultimately, the United States government is concerned with ridding the country of Assad and reducing the influence of Iran in the region. All of this could mean that North Korea will be out of the sniper scope for a while because the government does not want to undertake too many regime-change projects simultaneously.
Having a deal between the United States and North Korea would be wonderful, but it is likely that the United States will accept nothing short of the complete dismantling of Kim Jong-un’s nuclear program, long-range missile testing, and reduction of short and medium-range missiles that allegedly threaten Japan and South Korea. North Korea may get an easing of economic sanctions, which would bolster the regime, and in turn, it would make life better for the people. Yet, the United States will likely keep some of its troops south of the DMZ and continue some military exercises along the border. At the pre-negotiation stage, it seems like North Korea will get little in exchange for what it may have to offer up. Kim may not agree to this, and if he does not, the status on the peninsula will not have changed. It may be that the two leaders have a current misunderstanding of the situation because President Trump is convinced that North Korea is on the path to denuclearization, which is not exactly what Kim indicated. He did say that he would be willing to halt the testing of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles and that he would close down a nuclear testing site, but this does not mean that he will denuclearize his country completely.
As the summit between both Koreas gets underway, let us cheer on policy makers from both countries as they attempt to negotiate an understanding, but at the same time, understand that accomplishing a positive outcome will not be easy. On Friday, Kim will make his way across the border to the Southside of the DMZ, and this will be a prelude to the much-anticipated conference between Trump and Kim that will take place soon. The summit between the United States and North Korea may end up being just a way to try to save face. If President Trump can claim that he attempted to negotiate with Kim but that the latter is irrational and cannot be negotiated with, it could be used as justification for war down the road, or this whole thing could be a way to delay war with North Korea until after the current Syrian and Iranian governments have been taken out of the picture. Let us hope that these negotiations are genuine and that the United States will be willing to compromise on the concerns of the Kim regime, but if nothing comes of it, I guess it will be business as usual.
Thank you for reading, and if you are interested in reading more of my material, please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
On April 13, roughly a week after the alleged chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people by the Assad regime, the executive branch of the United States government launched airstrikes in a war without congressional approval targeting what it claimed were a few facilities that were used in producing and testing these types of agents and weapons. There was bad luck, as it appears that the attacks did little harm to the Syrian government, but it proved to be a way to impress neoconservatives, war hawks, and the military-industrial complex, all of which need to act tough and constantly have an enemy to justify their warmongering agenda and bloated profits. Ultimately, the United States government is concerned with ridding the country of Assad and reducing the influence of Iran in the region. All of this could mean that North Korea will be out of the sniper scope for a while because the government does not want to undertake too many regime-change projects simultaneously.
Having a deal between the United States and North Korea would be wonderful, but it is likely that the United States will accept nothing short of the complete dismantling of Kim Jong-un’s nuclear program, long-range missile testing, and reduction of short and medium-range missiles that allegedly threaten Japan and South Korea. North Korea may get an easing of economic sanctions, which would bolster the regime, and in turn, it would make life better for the people. Yet, the United States will likely keep some of its troops south of the DMZ and continue some military exercises along the border. At the pre-negotiation stage, it seems like North Korea will get little in exchange for what it may have to offer up. Kim may not agree to this, and if he does not, the status on the peninsula will not have changed. It may be that the two leaders have a current misunderstanding of the situation because President Trump is convinced that North Korea is on the path to denuclearization, which is not exactly what Kim indicated. He did say that he would be willing to halt the testing of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles and that he would close down a nuclear testing site, but this does not mean that he will denuclearize his country completely.
As the summit between both Koreas gets underway, let us cheer on policy makers from both countries as they attempt to negotiate an understanding, but at the same time, understand that accomplishing a positive outcome will not be easy. On Friday, Kim will make his way across the border to the Southside of the DMZ, and this will be a prelude to the much-anticipated conference between Trump and Kim that will take place soon. The summit between the United States and North Korea may end up being just a way to try to save face. If President Trump can claim that he attempted to negotiate with Kim but that the latter is irrational and cannot be negotiated with, it could be used as justification for war down the road, or this whole thing could be a way to delay war with North Korea until after the current Syrian and Iranian governments have been taken out of the picture. Let us hope that these negotiations are genuine and that the United States will be willing to compromise on the concerns of the Kim regime, but if nothing comes of it, I guess it will be business as usual.
Thank you for reading, and if you are interested in reading more of my material, please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
April 12, 2018
Trump's Iraq in Syria
President Trump is gearing up for a war with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and things are not looking good for those who advocate for a peaceful and diplomatic approach to conflicts. The Syrian Butcher must be stopped at all costs, even if it means straining relations further with Russia or Iran or losing more lives in yet another war. This view is not logical because we do not have all of the facts of what actually occurred in Douma, and a military strike (or multiple) would be the United States president acting out on emotions due to the large number of potential deaths from the alleged chemical attack. If only Trump cared about the civilians he continually slaughters throughout the Middle East with airstrikes, he might be able to take a less hypocritical position on Syria, however, the reasoning appears to be that because chemical weapons were used (allegedly), the people who died were somehow more important than those who have died through the utilization of American conventional weapons.
I guess in Washington, D.C. there is a hierarchy of which lives are more valuable based on the tools used when they are killed. When chemical weapons are used, it warrants action by the United States military to retaliate. When conventional weapons are used, no action is needed because it is just the way war works. When a gun is used to kill someone, it warrants new gun control measures. When a knife or a car is used to kill someone, no further regulations are necessary because cars and knives are arbitrarily classified as less dangerous than guns. Whether it is increased gun control measures, or in the case of Syria, the ousting of the Assad regime, it is always about the agenda. The agenda in Syria has always been to take out Assad, and ISIS was just an excuse to bring American troops there.
Regardless of whether or not we classify certain weapons as worse than others, what evidence do we even have that Assad was responsible for dropping chemical weapons on his own people? The only “evidence” is that an anti-government Syrian activist group (though they claim to be neutral), known as the Syrian Civil Defense or the White Helmets, said that it occurred. Yet, apparently that is enough to go to war over. Just like we knew that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks immediately after and would not even come to an agreement with the Taliban to bring al-Qaeda leaders to trial, and just like we knew that Saddam Hussein had the chemical weapons that we sold to him during the Cold War era when we invaded Iraq in 2003. President Trump is doomed to repeat the same mistakes as Presidents Bush and Obama did over the past several years. Irrationally jumping into wars without having all of the information, or just disregarding information to pursue an agenda, will only end up to the detriment of the American people and the citizens of other countries involved.
Next, we need to investigate the event that occurred in Douma. Yet, there is little interest in doing so by Western nations. The arrogance of “we know he did it, end of story” will not lead to a beneficial solution of the conflict. Russia and Syria have invited investigators from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) into Syria to examine the site to see what actually happened, but this will likely not be good enough for the United States government because culpability has already been assigned and the truth is feared. In addition, Russia and the United States opposed each other’s resolutions in the UN Security Council for an inquiry into the incident for political reasons, and this only displays the deteriorating relations between the United States and Russia.
The Syrian and Russian governments denied that there was even a chemical attack that took place, and Russia went even further by suggesting that its military confirmed that no such attack occurred and that people were not in hospitals being treated for exposure to chlorine or other agents. Both governments claimed that these allegations were false and used for propaganda purposes, and before you say, “of course they would say that,” consider this. What benefit would Assad have for killing his own people in this manner? There is no reason to suggest that he is an irrational player in international politics, and it would be clear to him that if he did such an act of aggression, the United States would become militarily involved in removing him from office or at least take retaliatory measures. He could just use conventional weapons and get away with murdering people if he chose to do so. Using chemical weapons is a sure way to get condemnation at the international level of politics. It would make no sense to do this, but if the rebels used chemical weapons to blame Assad, they would be the ones to benefit because it would give them the support of the United States in collapsing the Syrian government (or perhaps even the United States ran a false flag operation to get the American population on board for a war).
The worst part of all of this is that the United States will end up starting another war thousands of miles away in a conflict that is between the people and the government in Syria. Trump’s Iraq may have dire consequences for the United States and all of the other actors involved because one wrong move could ignite a chain of events that initiates World War III. Iran plans to retaliate against Israel for attacking a Syrian airbase. Russia plans to shoot down all American missiles bound for Syrian territory, and President Trump continues to taunt Russia and cannot keep his mouth shut about the superiority of American weapons and military might. All of these entangling alliances, complex proxy wars in the region, and extreme nationalism and arrogance appear eerily similar to what occurred on the eve of the Great War (or what was later called World War I). Do we really want to start a war with Russia over Syria? Hopefully level heads will prevail, but I would not count on it.
Thank you for reading, and if you are interested in learning more about my work, please check out my website for past blogs and my book.
I guess in Washington, D.C. there is a hierarchy of which lives are more valuable based on the tools used when they are killed. When chemical weapons are used, it warrants action by the United States military to retaliate. When conventional weapons are used, no action is needed because it is just the way war works. When a gun is used to kill someone, it warrants new gun control measures. When a knife or a car is used to kill someone, no further regulations are necessary because cars and knives are arbitrarily classified as less dangerous than guns. Whether it is increased gun control measures, or in the case of Syria, the ousting of the Assad regime, it is always about the agenda. The agenda in Syria has always been to take out Assad, and ISIS was just an excuse to bring American troops there.
Regardless of whether or not we classify certain weapons as worse than others, what evidence do we even have that Assad was responsible for dropping chemical weapons on his own people? The only “evidence” is that an anti-government Syrian activist group (though they claim to be neutral), known as the Syrian Civil Defense or the White Helmets, said that it occurred. Yet, apparently that is enough to go to war over. Just like we knew that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks immediately after and would not even come to an agreement with the Taliban to bring al-Qaeda leaders to trial, and just like we knew that Saddam Hussein had the chemical weapons that we sold to him during the Cold War era when we invaded Iraq in 2003. President Trump is doomed to repeat the same mistakes as Presidents Bush and Obama did over the past several years. Irrationally jumping into wars without having all of the information, or just disregarding information to pursue an agenda, will only end up to the detriment of the American people and the citizens of other countries involved.
Next, we need to investigate the event that occurred in Douma. Yet, there is little interest in doing so by Western nations. The arrogance of “we know he did it, end of story” will not lead to a beneficial solution of the conflict. Russia and Syria have invited investigators from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) into Syria to examine the site to see what actually happened, but this will likely not be good enough for the United States government because culpability has already been assigned and the truth is feared. In addition, Russia and the United States opposed each other’s resolutions in the UN Security Council for an inquiry into the incident for political reasons, and this only displays the deteriorating relations between the United States and Russia.
The Syrian and Russian governments denied that there was even a chemical attack that took place, and Russia went even further by suggesting that its military confirmed that no such attack occurred and that people were not in hospitals being treated for exposure to chlorine or other agents. Both governments claimed that these allegations were false and used for propaganda purposes, and before you say, “of course they would say that,” consider this. What benefit would Assad have for killing his own people in this manner? There is no reason to suggest that he is an irrational player in international politics, and it would be clear to him that if he did such an act of aggression, the United States would become militarily involved in removing him from office or at least take retaliatory measures. He could just use conventional weapons and get away with murdering people if he chose to do so. Using chemical weapons is a sure way to get condemnation at the international level of politics. It would make no sense to do this, but if the rebels used chemical weapons to blame Assad, they would be the ones to benefit because it would give them the support of the United States in collapsing the Syrian government (or perhaps even the United States ran a false flag operation to get the American population on board for a war).
The worst part of all of this is that the United States will end up starting another war thousands of miles away in a conflict that is between the people and the government in Syria. Trump’s Iraq may have dire consequences for the United States and all of the other actors involved because one wrong move could ignite a chain of events that initiates World War III. Iran plans to retaliate against Israel for attacking a Syrian airbase. Russia plans to shoot down all American missiles bound for Syrian territory, and President Trump continues to taunt Russia and cannot keep his mouth shut about the superiority of American weapons and military might. All of these entangling alliances, complex proxy wars in the region, and extreme nationalism and arrogance appear eerily similar to what occurred on the eve of the Great War (or what was later called World War I). Do we really want to start a war with Russia over Syria? Hopefully level heads will prevail, but I would not count on it.
Thank you for reading, and if you are interested in learning more about my work, please check out my website for past blogs and my book.
March 22, 2018
When Did Congress Declare War on Yemen?
Senators in the U.S. Congress finally had a debate about the absurdity and hypocrisy of the civil war in Yemen, and although the proposal to end American support of the Saudi-led coalition was unsuccessful, at least the Senate had a mild interest in taking back the congressional role of declaring war and determining which countries to support. The war between Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi’s government and the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, who control the capital of Sana’a, has devastated the country and caused much destruction of infrastructure, mass starvation, and casualties from the bombings by Saudi Arabia and its allies. Bernie Sanders, Chris Murphy, and Mike Lee were right to bring this issue in front of the Senate and try to halt continuing efforts by the Trump administration (and previously the Obama administration) to support the slaughter in the Arabian Peninsula.
The United States is supporting Saudi Arabia in its war efforts through intelligence, logistics, refueling, and arms deals. It is estimated that only about one-third of the Saudi bombs have been directed at military-related targets, which means that the allegations that the kingdom to Yemen’s north has been responsible for numerous war crimes and human rights violations are a very serious charge. In addition to the possible ten thousand civilians dead as a result of these bombs, Saudi Arabia has also inhibited food, medicine, and other supplies from reaching the country with its blockades of ports. All-in-all, roughly twenty-two million people can no longer live independently, over eight million are on the verge of starvation, and cholera and other diseases have become prevalent. This has caused some of the devastated population to turn to groups like al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), ISIS, or the Houthis for either jobs or retaliation against Saudi aggression.
Yet, the United States supports this type of action in Yemen, but it condemns Iran for supporting terrorist groups who commit similar actions or Assad for suppressing the rebels in Syria. The logic of the United States government is that supporting violence is justified only when it benefits large corporations or the agendas of politicians. Otherwise, violence and genocide are immoral. It is only a war crime or a violation of human rights when it is committed by enemies of the United States. There is a word to describe this type of reasoning (or lack thereof). It is called hypocrisy.
In addition to the support of the Saudi-led destruction of the country, the United States government has been conducting “anti-terrorist” drone raids since the Bush administration. This has led to more destruction and hundreds of more civilian casualties, and this only leads to more resentment of the United States and people turning to radical and violent groups (like AQAP) to counter American aggression. If you do not believe me, read what a Yemeni tribal leader, Mullah Zabara, had to say about it: "The US sees 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.”
The final part of this discussion about American involvement in Yemen is the question of who has the authority to wage war in the country. According to Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, only Congress has the power to declare war. Unfortunately, this has been watered down to the point where now the president, since he or she is the Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to wage war whenever it is desired, and Americans have been conditioned to believe that this is acceptable behavior. Advocates of this usurpation of power will often point to the War Powers Act or the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) from 2001 to justify military action in any country around the world without any accountability. Yet, two weeks after the September 11 attacks, Congress could not have known that the War on Terrorism would be waged across much of the Middle East and Africa, and this dereliction of duty on the part of our legislators gave a blank check to Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump to do whatever, whenever.
This is the type of power that the monarchs of Britain had and one of the reasons only Congress was given the authority for war-making by the founding fathers. Apparently Americans are now comfortable with a more authoritarian approach to politics and have lost sight of what it means to live in a republican form of government. In order for this to be remedied, there would need to be a formal declaration of war from Congress for every country that the United States has on-going operations and conflicts in (even if we need one hundred such declarations) with a clear plan stating who the enemy is and how the troops or JSOC or CIA agents will be operating and when the wars will end. Congress may never take back its rightful duty as the authority that has the power to determine when to bring the United States to war, but at least the Senate had a discussion about it and that is something. It appears that the precedents started during the Bush administration in regards to combating terrorism on a global scale will be copied by future presidents until the political elites and the military-industrial complex finally get their war with Russia. On that day, it might be Americans on the receiving end of drones instead of civilians in poor and famine-stricken countries.
Thank you for reading, and if you are interested in exploring these ideas further, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
The United States is supporting Saudi Arabia in its war efforts through intelligence, logistics, refueling, and arms deals. It is estimated that only about one-third of the Saudi bombs have been directed at military-related targets, which means that the allegations that the kingdom to Yemen’s north has been responsible for numerous war crimes and human rights violations are a very serious charge. In addition to the possible ten thousand civilians dead as a result of these bombs, Saudi Arabia has also inhibited food, medicine, and other supplies from reaching the country with its blockades of ports. All-in-all, roughly twenty-two million people can no longer live independently, over eight million are on the verge of starvation, and cholera and other diseases have become prevalent. This has caused some of the devastated population to turn to groups like al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), ISIS, or the Houthis for either jobs or retaliation against Saudi aggression.
Yet, the United States supports this type of action in Yemen, but it condemns Iran for supporting terrorist groups who commit similar actions or Assad for suppressing the rebels in Syria. The logic of the United States government is that supporting violence is justified only when it benefits large corporations or the agendas of politicians. Otherwise, violence and genocide are immoral. It is only a war crime or a violation of human rights when it is committed by enemies of the United States. There is a word to describe this type of reasoning (or lack thereof). It is called hypocrisy.
In addition to the support of the Saudi-led destruction of the country, the United States government has been conducting “anti-terrorist” drone raids since the Bush administration. This has led to more destruction and hundreds of more civilian casualties, and this only leads to more resentment of the United States and people turning to radical and violent groups (like AQAP) to counter American aggression. If you do not believe me, read what a Yemeni tribal leader, Mullah Zabara, had to say about it: "The US sees 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.”
The final part of this discussion about American involvement in Yemen is the question of who has the authority to wage war in the country. According to Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, only Congress has the power to declare war. Unfortunately, this has been watered down to the point where now the president, since he or she is the Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to wage war whenever it is desired, and Americans have been conditioned to believe that this is acceptable behavior. Advocates of this usurpation of power will often point to the War Powers Act or the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) from 2001 to justify military action in any country around the world without any accountability. Yet, two weeks after the September 11 attacks, Congress could not have known that the War on Terrorism would be waged across much of the Middle East and Africa, and this dereliction of duty on the part of our legislators gave a blank check to Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump to do whatever, whenever.
This is the type of power that the monarchs of Britain had and one of the reasons only Congress was given the authority for war-making by the founding fathers. Apparently Americans are now comfortable with a more authoritarian approach to politics and have lost sight of what it means to live in a republican form of government. In order for this to be remedied, there would need to be a formal declaration of war from Congress for every country that the United States has on-going operations and conflicts in (even if we need one hundred such declarations) with a clear plan stating who the enemy is and how the troops or JSOC or CIA agents will be operating and when the wars will end. Congress may never take back its rightful duty as the authority that has the power to determine when to bring the United States to war, but at least the Senate had a discussion about it and that is something. It appears that the precedents started during the Bush administration in regards to combating terrorism on a global scale will be copied by future presidents until the political elites and the military-industrial complex finally get their war with Russia. On that day, it might be Americans on the receiving end of drones instead of civilians in poor and famine-stricken countries.
Thank you for reading, and if you are interested in exploring these ideas further, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
March 1, 2018
Should I Write About Gun Control
Should I write about gun control, that emotionally-charged issue that remains as a top talking point for the media and politicians alike? Or, should I write about an issue where people take a more logical approach? Is the debate a hot topic because of the most recent mass shooting and people need somewhere to direct the blame? Are many people taking it out on guns because they do not know how else to handle the pain associated with an immense catastrophe?
Should I write about gun control and the possibility of assessing the public for psychiatric-related problems before permitting the purchase of a firearm? Or, should I write about how many of the mass shooters in recent years were on psychiatric drugs and how very few people want to discuss this because it does not fit in with the agenda of gun control? Should we have a discussion about society as a whole and the role of parents in the lives of these young people, or will we take a “my way or the highway” approach because many believe that gun control is the only thing that will prevent these horrific events? What if physicians make mistakes or have sinister intentions when diagnosing mental illnesses and prevent healthy individuals from fulfilling their right to obtain a product that can be used for self-defense?
Should I write about gun control and the increase of federal background checks? Or, should I write about increasing background checks for immigrants coming into the United States and how it is too difficult for peaceful and hard-working immigrants to enter the country? What if government agents attempt to bar people who are politically opposed to a broad range of government actions from obtaining a firearm? Should I bring up that hundreds of thousands of people have been erroneously placed on terrorist watch lists and no-fly lists over the years and how federal background checks or other types of watch lists for guns will not be any different?
Should I write about gun control and how guns have been used for many deaths annually? Or, should I write about how American aircraft and drones slaughter thousands of innocent people in the Middle East every year and we do not bat an eye? Should I mention how when a few Americans are killed by terrorists or mass shooters, we lose our minds and urge Congress to act quickly to prevent the next disaster? Is it acceptable to bring up that knives and vehicles have also been used in mass killings, or do we just have to target guns because that is the politically correct agenda? Should we by the same logic have a federal background check every time someone wants to buy a car or a baseball bat? Is it not deranged individuals who are bent on the destruction of people’s lives who pull the trigger? Do we only apply the perspective that the products that we buy and have the right to own, if handled correctly, are not the problem to everything except guns?
Should I write about gun control and the effectiveness of such laws? Or, should I write about how the government spies on us and how most people care more about gun regulations than they do about preventing the government from regulating their daily lives? Is it fair to bring up that gun control laws in states and cities that have strict policies on guns do not prevent people from carrying out acts of terror against the public? Is it also fair to say that prohibition against alcohol and drugs has not prevented people from partaking in such substances? Do these items not usually end up in the black market where crime becomes more prevalent? Why would gun laws against assault rifles or semi-automatic weapons be any different? Would it be safe to say that if someone wants to hurt others, he or she will find a way to do so?
Should I write about gun control and the meaning of the Second Amendment? Or, should I write about how the government already violates almost every right we as Americans have in the Bill of Rights on a regular basis? Should I bring up that any federal infringement on the ability to own guns is a violation of the Bill of Rights as explicitly stated in the Second Amendment and other writings of the founding fathers that people often like to ignore for convenience? Is it acceptable to discuss how the militia mentioned in the amendment was referring to a body of the people that retained the right to keep their firearms with them and how people often erroneously argue that the National Guard and the militia are equivalent? Is it fair to make it more difficult for people who have no intentions of committing a crime to obtain the weapon of their choice in defending themselves from international or domestic threats, or even the threat of a government invasion of their homes? What if someone lives in a rural area where the police cannot respond quickly? Do we really have to punish responsible people, which is a large majority of gun owners or prospective owners, because of the actions of a few?
Should I write about gun control, or is it too controversial? Can mature adults have a conversation about it without exchanging emotionally-charged insults? Should people stop rushing to action when a tragedy occurs and think critically about the solutions? Did we not rush to war instantly in Afghanistan before we even knew all of the facts? Did the Taliban not offer up Osama bin Laden in exchange for proof of his guilt and a promise for extradition to a neutral third-party nation for trial? Did we not rush into war in Iraq when there was no proof of chemical weapons? Do some people not rush into enacting increased border security measures and obstacles for immigrants to come into the United States when they hear stories about how an illegal immigrant committed a crime against Americans? Would we rather make it difficult for immigrants who are peaceful and skilled to enter the country because of the actions of a few? Can we please think about these issues before acting? Should you check out my website and book, The Global Bully? Yes, please. Thank you for reading!
Should I write about gun control and the possibility of assessing the public for psychiatric-related problems before permitting the purchase of a firearm? Or, should I write about how many of the mass shooters in recent years were on psychiatric drugs and how very few people want to discuss this because it does not fit in with the agenda of gun control? Should we have a discussion about society as a whole and the role of parents in the lives of these young people, or will we take a “my way or the highway” approach because many believe that gun control is the only thing that will prevent these horrific events? What if physicians make mistakes or have sinister intentions when diagnosing mental illnesses and prevent healthy individuals from fulfilling their right to obtain a product that can be used for self-defense?
Should I write about gun control and the increase of federal background checks? Or, should I write about increasing background checks for immigrants coming into the United States and how it is too difficult for peaceful and hard-working immigrants to enter the country? What if government agents attempt to bar people who are politically opposed to a broad range of government actions from obtaining a firearm? Should I bring up that hundreds of thousands of people have been erroneously placed on terrorist watch lists and no-fly lists over the years and how federal background checks or other types of watch lists for guns will not be any different?
Should I write about gun control and how guns have been used for many deaths annually? Or, should I write about how American aircraft and drones slaughter thousands of innocent people in the Middle East every year and we do not bat an eye? Should I mention how when a few Americans are killed by terrorists or mass shooters, we lose our minds and urge Congress to act quickly to prevent the next disaster? Is it acceptable to bring up that knives and vehicles have also been used in mass killings, or do we just have to target guns because that is the politically correct agenda? Should we by the same logic have a federal background check every time someone wants to buy a car or a baseball bat? Is it not deranged individuals who are bent on the destruction of people’s lives who pull the trigger? Do we only apply the perspective that the products that we buy and have the right to own, if handled correctly, are not the problem to everything except guns?
Should I write about gun control and the effectiveness of such laws? Or, should I write about how the government spies on us and how most people care more about gun regulations than they do about preventing the government from regulating their daily lives? Is it fair to bring up that gun control laws in states and cities that have strict policies on guns do not prevent people from carrying out acts of terror against the public? Is it also fair to say that prohibition against alcohol and drugs has not prevented people from partaking in such substances? Do these items not usually end up in the black market where crime becomes more prevalent? Why would gun laws against assault rifles or semi-automatic weapons be any different? Would it be safe to say that if someone wants to hurt others, he or she will find a way to do so?
Should I write about gun control and the meaning of the Second Amendment? Or, should I write about how the government already violates almost every right we as Americans have in the Bill of Rights on a regular basis? Should I bring up that any federal infringement on the ability to own guns is a violation of the Bill of Rights as explicitly stated in the Second Amendment and other writings of the founding fathers that people often like to ignore for convenience? Is it acceptable to discuss how the militia mentioned in the amendment was referring to a body of the people that retained the right to keep their firearms with them and how people often erroneously argue that the National Guard and the militia are equivalent? Is it fair to make it more difficult for people who have no intentions of committing a crime to obtain the weapon of their choice in defending themselves from international or domestic threats, or even the threat of a government invasion of their homes? What if someone lives in a rural area where the police cannot respond quickly? Do we really have to punish responsible people, which is a large majority of gun owners or prospective owners, because of the actions of a few?
Should I write about gun control, or is it too controversial? Can mature adults have a conversation about it without exchanging emotionally-charged insults? Should people stop rushing to action when a tragedy occurs and think critically about the solutions? Did we not rush to war instantly in Afghanistan before we even knew all of the facts? Did the Taliban not offer up Osama bin Laden in exchange for proof of his guilt and a promise for extradition to a neutral third-party nation for trial? Did we not rush into war in Iraq when there was no proof of chemical weapons? Do some people not rush into enacting increased border security measures and obstacles for immigrants to come into the United States when they hear stories about how an illegal immigrant committed a crime against Americans? Would we rather make it difficult for immigrants who are peaceful and skilled to enter the country because of the actions of a few? Can we please think about these issues before acting? Should you check out my website and book, The Global Bully? Yes, please. Thank you for reading!
February 15, 2018
Can the Korean Unification Team Give Us Hope for the Future?
The Olympics are known as a time of peace, unity, and competitive sports among various nations, and this year has been special because both Koreas joined together under a single flag. The joint team seems like a great thing. Could it be a sign that someday in the not-so distant future, the political entities of North Korea and South Korea will be banished to the history books as a construct created by the United States and the Soviet Union? The images of athletes from both countries working together as a team reflect the overall desire of the Korean people to unite. Let us “tear down this wall” of the Cold War and let the people become one nation.
Yet, despite this encouraging news, there was of course political drama in the spotlight that could foreshadow resistance to the idea of unification. One of the architects behind the division of Korea and the primary beneficiary of a continuing cold war between the two countries, the United States government, did not seem entirely thrilled by the union created at the Winter Olympics. Vice President Mike Pence did not speak to Kim Yo-jong, Kim Jong-un’s sister and an advisor to the North Korean dictator, and even decided to skip a formal dinner hosted by Moon Jae-in, South Korea’s president, because the North Korean delegation would be there. He also gave his characteristic, unenthusiastic stare, similar to his mean mug across the demilitarized zone (DMZ), at the opening ceremony of the games and remained seated as the unified Korean team came out on stage.
Although Pence’s actions at the opening ceremony were childish and rude, this brings us to a deeper issue. The United States government desires division between both Koreas and will not tolerate diplomacy. During his visit to South Korea, Pence made it clear that talks would only begin when Kim Jong-un dismantles his nuclear program, and there is no doubt that the United States will continue to utilize fear tactics to force the resignation of the North Korean leader or prevent him continuing his nuclear and ballistic missile testing. This may include increasing economic sanctions, sending more troops to the DMZ, and escalating exercises near North Korea’s border. Issuing demands and threats to force a government to stand down is nothing short of terrorism, and requiring demands before diplomacy can begin is straight-up arrogance. Yet, this is what our policy with North Korea has become.
South Korean President Moon has been invited to North Korea to speak to Kim Jong-un, and perhaps we will see some sort of progress in the relationship between the two countries. My suggestion for any future discussions on Korea is to leave Vice President Pence home, or better yet, leave the United States out of it and let Korea determine its own future. While you continue cheering for Team U.S.A. (or the country of your origin, if you are not from the United States), take some time to reflect on the possibilities that could stem from the Korean unification team and on the antagonists who are attempting to prevent future diplomacy.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
Yet, despite this encouraging news, there was of course political drama in the spotlight that could foreshadow resistance to the idea of unification. One of the architects behind the division of Korea and the primary beneficiary of a continuing cold war between the two countries, the United States government, did not seem entirely thrilled by the union created at the Winter Olympics. Vice President Mike Pence did not speak to Kim Yo-jong, Kim Jong-un’s sister and an advisor to the North Korean dictator, and even decided to skip a formal dinner hosted by Moon Jae-in, South Korea’s president, because the North Korean delegation would be there. He also gave his characteristic, unenthusiastic stare, similar to his mean mug across the demilitarized zone (DMZ), at the opening ceremony of the games and remained seated as the unified Korean team came out on stage.
Although Pence’s actions at the opening ceremony were childish and rude, this brings us to a deeper issue. The United States government desires division between both Koreas and will not tolerate diplomacy. During his visit to South Korea, Pence made it clear that talks would only begin when Kim Jong-un dismantles his nuclear program, and there is no doubt that the United States will continue to utilize fear tactics to force the resignation of the North Korean leader or prevent him continuing his nuclear and ballistic missile testing. This may include increasing economic sanctions, sending more troops to the DMZ, and escalating exercises near North Korea’s border. Issuing demands and threats to force a government to stand down is nothing short of terrorism, and requiring demands before diplomacy can begin is straight-up arrogance. Yet, this is what our policy with North Korea has become.
South Korean President Moon has been invited to North Korea to speak to Kim Jong-un, and perhaps we will see some sort of progress in the relationship between the two countries. My suggestion for any future discussions on Korea is to leave Vice President Pence home, or better yet, leave the United States out of it and let Korea determine its own future. While you continue cheering for Team U.S.A. (or the country of your origin, if you are not from the United States), take some time to reflect on the possibilities that could stem from the Korean unification team and on the antagonists who are attempting to prevent future diplomacy.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
February 1, 2018
Government Surveillance vs. the American People
As quickly as the Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (or FISA) reauthorization hit the news headlines, it faded into oblivion. Like a burglar in the night, Congress and the president got away with more theft of our rights. Perhaps we are too busy with work, the lives of celebrities, sports, or whatever to care about our rights, but this surveillance-state mentality that Edward Snowden warned us about continues.
If a foreign target of a government investigation has information of any sort that is deemed part of an investigation (e.g. a journalist working overseas to uncover the events taking place in a war, like the Syrian Civil War, may uncover information relevant to an investigation and may be investigated as a result) comes in contact with any Americans along the way, those Americans can have their information collected in a database to be used at a later time. Although Section 702 had been utilized regularly in the past, it had been abused by government officials and halted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or FISC or FISA Court) on a couple of occasions because of constitutional concerns.
In addition, this abuse has now been ingrained into the new law that just passed and was signed by President Trump. Government agents can now legally (though unconstitutionally) collect mass amounts of phone calls, emails, texts, etc. if it is somehow argued that it is related to an investigation. This has the potential to sweep up the communications of millions of Americans without any type of probable cause whatsoever. Again, this is something that was already happening, but the fact that it is now part of legislation makes it worse and less likely for there to be recourse for Americans. Government agents can sift through their collections of data without warrants, but if they do actually need a warrant to pursue a target or investigate an individual for an unrelated crime, they can always get a rubber stamp from FISC, which hardly ever invalidates requests by government agents and does not even have to hear any counterargument from the target because the court meets in secret and away from the public eye.
Bulk collection and spying are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which requires government agents to have probable cause and a warrant that specifically states the place, person, and items to be searched or seized. Even the secretive FISC does not meet these expectations, and it is impossible for someone to challenge government spying if he or she is unaware of it in the first place. Are we willing to accept a police-surveillance state in the United States, or would we rather be a free country? If we choose the latter, action is needed, and spreading the word is a good way to start. While we are attending Super Bowl parties this weekend, enjoying football, or laughing at the commercials, let us also take a moment to reflect on what is happening in the United States in the realm of national security and individual liberty. There is a competition between the strengthening of government power and ability to spy on Americans and the American people. We the people may be the underdogs in this story, but let us fight back and not allow the government to take the championship in this arena.
Thank you for reading, and if you would like to see past blogs or check out my book, The Global Bully, please visit my website.
If a foreign target of a government investigation has information of any sort that is deemed part of an investigation (e.g. a journalist working overseas to uncover the events taking place in a war, like the Syrian Civil War, may uncover information relevant to an investigation and may be investigated as a result) comes in contact with any Americans along the way, those Americans can have their information collected in a database to be used at a later time. Although Section 702 had been utilized regularly in the past, it had been abused by government officials and halted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or FISC or FISA Court) on a couple of occasions because of constitutional concerns.
In addition, this abuse has now been ingrained into the new law that just passed and was signed by President Trump. Government agents can now legally (though unconstitutionally) collect mass amounts of phone calls, emails, texts, etc. if it is somehow argued that it is related to an investigation. This has the potential to sweep up the communications of millions of Americans without any type of probable cause whatsoever. Again, this is something that was already happening, but the fact that it is now part of legislation makes it worse and less likely for there to be recourse for Americans. Government agents can sift through their collections of data without warrants, but if they do actually need a warrant to pursue a target or investigate an individual for an unrelated crime, they can always get a rubber stamp from FISC, which hardly ever invalidates requests by government agents and does not even have to hear any counterargument from the target because the court meets in secret and away from the public eye.
Bulk collection and spying are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which requires government agents to have probable cause and a warrant that specifically states the place, person, and items to be searched or seized. Even the secretive FISC does not meet these expectations, and it is impossible for someone to challenge government spying if he or she is unaware of it in the first place. Are we willing to accept a police-surveillance state in the United States, or would we rather be a free country? If we choose the latter, action is needed, and spreading the word is a good way to start. While we are attending Super Bowl parties this weekend, enjoying football, or laughing at the commercials, let us also take a moment to reflect on what is happening in the United States in the realm of national security and individual liberty. There is a competition between the strengthening of government power and ability to spy on Americans and the American people. We the people may be the underdogs in this story, but let us fight back and not allow the government to take the championship in this arena.
Thank you for reading, and if you would like to see past blogs or check out my book, The Global Bully, please visit my website.
