Craig Peterson Jr.'s Blog, page 17
June 21, 2017
Conflict Between the United States and Russia Seems More Likely as ISIS Nears its End
Another dramatic event has occurred in Syria with the downing of the regime’s jet by the United States military. Something like this should not be too surprising given the factors involved in the Syrian Civil War, but it could indicate that tensions between the United States and Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and Russia, Iran, and regime forces under Assad may escalate a bit due to ISIS’ soon-to-be defeat.
It was argued that the attack was in defense of U.S. allies because the jet had bombed near an SDF location. However, Russia was not quick to accept the American explanation of the event, and it has since claimed that any aircraft flying west of the Euphrates River will be potential targets while communication between the two countries in Syria has been severed. Now, all it will take is for a Russian aircraft to destroy an American jet, and end-of-the-world condemnation will come from politicians and the mainstream media, and escalation of the conflict may result in additional deployments of American troops and equipment.
Cooler heads will likely prevail as this event slowly fades from recent memory, but what we must remember is that this was not the only time when the United States military has used violence against Assad’s forces and its allies. After the Syrian government’s alleged chemical attack against civilians, the United States felt it necessary to punish its defiant little child with airstrikes. Since the deconfliction zone (with a diameter of roughly 110 kilometers or sixty-eight miles) was established around Al Tanf, it has targeted Iranian-backed militias that have wandered into the area . Also this month, two supposedly hostile Iranian drones were shot down. The deconfliction zone is really just territory that the United States claims in Syria that even the Syrian government is not permitted to enter, and the presence of American troops in Syria is an act of war because the government did not invite them (Russia is in Syria because Assad asked for assistance against both ISIS and the rebels).
Once their common enemy is gone, both Russia and the United States will strive to take control of Syria through their proxies, and this may be just the event that ushers in World War III. Others may have a more optimistic view on this, but once you understand that the reason for American involvement in Syria is to get rid of Assad, you begin to see that there is no realistic way to accomplish this without a proxy war with Russia. A proxy war will inevitably lead to the loss of American and Russian troops and equipment at the hands of both countries’ allies. The only likely scenarios for an end of hostilities in Syria is an agreement that splits the country into Western Syria controlled by Assad and Eastern Syria controlled by a puppet government under the United States (as we have learned from the Vietnam and Korean Wars, this will only defer conflict) or to bully Putin’s government into submission or defeat Russia and Iran and their proxies on the battlefield and replace Assad with a Western-friendly regime that may eventually become a haven for radical Islamic terrorism (then, there will be yet another war in Syria down the road). None of these scenarios will benefit the American people, and we can only hope that American leaders will come to their senses and abandon their goal of coercing Syria into compliance.
Thanks for reading, and if you found this to be informative or interesting, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
It was argued that the attack was in defense of U.S. allies because the jet had bombed near an SDF location. However, Russia was not quick to accept the American explanation of the event, and it has since claimed that any aircraft flying west of the Euphrates River will be potential targets while communication between the two countries in Syria has been severed. Now, all it will take is for a Russian aircraft to destroy an American jet, and end-of-the-world condemnation will come from politicians and the mainstream media, and escalation of the conflict may result in additional deployments of American troops and equipment.
Cooler heads will likely prevail as this event slowly fades from recent memory, but what we must remember is that this was not the only time when the United States military has used violence against Assad’s forces and its allies. After the Syrian government’s alleged chemical attack against civilians, the United States felt it necessary to punish its defiant little child with airstrikes. Since the deconfliction zone (with a diameter of roughly 110 kilometers or sixty-eight miles) was established around Al Tanf, it has targeted Iranian-backed militias that have wandered into the area . Also this month, two supposedly hostile Iranian drones were shot down. The deconfliction zone is really just territory that the United States claims in Syria that even the Syrian government is not permitted to enter, and the presence of American troops in Syria is an act of war because the government did not invite them (Russia is in Syria because Assad asked for assistance against both ISIS and the rebels).
Once their common enemy is gone, both Russia and the United States will strive to take control of Syria through their proxies, and this may be just the event that ushers in World War III. Others may have a more optimistic view on this, but once you understand that the reason for American involvement in Syria is to get rid of Assad, you begin to see that there is no realistic way to accomplish this without a proxy war with Russia. A proxy war will inevitably lead to the loss of American and Russian troops and equipment at the hands of both countries’ allies. The only likely scenarios for an end of hostilities in Syria is an agreement that splits the country into Western Syria controlled by Assad and Eastern Syria controlled by a puppet government under the United States (as we have learned from the Vietnam and Korean Wars, this will only defer conflict) or to bully Putin’s government into submission or defeat Russia and Iran and their proxies on the battlefield and replace Assad with a Western-friendly regime that may eventually become a haven for radical Islamic terrorism (then, there will be yet another war in Syria down the road). None of these scenarios will benefit the American people, and we can only hope that American leaders will come to their senses and abandon their goal of coercing Syria into compliance.
Thanks for reading, and if you found this to be informative or interesting, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
June 7, 2017
High School Brawl Among U.S. Allies
Yesterday, it was noted that the United States government was considering withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council because of the alleged unfair treatment of Israel by the body, but as I pointed out previously, Israel is, in fact, responsible for numerous violations of human rights. Perhaps, as many in the U.S. have suggested, Israel is non-proportionally targeted (seventy anti-Israel resolutions versus seven against Iran), but US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley also made it a point to make sure that the council was aware that it was unfair that Cuba and Venezuela were members. Of course, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two members that are responsible for human rights violations (especially preventing freedom of speech and assembly with military force) would receive no contest from the United States due to their status as compliant allies.
While Haley was attempting to persuade the council and crying over Israeli’s treatment in the UN, conflict arose between a few of the U.S.’s wonderful, freedom-loving allies. The woman-mistreating, Wahhabi jihadism-supporting kingdom of Saudi Arabia sparred off diplomatically against Qatar, which is the host of Al Udeid Air Base and a large American presence. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Egypt, and Yemen also joined in the fun, followed later by Mauritania, Mauritius, Maldives, and East Libya (Libya is in the middle of a civil war, so it is currently divided up among different factions). Qatar, a country wealthy from oil but dependent on Saudi Arabia for food, is in the process of becoming isolated, and Qataris will no longer be able to leave their small peninsula by land nor will there be any transportation between Qatar and Saudi Arabia (land, sea, or air). Since it may be cut off from transportation on the southwest side of the Persian Gulf, it may be forced to look northeast (Iran) for assistance.
This is exactly the kind of thing that occurs when countries make entangling alliances with other countries and groups, but I will spare the details of World War I and the message pertaining to foreign affairs from George Washington’s Farewell Address to talk about what Qatar has done to receive such harsh consequences. Saudi Arabia and its gang do not care much about Qatar’s suppression of speech and poor treatment of women because that is commonplace among kingdoms in the Middle East, but they do mind its support of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is classified as a terrorist group by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, and UAE. Although not stressed by the Saudi coalition, Qatar has also supported other radical Islamic groups like al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaeda. Indirectly the tiny kingdom has also supported ISIS through these groups and by its own citizens being permitted to donate to it. The other factor in the rebuke of Qatar is its possible warming relations with Iran, which is despised by many countries in the Middle East. Qatar’s king (emir) Sheikh Tamim Al Hamad Al Thani (try saying that ten times fast) made comments about Iran being a model nation in the Islamic world and how it is demonized by the Trump administration. If the consequence for the leader of a country making a simple comment about a country that the Saudi government hates is isolation for his entire country, imagine what that government would do to you if you criticized its policies.
What is the United States government’s response to this whole fiasco? Could it be: why is Qatar responsible for human rights violations or why is it inadvertently (or maybe not) aiding ISIS or other radical Islamic groups that the U.S. is at war with or are considered bad guys by other allies? No, of course it is not. It is: blame the Russians. Maybe the Russians hacked Qatar’s state news agency to provide a fake story and are trying to cause deteriorating relations among its allies to cause chaos in the Middle East and weaken American influence in the region. Perhaps the intelligence community will come up with something that can be traced back to Russia, but remember the Vault 7 WikiLeaks report. The CIA can gather malware from another country and emulate it in a cyberattack, meaning that it can make Russia appear culpable when it is not.
Thanks for reading, and if you were interested in this topic, please take a look at my book, The Global Bully.
While Haley was attempting to persuade the council and crying over Israeli’s treatment in the UN, conflict arose between a few of the U.S.’s wonderful, freedom-loving allies. The woman-mistreating, Wahhabi jihadism-supporting kingdom of Saudi Arabia sparred off diplomatically against Qatar, which is the host of Al Udeid Air Base and a large American presence. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Egypt, and Yemen also joined in the fun, followed later by Mauritania, Mauritius, Maldives, and East Libya (Libya is in the middle of a civil war, so it is currently divided up among different factions). Qatar, a country wealthy from oil but dependent on Saudi Arabia for food, is in the process of becoming isolated, and Qataris will no longer be able to leave their small peninsula by land nor will there be any transportation between Qatar and Saudi Arabia (land, sea, or air). Since it may be cut off from transportation on the southwest side of the Persian Gulf, it may be forced to look northeast (Iran) for assistance.
This is exactly the kind of thing that occurs when countries make entangling alliances with other countries and groups, but I will spare the details of World War I and the message pertaining to foreign affairs from George Washington’s Farewell Address to talk about what Qatar has done to receive such harsh consequences. Saudi Arabia and its gang do not care much about Qatar’s suppression of speech and poor treatment of women because that is commonplace among kingdoms in the Middle East, but they do mind its support of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is classified as a terrorist group by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, and UAE. Although not stressed by the Saudi coalition, Qatar has also supported other radical Islamic groups like al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaeda. Indirectly the tiny kingdom has also supported ISIS through these groups and by its own citizens being permitted to donate to it. The other factor in the rebuke of Qatar is its possible warming relations with Iran, which is despised by many countries in the Middle East. Qatar’s king (emir) Sheikh Tamim Al Hamad Al Thani (try saying that ten times fast) made comments about Iran being a model nation in the Islamic world and how it is demonized by the Trump administration. If the consequence for the leader of a country making a simple comment about a country that the Saudi government hates is isolation for his entire country, imagine what that government would do to you if you criticized its policies.
What is the United States government’s response to this whole fiasco? Could it be: why is Qatar responsible for human rights violations or why is it inadvertently (or maybe not) aiding ISIS or other radical Islamic groups that the U.S. is at war with or are considered bad guys by other allies? No, of course it is not. It is: blame the Russians. Maybe the Russians hacked Qatar’s state news agency to provide a fake story and are trying to cause deteriorating relations among its allies to cause chaos in the Middle East and weaken American influence in the region. Perhaps the intelligence community will come up with something that can be traced back to Russia, but remember the Vault 7 WikiLeaks report. The CIA can gather malware from another country and emulate it in a cyberattack, meaning that it can make Russia appear culpable when it is not.
Thanks for reading, and if you were interested in this topic, please take a look at my book, The Global Bully.
May 23, 2017
Swords and Orbs to Celebrate Human Rights Violators
This week marks the first official foreign trip by President Trump, and when he was not dancing with swords or gathering around a glowing orb like some kind of magical wizard, he was talking indignantly against radical Islam and Iran. The president claimed that the Iranian threat was a "unifying force." Demonizing the Islamic Republic has been a tactic used by president’s since 1979 after the United States’ puppet government fell in a popular revolution across the country, but if you take a look at a map of American installations and troop locations scattered throughout the world, you will quickly see that Iran is completely surrounded. In conjunction with a plethora of economic sanctions (most of these have now been revoked), it is no wonder that Iran would not want some sort of defense against American aggression (whether nuclear or not). Yet, Iran is labelled as the threat. In addition, there are several nuclear-capable nations in the region (the United States in Europe, France, the United Kingdom, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, and North Korea), so if Iran were developing nuclear weapons, there would be good reason.
Regardless of the warmongering sentiments that President Trump sent towards Iran, the focus of the trip was the strengthening of ties between the United States, Israel, and other Arab nations. However, let us take a look at the two hosts of the president this past week. Saudi Arabia and Israel are responsible for horrific human rights violations, yet the United States government turns a blind eye to their atrocities because they are compliant to the interests of the American-led global order.
For starters, the $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia is justified because it can help the American economy. However, the money will help line the pockets of the military-industrial complex, plus, this sends signals to Saudi Arabia that they may continue indiscriminately bombing Yemen. The Saudi-led coalition has killed many civilians, destroyed much infrastructure, and blockaded the country to the brink of starvation (all of which has amounted to war crimes according to human rights groups) in order prevent the Houthi rebels (and their Iranian supporters) from gaining control of the war-stricken country. But that is not important because Lockheed Martin gets paid, right?
If the slaughter of Yemeni civilians is not enough to convince you that Saudi Arabia is a bad actor supported by the United States, look at what the government there does to people who dissent from the norms of the government’s interpretation of Sharia Law. Women are treated harshly and are not allowed to practice their rights in the same manner as men, free speech and assembly are not permitted when speaking out against the government or Islam, and radical Islam is supported by the government to the tune of billions of dollars through the funding of Wahhabi jihadism (not to mention citizens are permitted to support radical Islam). Plus, seventy-nine percent of the hijackers of the September 9/11 attacks in 2001 were from Saudi Arabia. Yet, Iran is considered the world’s largest supporter of terror by American propagandists. Again, the United States government allows this because the oil-rich kingdom cooperates with keeping the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of the world.
Criticizing Israel is much more difficult because any attempt to do so is often met with charges of anti-Semitism or reputation bashing due to the large amounts of money thrown at Congress by pro-Israeli groups. However, Americans should know what is really going on in the world, and denying that Israel commits crimes against the Palestinian people is not helpful. This type of condemnation against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government does not mean that all pro-Palestinian groups are exempt from blame, but there should be more disapproval by Americans when Israel uses non-proportional force or implements martial law against the people of Gaza Strip and the West Bank. If Mexico decided to take back part of Texas and destroyed your neighborhood so it could build Mexican settlements in its place, for example, you probably would be outraged by the fact that you were now homeless because of an aggressive act by a foreign nation. Why, then, is it justified when Israel builds its settlements that displace Palestinians? Could this be because Israeli lobbying has bought American politicians and officials?
As the foreign trip finishes up, we should reflect on these issues rather than just what the United States government wants you to think about two of our “important” allies. The government has justified meddling in other countries’ affairs for doing very similar things that Saudi Arabia and Israel do. This is a discussion that Americans need to have because, for example, we condemn ISIS for beheading prisoners, but Saudi Arabia also commits such acts. We can be sure in the upcoming years that Saudi Arabia and Israel will continue their atrocities and efforts to rid the region of Iran. Prime Minister Netanyahu will press future presidents to apply more pressure on the defiant Islamic Republic so he can lead his country to dominance of the Middle East (that is if President Trump does not invade Iran before his term is up).
It is important that Americans do research on this topic, and if you are interested in looking at things from a different perspective, please check out my book, The Global Bully. Thanks for reading.
Regardless of the warmongering sentiments that President Trump sent towards Iran, the focus of the trip was the strengthening of ties between the United States, Israel, and other Arab nations. However, let us take a look at the two hosts of the president this past week. Saudi Arabia and Israel are responsible for horrific human rights violations, yet the United States government turns a blind eye to their atrocities because they are compliant to the interests of the American-led global order.
For starters, the $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia is justified because it can help the American economy. However, the money will help line the pockets of the military-industrial complex, plus, this sends signals to Saudi Arabia that they may continue indiscriminately bombing Yemen. The Saudi-led coalition has killed many civilians, destroyed much infrastructure, and blockaded the country to the brink of starvation (all of which has amounted to war crimes according to human rights groups) in order prevent the Houthi rebels (and their Iranian supporters) from gaining control of the war-stricken country. But that is not important because Lockheed Martin gets paid, right?
If the slaughter of Yemeni civilians is not enough to convince you that Saudi Arabia is a bad actor supported by the United States, look at what the government there does to people who dissent from the norms of the government’s interpretation of Sharia Law. Women are treated harshly and are not allowed to practice their rights in the same manner as men, free speech and assembly are not permitted when speaking out against the government or Islam, and radical Islam is supported by the government to the tune of billions of dollars through the funding of Wahhabi jihadism (not to mention citizens are permitted to support radical Islam). Plus, seventy-nine percent of the hijackers of the September 9/11 attacks in 2001 were from Saudi Arabia. Yet, Iran is considered the world’s largest supporter of terror by American propagandists. Again, the United States government allows this because the oil-rich kingdom cooperates with keeping the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of the world.
Criticizing Israel is much more difficult because any attempt to do so is often met with charges of anti-Semitism or reputation bashing due to the large amounts of money thrown at Congress by pro-Israeli groups. However, Americans should know what is really going on in the world, and denying that Israel commits crimes against the Palestinian people is not helpful. This type of condemnation against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government does not mean that all pro-Palestinian groups are exempt from blame, but there should be more disapproval by Americans when Israel uses non-proportional force or implements martial law against the people of Gaza Strip and the West Bank. If Mexico decided to take back part of Texas and destroyed your neighborhood so it could build Mexican settlements in its place, for example, you probably would be outraged by the fact that you were now homeless because of an aggressive act by a foreign nation. Why, then, is it justified when Israel builds its settlements that displace Palestinians? Could this be because Israeli lobbying has bought American politicians and officials?
As the foreign trip finishes up, we should reflect on these issues rather than just what the United States government wants you to think about two of our “important” allies. The government has justified meddling in other countries’ affairs for doing very similar things that Saudi Arabia and Israel do. This is a discussion that Americans need to have because, for example, we condemn ISIS for beheading prisoners, but Saudi Arabia also commits such acts. We can be sure in the upcoming years that Saudi Arabia and Israel will continue their atrocities and efforts to rid the region of Iran. Prime Minister Netanyahu will press future presidents to apply more pressure on the defiant Islamic Republic so he can lead his country to dominance of the Middle East (that is if President Trump does not invade Iran before his term is up).
It is important that Americans do research on this topic, and if you are interested in looking at things from a different perspective, please check out my book, The Global Bully. Thanks for reading.
May 16, 2017
The Tale of Bert and Ernie: The United States has Authorized the Arming of Kurdish Forces in Syria
Let us say that you, Leviathan Eagle, have two friends. Bert and Ernie are both enemies, but you have to balance your time and energy into making sure that you maintain your relationships without turning one of them into your enemy. To complicate the issue further, all three of you have an enemy named Oscar, and you are the leader of an alliance to end Oscar’s reign of terror. Now, Oscar’s primary technique is stuffing his foes into garbage cans and rolling them down hills filled with rocks and thorny plants. Ernie does not have the proper equipment to handle fighting Oscar and his friends, but you see that he has the potential to really blow some damage to the opposition. Therefore, you decide that you are going to provide the equipment to Ernie despite condemnation from Bert.
Bert hates Ernie because he lives on the corner of four different properties, but he does not have a place of his own. Therefore, Ernie is fighting to take a small part of all four properties to establish his very own yard, and he sometimes uses violent tactics to keep Bert (as well as the other three property owners) off of that disputed piece of land. You, by and large, support Ernie’s efforts, but you cannot afford to lose Bert’s friendship, so you stay quiet on the issue.
You also want to keep Bert on your good side because you are afraid that he might start to turn towards your biggest enemy, Behemoth Bear. Although Behemoth Bear is enemies of Oscar, he is friends with the Count, who is your enemy and the rival of your wishy-washy friend Elmo. You used to consider Elmo a terrorist, but you waived that classification because he supported your efforts against Oscar and the Count, who also hates Oscar. This web of drama and broken relationships has caused a huge mess, but you do not really care because your ultimate goal in the whole thing is to get rid of the Count for good, even though you tell everyone the objective is the assassination of Oscar. And while we are at it, Oscar only became a problem because you supported Elmo against the Count and killed off Zoe after claiming that she had weapons of massive proportion (WMP’s) that she did not really have.
If this whole story sounds extremely complicated and difficult to understand, that is because it is. If you do not, at first glance, recognize this drama as the events taking place in Syria, you may not be alone. Most Americans are not cognizant of the fallacy that is American foreign policy. We generally only get a glimpse of the truth and that which is taken from a pro-United States government stance. If this were not the sad reality, these events would be comical. For the purposes of brevity, I would like to focus the rest of this blog on the conflict between Leviathan Eagle, Bert, and Ernie. If the rest of the events interests you, check out my book, The Global Bully, or my previous blogs, or you could do your own research on the topic.
I will say, however, that the United States invaded Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein, and then it started supplying the rebels (some of which were part of al-Qaeda) of Bashar al-Assad in Syria to delegitimize his rule. As a result of the chaos that ensued, ISIS rose to fill part of the vacuum, and then the United States had two enemies in Syria, which also happened to be enemies of each other. Russia supports one of the United States’ enemies, Assad, and is fighting against the other one, ISIS and other extremist Islamic groups (some of which are part of the rebel forces that are supported by the United States). The ultimate goal in Syria is to rid the country of Assad and establish an American-friendly regime that will likely turn against the United States several years from now.
As far as the Kurdish issue is concerned (represented by Ernie), Turkey (represented by Bert) is fighting a war against Kurdish groups. However, both Turkey and Kurdish rebels in Syria have been fighting to keep ISIS at bay, but Turkey and the United States consider the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) a terrorist group. So, the fact that the United States is arming the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) becomes an issue because Turkey claims that the YPG is the Syrian version of PKK and that the two are linked. This would be similar to Turkey arming an al-Qaeda affiliate in Mexico to fight the drug cartels. The United States would be outraged at its ally for strengthening its enemy near its border. Yet, the United States continually supports any side of a war if it means getting what is in its best interest.
The Obama administration was hesitant about bolstering YPG, so it found a loophole where it armed the Kurdish-allied Arabs of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) instead. This was considered a better alternative to directly backing YPG. The Trump administration is angering Turkey through its arming of YPG, and in addition, it has cooperated in patrols with the YPG on the Turkish border after the Turkish military killed some members of the group and the Peshmerga (Kurdish forces in Iraq) during skirmishes with the PKK.
Turkey does not and likely never will support an autonomous Kurdistan, which consists of regions along the Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria borders where the Kurdish people make up a majority. We can be certain that Turkey will not give up its territory, nor will it approve of Kurdistan establishing borders along its own borders, so the United States keeps kicking the can down the street. The division of the Ottoman Empire after World War I by France and the United Kingdom did not take into account the ethnic/religious groups in the region and how each one was essentially its own nation. Artificial boundaries helped lead to many of the conflicts in the Middle East that we see now. It is unfortunate that the United States government sees itself as the policeman of the world. The moral to the above story is that the United States should steer clear of these entangling conflicts that do not affect Americans thousands of miles away.
Bert hates Ernie because he lives on the corner of four different properties, but he does not have a place of his own. Therefore, Ernie is fighting to take a small part of all four properties to establish his very own yard, and he sometimes uses violent tactics to keep Bert (as well as the other three property owners) off of that disputed piece of land. You, by and large, support Ernie’s efforts, but you cannot afford to lose Bert’s friendship, so you stay quiet on the issue.
You also want to keep Bert on your good side because you are afraid that he might start to turn towards your biggest enemy, Behemoth Bear. Although Behemoth Bear is enemies of Oscar, he is friends with the Count, who is your enemy and the rival of your wishy-washy friend Elmo. You used to consider Elmo a terrorist, but you waived that classification because he supported your efforts against Oscar and the Count, who also hates Oscar. This web of drama and broken relationships has caused a huge mess, but you do not really care because your ultimate goal in the whole thing is to get rid of the Count for good, even though you tell everyone the objective is the assassination of Oscar. And while we are at it, Oscar only became a problem because you supported Elmo against the Count and killed off Zoe after claiming that she had weapons of massive proportion (WMP’s) that she did not really have.
If this whole story sounds extremely complicated and difficult to understand, that is because it is. If you do not, at first glance, recognize this drama as the events taking place in Syria, you may not be alone. Most Americans are not cognizant of the fallacy that is American foreign policy. We generally only get a glimpse of the truth and that which is taken from a pro-United States government stance. If this were not the sad reality, these events would be comical. For the purposes of brevity, I would like to focus the rest of this blog on the conflict between Leviathan Eagle, Bert, and Ernie. If the rest of the events interests you, check out my book, The Global Bully, or my previous blogs, or you could do your own research on the topic.
I will say, however, that the United States invaded Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein, and then it started supplying the rebels (some of which were part of al-Qaeda) of Bashar al-Assad in Syria to delegitimize his rule. As a result of the chaos that ensued, ISIS rose to fill part of the vacuum, and then the United States had two enemies in Syria, which also happened to be enemies of each other. Russia supports one of the United States’ enemies, Assad, and is fighting against the other one, ISIS and other extremist Islamic groups (some of which are part of the rebel forces that are supported by the United States). The ultimate goal in Syria is to rid the country of Assad and establish an American-friendly regime that will likely turn against the United States several years from now.
As far as the Kurdish issue is concerned (represented by Ernie), Turkey (represented by Bert) is fighting a war against Kurdish groups. However, both Turkey and Kurdish rebels in Syria have been fighting to keep ISIS at bay, but Turkey and the United States consider the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) a terrorist group. So, the fact that the United States is arming the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) becomes an issue because Turkey claims that the YPG is the Syrian version of PKK and that the two are linked. This would be similar to Turkey arming an al-Qaeda affiliate in Mexico to fight the drug cartels. The United States would be outraged at its ally for strengthening its enemy near its border. Yet, the United States continually supports any side of a war if it means getting what is in its best interest.
The Obama administration was hesitant about bolstering YPG, so it found a loophole where it armed the Kurdish-allied Arabs of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) instead. This was considered a better alternative to directly backing YPG. The Trump administration is angering Turkey through its arming of YPG, and in addition, it has cooperated in patrols with the YPG on the Turkish border after the Turkish military killed some members of the group and the Peshmerga (Kurdish forces in Iraq) during skirmishes with the PKK.
Turkey does not and likely never will support an autonomous Kurdistan, which consists of regions along the Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria borders where the Kurdish people make up a majority. We can be certain that Turkey will not give up its territory, nor will it approve of Kurdistan establishing borders along its own borders, so the United States keeps kicking the can down the street. The division of the Ottoman Empire after World War I by France and the United Kingdom did not take into account the ethnic/religious groups in the region and how each one was essentially its own nation. Artificial boundaries helped lead to many of the conflicts in the Middle East that we see now. It is unfortunate that the United States government sees itself as the policeman of the world. The moral to the above story is that the United States should steer clear of these entangling conflicts that do not affect Americans thousands of miles away.
May 3, 2017
A Missile Party Down by the Riverbank
It is time to grab our inner tubes and trailer hitches because we are having a missile party down by the riverbank. President Trump is transporting the THAAD and Minuteman III missiles, while Kim Jung-Un will probably drag over his failed ballistic missiles. Vice President Pence is predicted to mean mug Kim from across the river, and Secretary of State Tillerson will keep assuring everyone that all of the party’s potential events are on the table, including punching Kim in the face if he speaks out against what he perceives as an American threat. President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi will bring the beer and probably act as moderators if things get out of hand, while President Putin may possibly take Kim’s side if a brawl erupts.
The situation on the Korean Peninsula is getting very serious, and the world is watching the actions taken by all parties closely. It is easy to condemn the North Korean dictator from the safety of the United States, but let us consider what a war in East Asia would really mean. First of all, despite its much smaller population, the North has an active military force just slightly smaller than the United States (this does not include reservists and the potential large number of Americans available for service if needed). A combined force of the United States and South Korea could defeat the North with superior weapons and equipment, but it would not be quick and there would be many casualties on both sides (civilians and military personnel alike). This would also likely cause the reinstatement of the draft to keep up with the demands of the military, and in addition, the economy would be affected. The cost of the war alone would be astronomical. All of this would be a good case scenario, with the worst case scenario being nuclear war or World War III.
Military action should not be taken lightly, yet in the media, we hear the constant rhetoric of the North Korean threat to the United States and how military action may prove to be necessary to keep Americans and South Koreans safe. However, if you read the statements by Kim Jung-Un, it seems pretty clear that he will only take action if provoked by the United States. American politicians are quick to condemn Kim for speaking out against what he deems as aggressive behavior by the United States, but how come the actions by the United States are not condemned by the same politicians? It seems a bit hypocritical. According to their logic, simulating invading North Korea in exercises with South Korea, sending the USS Carl Vinson strike group to the region, deploying the THAAD missile system, which is simultaneously viewed as a threat to China and Russia, implementing economic sanctions that do little to hurt the Kim regime but cause suffering amongst the population, and launching a couple of
Minuteman III missiles from California west into the Pacific Ocean are not confrontational or aggressive. The argument against North Korea is one-sided (this is not to say that the Kim regime does not have its faults, but this is a critique of American foreign policy).
It is unfortunate that diplomacy may fail because of the arrogance of American officials. War seems to be the only solution when a country does not bend to the will of the United States. According to President Trump and his administration, North Korea has "gotta behave" before the diplomatic route can be taken. In other words, North Korea has to compromise, but the United States does not. Like the old cliché, it is “my way or the highway.” Except, this highway leads to war. If a nuclear war does occur, the parties by the riverbank will become desperate attempts to catch fish for survival. Let us hope a war with North Korea can be averted.
Thanks for reading, and if you found this analysis to be interesting, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
The situation on the Korean Peninsula is getting very serious, and the world is watching the actions taken by all parties closely. It is easy to condemn the North Korean dictator from the safety of the United States, but let us consider what a war in East Asia would really mean. First of all, despite its much smaller population, the North has an active military force just slightly smaller than the United States (this does not include reservists and the potential large number of Americans available for service if needed). A combined force of the United States and South Korea could defeat the North with superior weapons and equipment, but it would not be quick and there would be many casualties on both sides (civilians and military personnel alike). This would also likely cause the reinstatement of the draft to keep up with the demands of the military, and in addition, the economy would be affected. The cost of the war alone would be astronomical. All of this would be a good case scenario, with the worst case scenario being nuclear war or World War III.
Military action should not be taken lightly, yet in the media, we hear the constant rhetoric of the North Korean threat to the United States and how military action may prove to be necessary to keep Americans and South Koreans safe. However, if you read the statements by Kim Jung-Un, it seems pretty clear that he will only take action if provoked by the United States. American politicians are quick to condemn Kim for speaking out against what he deems as aggressive behavior by the United States, but how come the actions by the United States are not condemned by the same politicians? It seems a bit hypocritical. According to their logic, simulating invading North Korea in exercises with South Korea, sending the USS Carl Vinson strike group to the region, deploying the THAAD missile system, which is simultaneously viewed as a threat to China and Russia, implementing economic sanctions that do little to hurt the Kim regime but cause suffering amongst the population, and launching a couple of
Minuteman III missiles from California west into the Pacific Ocean are not confrontational or aggressive. The argument against North Korea is one-sided (this is not to say that the Kim regime does not have its faults, but this is a critique of American foreign policy).
It is unfortunate that diplomacy may fail because of the arrogance of American officials. War seems to be the only solution when a country does not bend to the will of the United States. According to President Trump and his administration, North Korea has "gotta behave" before the diplomatic route can be taken. In other words, North Korea has to compromise, but the United States does not. Like the old cliché, it is “my way or the highway.” Except, this highway leads to war. If a nuclear war does occur, the parties by the riverbank will become desperate attempts to catch fish for survival. Let us hope a war with North Korea can be averted.
Thanks for reading, and if you found this analysis to be interesting, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
April 19, 2017
Hand Over Your Cell Phones If You Want to Come Back into the Country
Imagine that you went on a nice relaxing road trip to Niagara Falls, and you crossed the border into Ontario Province to get the full experience. The thundering water into the Niagara River below and the humorous sight of herring gulls looking for scraps from the unsuspecting tourists overlooking the beautiful landscape were exhilarating. Maybe you even attempted to brave the horrific traffic and catch a Toronto Blue Jays game. However, upon returning to either Niagara County or Erie County, New York, your experience was not as thrilling. In fact, it was outrageous. The border agent requested that you hand over your cell phone with the password without objection. You yell, “No way! You need a warrant for that.”
The sad reality is that this type of madness does occur. In fact, one such case is similar to the scenario mentioned above, but a couple had their phones searched twice within the same week. They were detained for two hours the first time, and the second time saw the man being physically pinned by the agents after he refused two verbal requests. The phone was forced from his pocket and his data searched.
Some Americans may not object too harshly to border agents acting in this manner because they have grown up in a society that often accepts increased law enforcement measures, but this is the United States, not the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. There is a constitution, and we have civil liberties laid out in a bill of rights. The Fourth Amendment specifically states that searches by law enforcement must be reasonable, under the confines of probable cause, and conducted with a warrant that is specific as to the person, place, or thing. Legal precedent has watered down parts of this by allowing border agents to search if there is any type of suspicion whatsoever and not applying the Fourth Amendment to the border. To insult Americans further, agents are permitted to "borrow" devices for up to five days, and they can hold it longer if they actually determine that there is some sort of probable cause for having taken the device in the first place.
The common response to this type of policy is the “I have nothing to hide” argument. However, not every American agrees with this idea, and the approval by some does not mean that the government has the right to take away that right from others who do not approve. Human rights, including the rights of privacy and travel, precede and transcend governments. Plus, if the government really wanted to silence you or just be annoying, it could find something on your phone that warrants detention or negative publicity. Regardless, privacy is an inherently American principle that our founding fathers fought for, and it is something that is important to allow people to have a safe place to figure out their ideas and relax. In addition, governments should be held accountable, and the accepting nature of the people on issues such as these, however small they may seem, will only lead to increased measures at the hands of the police state. The gradual degradation of our rights should not be tolerable in the United States, and once some of them disappear through precedent, it is very unlikely that they will ever return. Governments do a very good job at convincing people that certain rights need to disappear in exchange for security, but trading liberty for security exchanges threats from terrorists or foreign agents for threats from government agents.
A few politicians are fighting the cell phone fiasco and attempting to take a stand for liberty. Senators Ron Wyden and Rand Paul and House of Representatives members Jared Polis and Blake Farenthold have introduced bills into their respective houses to force agents to obtain a warrant before searching electronic devices at the border (airports included). This will likely fail in Congress because most politicians are interested in more government power (whether it is the economy, people’s lives, or foreign policy). Plus, President Trump would likely veto the bill if were to make it to the White House.
We Americans must stand up for liberty, no matter how trivial the matter may seem. Never take freedom for granted, and remember, police states can occur when the populace is complacent and accepting of government intrusions into individuals’ lives. Democracies/republics are not immune.
Thanks for reading. If this topic and others related to liberty and mishandling of foreign policy appeal to you, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
The sad reality is that this type of madness does occur. In fact, one such case is similar to the scenario mentioned above, but a couple had their phones searched twice within the same week. They were detained for two hours the first time, and the second time saw the man being physically pinned by the agents after he refused two verbal requests. The phone was forced from his pocket and his data searched.
Some Americans may not object too harshly to border agents acting in this manner because they have grown up in a society that often accepts increased law enforcement measures, but this is the United States, not the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. There is a constitution, and we have civil liberties laid out in a bill of rights. The Fourth Amendment specifically states that searches by law enforcement must be reasonable, under the confines of probable cause, and conducted with a warrant that is specific as to the person, place, or thing. Legal precedent has watered down parts of this by allowing border agents to search if there is any type of suspicion whatsoever and not applying the Fourth Amendment to the border. To insult Americans further, agents are permitted to "borrow" devices for up to five days, and they can hold it longer if they actually determine that there is some sort of probable cause for having taken the device in the first place.
The common response to this type of policy is the “I have nothing to hide” argument. However, not every American agrees with this idea, and the approval by some does not mean that the government has the right to take away that right from others who do not approve. Human rights, including the rights of privacy and travel, precede and transcend governments. Plus, if the government really wanted to silence you or just be annoying, it could find something on your phone that warrants detention or negative publicity. Regardless, privacy is an inherently American principle that our founding fathers fought for, and it is something that is important to allow people to have a safe place to figure out their ideas and relax. In addition, governments should be held accountable, and the accepting nature of the people on issues such as these, however small they may seem, will only lead to increased measures at the hands of the police state. The gradual degradation of our rights should not be tolerable in the United States, and once some of them disappear through precedent, it is very unlikely that they will ever return. Governments do a very good job at convincing people that certain rights need to disappear in exchange for security, but trading liberty for security exchanges threats from terrorists or foreign agents for threats from government agents.
A few politicians are fighting the cell phone fiasco and attempting to take a stand for liberty. Senators Ron Wyden and Rand Paul and House of Representatives members Jared Polis and Blake Farenthold have introduced bills into their respective houses to force agents to obtain a warrant before searching electronic devices at the border (airports included). This will likely fail in Congress because most politicians are interested in more government power (whether it is the economy, people’s lives, or foreign policy). Plus, President Trump would likely veto the bill if were to make it to the White House.
We Americans must stand up for liberty, no matter how trivial the matter may seem. Never take freedom for granted, and remember, police states can occur when the populace is complacent and accepting of government intrusions into individuals’ lives. Democracies/republics are not immune.
Thanks for reading. If this topic and others related to liberty and mishandling of foreign policy appeal to you, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
April 14, 2017
Happy Easter to the Enemies of the United States
Dear Nations Who Oppose the United States,
You know you cannot take on the power that is the United States government, so you might as well just comply with our demands. There is no use to opposing us. As you just saw, we have the power to destroy even tunnels and caves with our Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb. Plus, we are very nuclear capable and able to knock you into the Stone Age.
Is it really worth taking on our military strength and our extensive array of troops stationed in roughly two-thirds of the world’s countries? Not to mention, we have plenty of allies who do our bidding, even if some of them are human rights abusers. Sometimes you have to compromise on principles to get what you want, but hey, you understand, right?
Please do not take this personally. It is just that you are standing in our path to global domination. If you surrender now, we will say something nice about you in the footnote of the history books that will be written by our historians after our victory. If you do not accept our offer, your place in history will be that of a monster that stood in the way of progress. Do not be a Godzilla. Be a dependent sheep that needs the protection and guidance of his shepherd.
To North Korea:
Stop developing your pointless missiles and nuclear weapons. All you are doing is making us mad, and if you continue such moves, we will use preemptive strikes to disable your capabilities to produce these programs. We may even add more economic sanctions to punish North Koreans for following your lead. We know that you do not care about your own people, but it sure makes us feel a lot better. We like to pretend that your attitude will change if we punish them economically, and hey, we are the world’s sole superpower, so we can do what we want.
Enclosed is your Easter present. It is a naval battle group deployed to the waters off of the Korean peninsula. We hope you will take serious considerations at changing your actions and becoming a good actor on the world stage. You really have nothing to worry about. I know our military exercises in the South have simulated invading your country, but that is just a precaution. I know we invaded, bombed, or manipulated Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Serbia, Iran, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Vietnam, Congo, etc. over the years, but they did not cooperate with our demands. You have the power to prevent another American invasion. Please think about.
To China:
We appreciate you meeting our wishes in regards to North Korea. Only when every country on Earth cooperates with the global order do we have peace and stability. However, you must do more to reign in the independent spirit of Kim Jung Un. Also, your behavior in the South China Sea has been disgusting. Everyone knows that that body of water is international territory patrolled and enforce by us. Building up your military and turning reefs into bases is deplorable. We respectfully request that you begin to accept that your military strength will never be as great as ours, and attempting further aggression in the region may be met with increased deployments by American troops. No other country on the planet is allowed to compete with us. It is part of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Look it up. It is as legitimate as the Monroe Doctrine.
To Iran:
We know that we just took away your nuclear capability despite you being surrounded by American troops in the Middle East, Europe, and Central, South, and East Asia and the nuclear capable countries of China, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, and India. But really you should thank us because we removed the economic sanctions that were detrimental to the Persian people. Plus, we gave you back that $100 billion that we stole from you years ago. Since you are kind of a threat to Israel’s domination of the Middle East and a resolution favorable to our needs in Syria, you must stop supporting Assad the Butcher and Hezbollah. We know common sense and logic would tell us that Assad had nothing to gain by using chemical weapons, but we needed that narrative to get the American people to support the ousting of Assad. You understand, right? We had to overthrow YOUR democratically-elected government back in 1953 when you would not cooperate with British oil interests. It is a similar concept. These types of operations are vital to our national interests of domination. It is just the nature of global empires.
To Russia:
I cannot believe you have brought our relations to an “all-time low.” First, you stepped in to prevent the Georgian military from invading South Ossetia. Then, you invaded Crimea. Next, you supported the separatists in Ukraine. Then, you deployed missiles to Kaliningrad threatening our puppets in NATO. Last, you got involved in our war to take out Assad the Butcher. Shame on you! You do not have the right to meddle in other countries’ affairs, or our elections for that matter. We have the sole authority to meddle in any country we like, including yours if we so choose. How dare you try to challenge our mandate to shape the world in our image! If the people in a territory of another country desire independence, that is just too bad. Those people do not have the right to be governed by whoever they choose because this would threaten the territorial sovereignty of another country. Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence only applies when it is convenient for us. You should know that by now.
Our promise that NATO would not be expanded any further east was contingent on our mood. Times change, and doing so is now in our best interest. You lost the Cold War, so get over it already. You deserve nothing more than a rotten egg for Easter, preferably in the form of a Mother of All Bombs, you know, for Mother Russia.
Thank you enemies of the United States for your future cooperation. Cheers to American domination!
Sincerely and Happy Easter,
Uncle Sam and the United States Government
P.S. If you enjoyed this satire, please check out the non-satirical book, The Global Bully. Thanks for reading, and Happy Easter! God Bless!
You know you cannot take on the power that is the United States government, so you might as well just comply with our demands. There is no use to opposing us. As you just saw, we have the power to destroy even tunnels and caves with our Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb. Plus, we are very nuclear capable and able to knock you into the Stone Age.
Is it really worth taking on our military strength and our extensive array of troops stationed in roughly two-thirds of the world’s countries? Not to mention, we have plenty of allies who do our bidding, even if some of them are human rights abusers. Sometimes you have to compromise on principles to get what you want, but hey, you understand, right?
Please do not take this personally. It is just that you are standing in our path to global domination. If you surrender now, we will say something nice about you in the footnote of the history books that will be written by our historians after our victory. If you do not accept our offer, your place in history will be that of a monster that stood in the way of progress. Do not be a Godzilla. Be a dependent sheep that needs the protection and guidance of his shepherd.
To North Korea:
Stop developing your pointless missiles and nuclear weapons. All you are doing is making us mad, and if you continue such moves, we will use preemptive strikes to disable your capabilities to produce these programs. We may even add more economic sanctions to punish North Koreans for following your lead. We know that you do not care about your own people, but it sure makes us feel a lot better. We like to pretend that your attitude will change if we punish them economically, and hey, we are the world’s sole superpower, so we can do what we want.
Enclosed is your Easter present. It is a naval battle group deployed to the waters off of the Korean peninsula. We hope you will take serious considerations at changing your actions and becoming a good actor on the world stage. You really have nothing to worry about. I know our military exercises in the South have simulated invading your country, but that is just a precaution. I know we invaded, bombed, or manipulated Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Serbia, Iran, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Vietnam, Congo, etc. over the years, but they did not cooperate with our demands. You have the power to prevent another American invasion. Please think about.
To China:
We appreciate you meeting our wishes in regards to North Korea. Only when every country on Earth cooperates with the global order do we have peace and stability. However, you must do more to reign in the independent spirit of Kim Jung Un. Also, your behavior in the South China Sea has been disgusting. Everyone knows that that body of water is international territory patrolled and enforce by us. Building up your military and turning reefs into bases is deplorable. We respectfully request that you begin to accept that your military strength will never be as great as ours, and attempting further aggression in the region may be met with increased deployments by American troops. No other country on the planet is allowed to compete with us. It is part of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Look it up. It is as legitimate as the Monroe Doctrine.
To Iran:
We know that we just took away your nuclear capability despite you being surrounded by American troops in the Middle East, Europe, and Central, South, and East Asia and the nuclear capable countries of China, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, and India. But really you should thank us because we removed the economic sanctions that were detrimental to the Persian people. Plus, we gave you back that $100 billion that we stole from you years ago. Since you are kind of a threat to Israel’s domination of the Middle East and a resolution favorable to our needs in Syria, you must stop supporting Assad the Butcher and Hezbollah. We know common sense and logic would tell us that Assad had nothing to gain by using chemical weapons, but we needed that narrative to get the American people to support the ousting of Assad. You understand, right? We had to overthrow YOUR democratically-elected government back in 1953 when you would not cooperate with British oil interests. It is a similar concept. These types of operations are vital to our national interests of domination. It is just the nature of global empires.
To Russia:
I cannot believe you have brought our relations to an “all-time low.” First, you stepped in to prevent the Georgian military from invading South Ossetia. Then, you invaded Crimea. Next, you supported the separatists in Ukraine. Then, you deployed missiles to Kaliningrad threatening our puppets in NATO. Last, you got involved in our war to take out Assad the Butcher. Shame on you! You do not have the right to meddle in other countries’ affairs, or our elections for that matter. We have the sole authority to meddle in any country we like, including yours if we so choose. How dare you try to challenge our mandate to shape the world in our image! If the people in a territory of another country desire independence, that is just too bad. Those people do not have the right to be governed by whoever they choose because this would threaten the territorial sovereignty of another country. Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence only applies when it is convenient for us. You should know that by now.
Our promise that NATO would not be expanded any further east was contingent on our mood. Times change, and doing so is now in our best interest. You lost the Cold War, so get over it already. You deserve nothing more than a rotten egg for Easter, preferably in the form of a Mother of All Bombs, you know, for Mother Russia.
Thank you enemies of the United States for your future cooperation. Cheers to American domination!
Sincerely and Happy Easter,
Uncle Sam and the United States Government
P.S. If you enjoyed this satire, please check out the non-satirical book, The Global Bully. Thanks for reading, and Happy Easter! God Bless!
April 6, 2017
Another Scandal in Syria, Gee Surprise
Recently, I noted that there might be a Korean War II that has the potential to usher in World War III, and an invasion of Iran may also be a possibility. However, increased military action in Syria may ultimately end up being the initial cause for the next global war. The claim that Syrian President Assad killed his own people may or may not be true, but if a majority of the world’s nations are involved in a large-scale, nuclear war, a lot more people are going to die. Who cares though, right? As long as evil dictators are out of the picture. “It is said that old men declare war over their arrogance, while the young men [and civilians] must suffer the consequences and wage in battle” (from The Global Bully).
The logic of American intervention in Syria is astounding. First of all, the Obama administration began arming al-Qaeda-allied soldiers and “moderate” rebels of Assad’s regime, which inevitably contributed towards his loss of territory. Once the Syrian government was weakened, surprise: ISIS rose to fill the vacuum. Then, airstrikes were initiated against ISIS to try to bring the wonderful, democracy-loving, united, and patriotic rebels into power. Americans were told that the primary focus was to take out ISIS, but once Assad supposedly used chemical weapons the first time and Russia came into the picture, a proxy war developed (with Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah).
Now we come to the alleged second chemical attack by Assad. Is it really logical that he would attack in this manner knowing that if he did, he would bring the United States further into the conflict and possibly contribute towards the termination his own reign?
A general rule of politics is that rulers (whether in a democracy or oligarchy) desire to stay in power and gain more of it. How does attacking rebels and bringing in further involvement by the United States and its allies accomplish this? Otherwise, one must assume that Assad is an irrational actor in global politics, which is hardly ever the case with world leaders.
In addition, the term “false flag operation” was used to describe the chemical attack by former Congressman Ron Paul on his “Liberty Report.” Since President Trump was open to the possibility of allowing the people to decide the leadership in Syria (even if the choice was Assad), the military-industrial complex, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham and their gang of war hawks, the intelligence community, and other members of the political establishment decided to steer the United States back on the warpath.
Regardless, how come the fact that President Trump has killed hundreds of civilians in other parts of the Middle East (plus, of course Presidents Obama and Bush had their own bloodbaths) is seldom mentioned in the mainstream media? The emotional argument is usually only used when government officials desire war. Peace is not possible because of profit-driven and power-hungry individuals who are in charge of the United States (regardless of who is president).
In conclusion, let us recall the lies that were fed to the American people before President Bush’s invasion of Iraq. There were no chemical weapons in that country, and the whole war was likely waged to feed powerful government-allied corporations (fake or crony capitalism at its finest). If there is proof of Assad’s culpability, show us. If not, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes in Iraq (or worse, be faced with World War III).
If you are interested in the Syrian Civil War or other similar topics, please check out my book, The Global Bully
The logic of American intervention in Syria is astounding. First of all, the Obama administration began arming al-Qaeda-allied soldiers and “moderate” rebels of Assad’s regime, which inevitably contributed towards his loss of territory. Once the Syrian government was weakened, surprise: ISIS rose to fill the vacuum. Then, airstrikes were initiated against ISIS to try to bring the wonderful, democracy-loving, united, and patriotic rebels into power. Americans were told that the primary focus was to take out ISIS, but once Assad supposedly used chemical weapons the first time and Russia came into the picture, a proxy war developed (with Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah).
Now we come to the alleged second chemical attack by Assad. Is it really logical that he would attack in this manner knowing that if he did, he would bring the United States further into the conflict and possibly contribute towards the termination his own reign?
A general rule of politics is that rulers (whether in a democracy or oligarchy) desire to stay in power and gain more of it. How does attacking rebels and bringing in further involvement by the United States and its allies accomplish this? Otherwise, one must assume that Assad is an irrational actor in global politics, which is hardly ever the case with world leaders.
In addition, the term “false flag operation” was used to describe the chemical attack by former Congressman Ron Paul on his “Liberty Report.” Since President Trump was open to the possibility of allowing the people to decide the leadership in Syria (even if the choice was Assad), the military-industrial complex, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham and their gang of war hawks, the intelligence community, and other members of the political establishment decided to steer the United States back on the warpath.
Regardless, how come the fact that President Trump has killed hundreds of civilians in other parts of the Middle East (plus, of course Presidents Obama and Bush had their own bloodbaths) is seldom mentioned in the mainstream media? The emotional argument is usually only used when government officials desire war. Peace is not possible because of profit-driven and power-hungry individuals who are in charge of the United States (regardless of who is president).
In conclusion, let us recall the lies that were fed to the American people before President Bush’s invasion of Iraq. There were no chemical weapons in that country, and the whole war was likely waged to feed powerful government-allied corporations (fake or crony capitalism at its finest). If there is proof of Assad’s culpability, show us. If not, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes in Iraq (or worse, be faced with World War III).
If you are interested in the Syrian Civil War or other similar topics, please check out my book, The Global Bully
April 5, 2017
Is Korean War II on the Horizon?
Should young Americans prepare themselves for shipping out to the 38th parallel? This seems to be a very real possibility with the current direction of the Trump administration and its “the clock has now run out and all options are on the table” mentality. Hooray! We can finally rid ourselves of one more evil dictator who rivals the United States’ power in the region, and the American Empire can expand to encompass the entire peninsula.
Previously, I wrote about a possible deal that China offered to the United States to de-escalate tensions where North Korea would be willing to freeze actions related to its nuclear program and missile testing if the United States agreed to halt its exercises in South Korea. However, such a deal would involve a compromise, and the United States is more inclined for demands than giving up something in return. Since North Korea will not offer up its nuclear and missile programs in good faith, the military option has to be utilized (apparently).
In addition, China is being pressured to coerce North Korea into compliance by implementing economic sanctions or using its status as an ally. The prospect of such a proposal may work in the United States’ favor, but this is likely not in China’s best interest because a weak or vulnerable North Korea means that the buffer between itself and an American ally may be threatened. Despite what many Americans may think, China is afraid of the United States and its troops in the region, and this is one of the major reasons for China’s militarization and South China Sea policies.
The other problem with compelling China to do the United States’ dirty work is that it ignores the very nature of alliances. Now, I am no fan of entangling alliances and they often end up leading to wars (World War I being the perfect example), but if Iran was pressuring the United States to deal with Israel (perhaps by cutting off the behemoth and superfluous foreign aid to the most powerful nation in the Middle East), the American government would likely shrug this off and do nothing to aid Iran. How is this any different? Why would China act to help the United States and risk undermining its alliance with North Korea? If China does not give into the pressure and the United States invades the North, this will likely lead to a military confrontation with China (and possibly World War III).
Americans are propagandized into thinking that North Korea is a threat to the United States because it launches ballistic missiles and has a nuclear program, but government officials and the mainstream media seldom emphasize how the American-South Korean exercises simulate the invasion of North Korea and are seen as a threat to the northern kingdom. Kim Jong Un may be a rhetoric-spewing dictator who rules his country with an iron-fist, but there is no reason to think that he is not a rational player in global politics. He would not strike South Korea first and risk the eradication of the Kim Dynasty. Therefore, if President Trump does strike first, he is making a gross mistake and will have blood on his hands.
Hopefully Korean War II will be averted, but given the increased tensions between the United States and its enemies, it seems like a very real prospect. Also, the war will likely involve conscription much like the first war did, and we can look forward to the involuntary servitude (supposedly abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment) associated with such a practice.
If you are interested in this topic and seeing events from a different perspective, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
Previously, I wrote about a possible deal that China offered to the United States to de-escalate tensions where North Korea would be willing to freeze actions related to its nuclear program and missile testing if the United States agreed to halt its exercises in South Korea. However, such a deal would involve a compromise, and the United States is more inclined for demands than giving up something in return. Since North Korea will not offer up its nuclear and missile programs in good faith, the military option has to be utilized (apparently).
In addition, China is being pressured to coerce North Korea into compliance by implementing economic sanctions or using its status as an ally. The prospect of such a proposal may work in the United States’ favor, but this is likely not in China’s best interest because a weak or vulnerable North Korea means that the buffer between itself and an American ally may be threatened. Despite what many Americans may think, China is afraid of the United States and its troops in the region, and this is one of the major reasons for China’s militarization and South China Sea policies.
The other problem with compelling China to do the United States’ dirty work is that it ignores the very nature of alliances. Now, I am no fan of entangling alliances and they often end up leading to wars (World War I being the perfect example), but if Iran was pressuring the United States to deal with Israel (perhaps by cutting off the behemoth and superfluous foreign aid to the most powerful nation in the Middle East), the American government would likely shrug this off and do nothing to aid Iran. How is this any different? Why would China act to help the United States and risk undermining its alliance with North Korea? If China does not give into the pressure and the United States invades the North, this will likely lead to a military confrontation with China (and possibly World War III).
Americans are propagandized into thinking that North Korea is a threat to the United States because it launches ballistic missiles and has a nuclear program, but government officials and the mainstream media seldom emphasize how the American-South Korean exercises simulate the invasion of North Korea and are seen as a threat to the northern kingdom. Kim Jong Un may be a rhetoric-spewing dictator who rules his country with an iron-fist, but there is no reason to think that he is not a rational player in global politics. He would not strike South Korea first and risk the eradication of the Kim Dynasty. Therefore, if President Trump does strike first, he is making a gross mistake and will have blood on his hands.
Hopefully Korean War II will be averted, but given the increased tensions between the United States and its enemies, it seems like a very real prospect. Also, the war will likely involve conscription much like the first war did, and we can look forward to the involuntary servitude (supposedly abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment) associated with such a practice.
If you are interested in this topic and seeing events from a different perspective, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
March 22, 2017
Montenegro Is About to Fall into Orbit
Have you had enough of the Russia bashing yet? The anti-Russia rhetoric can be heard frequently in the mainstream media, and the new issue at hand is the expansion of NATO further into the Balkans. The Cold War-era alliance is looking to grab its third constituent country from the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Although opinion polls within Montenegro show a huge split between those in favor of membership and those opposed, this will not stop the American-dominated alliance from infuriating the giant Russian bear. Perhaps Senator Rand Paul can fly the bald eagle in the right direction.
NATO has been moving into what was formerly seen as the Russian sphere of influence since the end of the Cold War, and the promise made by President George H. W. Bush that this expansion would not occur in exchange for the reunification of Germany and the end of the conflict was broken with the admission of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in 1999 (some American officials like to argue that this promise did not occur to justify their actions). This obviously had implications that have led to deteriorated relations between the United States and Russia. It can, therefore, be argued that so-called intrusions by Russia into countries like Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine are responses to the United States creeping ever-closer to the Russian border. Plus, Russia has not invaded these countries, but has rather intervened in response to situations and conflicts that arise there between the governments and pro-Russian citizens.
Now, the United States has made it clear that Montenegro must be added to NATO to defend it from Russian aggression, but it seems like the ulterior motive of this move is to antagonize Russia. Most Americans may not be aware of what something so seemingly trivial means, but this or any other affront to Russia may just be the fuel to start a hot war with the largest country on earth (in terms of area). Montenegro is a country that is roughly the size of Connecticut with a population comparable to Baltimore. Defending it would be more of a burden to the United States than an interest, especially because NATO countries do not pull their own weight. Perhaps the United States should cut back its military spending to defend Europe if these countries cannot contribute an appropriate amount to the alliance. Is it really fair for American taxpayers to have to defend Europe, especially when the United States has fifty entities of its own to defend?
Senator Paul has attempted to hinder NATO’s annexation of Montenegro, but the majority of the Senate is in favor of the treaty. Although his block may push the issue back a few months (due to more pressing matters like confirming the new Supreme Court justice and continuing government intervention in healthcare under a new name), it is likely that the treaty will end up going into effect at some point.
Another irritating part of this debate is Senator John McCain’s response to Paul’s action. He called him a Russian agent. This seems to be the new label that is given to anyone who opposes a war with Russia. If someone opposes a nuclear exchange that could potentially kill millions of people and devastate the infrastructure, that means that he or she works for Vladimir Putin. That seems logical. How about we send all of the senators who favor the admittance of Montenegro, Ukraine, and Georgia into NATO to the front lines of the war that they helped engineer? That seems even more logical.
If you found this article informative or interesting, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
NATO has been moving into what was formerly seen as the Russian sphere of influence since the end of the Cold War, and the promise made by President George H. W. Bush that this expansion would not occur in exchange for the reunification of Germany and the end of the conflict was broken with the admission of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in 1999 (some American officials like to argue that this promise did not occur to justify their actions). This obviously had implications that have led to deteriorated relations between the United States and Russia. It can, therefore, be argued that so-called intrusions by Russia into countries like Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine are responses to the United States creeping ever-closer to the Russian border. Plus, Russia has not invaded these countries, but has rather intervened in response to situations and conflicts that arise there between the governments and pro-Russian citizens.
Now, the United States has made it clear that Montenegro must be added to NATO to defend it from Russian aggression, but it seems like the ulterior motive of this move is to antagonize Russia. Most Americans may not be aware of what something so seemingly trivial means, but this or any other affront to Russia may just be the fuel to start a hot war with the largest country on earth (in terms of area). Montenegro is a country that is roughly the size of Connecticut with a population comparable to Baltimore. Defending it would be more of a burden to the United States than an interest, especially because NATO countries do not pull their own weight. Perhaps the United States should cut back its military spending to defend Europe if these countries cannot contribute an appropriate amount to the alliance. Is it really fair for American taxpayers to have to defend Europe, especially when the United States has fifty entities of its own to defend?
Senator Paul has attempted to hinder NATO’s annexation of Montenegro, but the majority of the Senate is in favor of the treaty. Although his block may push the issue back a few months (due to more pressing matters like confirming the new Supreme Court justice and continuing government intervention in healthcare under a new name), it is likely that the treaty will end up going into effect at some point.
Another irritating part of this debate is Senator John McCain’s response to Paul’s action. He called him a Russian agent. This seems to be the new label that is given to anyone who opposes a war with Russia. If someone opposes a nuclear exchange that could potentially kill millions of people and devastate the infrastructure, that means that he or she works for Vladimir Putin. That seems logical. How about we send all of the senators who favor the admittance of Montenegro, Ukraine, and Georgia into NATO to the front lines of the war that they helped engineer? That seems even more logical.
If you found this article informative or interesting, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
