Craig Peterson Jr.'s Blog, page 18
March 8, 2017
A Deal with North Korea, Just Kidding
The conflict in Korea has dragged on way too long, and both countries have a different perspective about which side is the larger threat to the other. North Korea argues that the cooperative military drills between the South and the United States (including simulations involving an invasion) and the deployment of an anti-missile system are a danger to its existence, while South Korea argues that the North is a rogue state run by an insane autocrat who desires reunification of Korea through invasion and nuclear attacks. It is likely that both sides exaggerate the situation, but one wrong move can lead to a war that is not desired by the people of any of the countries involved (some politicians, corporate leaders of the military-industrial complex, and elites may benefit, however). China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, has proposed a deal for a compromise between both artificially-drawn states, but will the United States be willing to give up anything in return?
As most people who even follow the news casually are aware, the United States government does not take kindly to Kim Jong-un’s ballistic missile tests and rants about American imperialism, but if we are to end the conflict diplomatically, we do need to see things from the North Korean government’s perspective. Otherwise, arrogance and ignorance can lead to some pretty bad consequences. Let’s take a ride on Memory Lane and hope that we do not end up on Nuclear War Boulevard.
After Japan’s surrender at the end of World War II, Korea was divided up into two administered zones, one run by the United States and the other occupied by the Soviet Union, until a unified government could be established over the entire peninsula. Unification did not occur, and the Korean War was fought until 1953, but tensions between North and South Korea did not end. Even to this day, China supervises (sort of) the northern half, while the United States takes responsibility of the southern half (militarily).
Military exercises simulating attacks against the North and the never-ending American presence in the region (Japan, Australia, Philippines, and the South China Sea due to increased tension with China) are intimidating, and many other “defiant” countries in the world have expressed concern over American troops and installations in their regions of the world. Plus, China and Russia are also concerned over the anti-missile system planned to be rooted in South Korea because of possible spying on their respective countries (which is reasonable given the United States’ recent history with spying on both American citizens and other countries).
In addition to providing for South Korea’s defense, the United States has implemented economic sanctions, which have added to the hardship that the citizens there face, against the North for its ballistic missile tests and nuclear weapons capabilities. Kim is apathetic towards his people, and therefore, the sanctions have failed to curb his nuclear ambitions (or lack thereof). All these pieces of economic terrorism do is make life more difficult on the people who cannot receive the products and services that they so badly need. North Korea does not care about isolation, and it is likely that the militaristic and economic threat that the country faces from the United States will not subside.
So, what of this proposal by the Chinese foreign minister? If it were undertaken, North Korea would suspend nuclear and missile actions if the United States were willing to put a freeze on the military drills. Problem solved. We can now start to work on the problem diplomatically. Wrong! U.S. ambassador to the UN, Nickki Haley, has already expressed concern about the deal and said that North Korea needs to start behaving before a compromise can be made (apparently the United States government gets to decide what is acceptable global conduct). The excuse that will be utilized to prevent the deal appears to be that the two items on the table are unrelated (a violation of UN resolutions versus tradition). Unrelated, huh? In other words, the United States is not willing to give up anything in exchange for a possible end to the conflict.
The American Empire has its mandate to “protect” its foreign provinces (I mean allies, or non-allies in some cases), whether they are Japan, South Korea, Israel, Latvia, Poland, Vietnam, or Ukraine. This means that simulations to attack China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran must be conducted with allied states in case one of them acts contrary to the arbitrary global conduct established by the United States government. Obviously, the four aforementioned enemies of the United States are aware that an attack on the territory of an American ally would lead to a large-scale war or the annihilation of their governments, so such an attack is very unlikely, but hey, let’s keep provoking them and see what happens. Playing poker in global politics is fun. Let’s not let the risk of nuclear war deter us from pulling our weight around the world. The American people will not mind if their country becomes the target of massive explosions. Who’s betting on the American government to pull us through this?
If you found this blog to be interesting and would like to read my book, please check out The Global Bully.
As most people who even follow the news casually are aware, the United States government does not take kindly to Kim Jong-un’s ballistic missile tests and rants about American imperialism, but if we are to end the conflict diplomatically, we do need to see things from the North Korean government’s perspective. Otherwise, arrogance and ignorance can lead to some pretty bad consequences. Let’s take a ride on Memory Lane and hope that we do not end up on Nuclear War Boulevard.
After Japan’s surrender at the end of World War II, Korea was divided up into two administered zones, one run by the United States and the other occupied by the Soviet Union, until a unified government could be established over the entire peninsula. Unification did not occur, and the Korean War was fought until 1953, but tensions between North and South Korea did not end. Even to this day, China supervises (sort of) the northern half, while the United States takes responsibility of the southern half (militarily).
Military exercises simulating attacks against the North and the never-ending American presence in the region (Japan, Australia, Philippines, and the South China Sea due to increased tension with China) are intimidating, and many other “defiant” countries in the world have expressed concern over American troops and installations in their regions of the world. Plus, China and Russia are also concerned over the anti-missile system planned to be rooted in South Korea because of possible spying on their respective countries (which is reasonable given the United States’ recent history with spying on both American citizens and other countries).
In addition to providing for South Korea’s defense, the United States has implemented economic sanctions, which have added to the hardship that the citizens there face, against the North for its ballistic missile tests and nuclear weapons capabilities. Kim is apathetic towards his people, and therefore, the sanctions have failed to curb his nuclear ambitions (or lack thereof). All these pieces of economic terrorism do is make life more difficult on the people who cannot receive the products and services that they so badly need. North Korea does not care about isolation, and it is likely that the militaristic and economic threat that the country faces from the United States will not subside.
So, what of this proposal by the Chinese foreign minister? If it were undertaken, North Korea would suspend nuclear and missile actions if the United States were willing to put a freeze on the military drills. Problem solved. We can now start to work on the problem diplomatically. Wrong! U.S. ambassador to the UN, Nickki Haley, has already expressed concern about the deal and said that North Korea needs to start behaving before a compromise can be made (apparently the United States government gets to decide what is acceptable global conduct). The excuse that will be utilized to prevent the deal appears to be that the two items on the table are unrelated (a violation of UN resolutions versus tradition). Unrelated, huh? In other words, the United States is not willing to give up anything in exchange for a possible end to the conflict.
The American Empire has its mandate to “protect” its foreign provinces (I mean allies, or non-allies in some cases), whether they are Japan, South Korea, Israel, Latvia, Poland, Vietnam, or Ukraine. This means that simulations to attack China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran must be conducted with allied states in case one of them acts contrary to the arbitrary global conduct established by the United States government. Obviously, the four aforementioned enemies of the United States are aware that an attack on the territory of an American ally would lead to a large-scale war or the annihilation of their governments, so such an attack is very unlikely, but hey, let’s keep provoking them and see what happens. Playing poker in global politics is fun. Let’s not let the risk of nuclear war deter us from pulling our weight around the world. The American people will not mind if their country becomes the target of massive explosions. Who’s betting on the American government to pull us through this?
If you found this blog to be interesting and would like to read my book, please check out The Global Bully.
February 15, 2017
President Trump, a Texas Legislator, and Seizure of Property
As Valentine’s Day comes to an end, let us discuss the love that President Trump gave to one of Texas’ legislators one week ago over the controversial civil asset forfeiture policy. After Sheriff Harold Eavenson of Rockwall County told the president that the lawmaker attempted to have a bill passed in the state’s legislature requiring suspects to be convicted of a crime before having their possessions stolen, the president’s response was cold (Cupid’s accuracy is not 100%). Although his comment about ruining the career of the legislator was made in jest, it does show the possible direction that this administration may go when it comes to law enforcement and protecting civil liberties.
People reading this may shrug off this policy as no big deal because it is supposed to hinder the activities of criminal organizations and deny them access to assets that they should not have, however, what should be discussed is the constitutional issue that arises. The problem with permitting police to seize property before a trial is that it denies the due process mandated in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment describes the process that is guaranteed for a trial, and without such procedures, the government (whether federal, state, county, or municipal) does not have the right to seize property. The government may issue warrants (under the Fourth Amendment) upon probable cause and by a civilian judge, but the warrant must specifically describe where the search is to be conducted and who or what is to be taken. Any other seizure of property violates the Constitution, and there is the potential for law enforcement to take property from innocent people.
Another aspect of this policy is the drug war in general. Not only does the government think it has the right to tell people what they may or may not consume and whether or not they can harm their own bodies, but it also spends large sums of money in attempting to enforce such laws. Plus, enacting laws on drugs only pushes the substances to the underground and turns drug-users into criminals when they do not really need to be in that category. The United States has the most people in prison of any other country in the world (almost one-quarter of the world’s prison population), with much of it being from the drug war.
Although victims of the seized property can challenge the seizure in court if it can be proven that the possessions are not related to a crime, people should not have to file civil lawsuits to get back their money, houses, or other possessions in a sort of “guilty until proven innocent” policy. This can also be seen as a money-making operation as police departments receive billions of dollars in profit from asset seizures. As Valentine’s Day passes, perhaps we should show love to any of the Republicans and Democrats who support forcing the government to convict people of a crime before becoming captivated by the property.
For more information on how the United States government uses intimidation and violence against American citizens and other countries, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
People reading this may shrug off this policy as no big deal because it is supposed to hinder the activities of criminal organizations and deny them access to assets that they should not have, however, what should be discussed is the constitutional issue that arises. The problem with permitting police to seize property before a trial is that it denies the due process mandated in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment describes the process that is guaranteed for a trial, and without such procedures, the government (whether federal, state, county, or municipal) does not have the right to seize property. The government may issue warrants (under the Fourth Amendment) upon probable cause and by a civilian judge, but the warrant must specifically describe where the search is to be conducted and who or what is to be taken. Any other seizure of property violates the Constitution, and there is the potential for law enforcement to take property from innocent people.
Another aspect of this policy is the drug war in general. Not only does the government think it has the right to tell people what they may or may not consume and whether or not they can harm their own bodies, but it also spends large sums of money in attempting to enforce such laws. Plus, enacting laws on drugs only pushes the substances to the underground and turns drug-users into criminals when they do not really need to be in that category. The United States has the most people in prison of any other country in the world (almost one-quarter of the world’s prison population), with much of it being from the drug war.
Although victims of the seized property can challenge the seizure in court if it can be proven that the possessions are not related to a crime, people should not have to file civil lawsuits to get back their money, houses, or other possessions in a sort of “guilty until proven innocent” policy. This can also be seen as a money-making operation as police departments receive billions of dollars in profit from asset seizures. As Valentine’s Day passes, perhaps we should show love to any of the Republicans and Democrats who support forcing the government to convict people of a crime before becoming captivated by the property.
For more information on how the United States government uses intimidation and violence against American citizens and other countries, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
February 8, 2017
Is Iran the Next Iraq?
Now that there is a new administration in charge of the American government, the anti-Iran rhetoric has again made its way to the headlines. It is said that Iran wants to annihilate Israel with nuclear weapons and supports terrorists and evil regimes in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. The war hawks are beating the drums of war, and an American invasion of the Persian nation has become a real possibility.
Iran’s recent decision to test ballistic missiles has been met with harsh criticism by President Trump and the issuer of notices, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Although the president’s economic sanctions placed on its enemy have not been very substantive this time around, this does show how trigger-happy the administration is and how ready it is to force Iran to abide by the set of rules created by the United States government. As I have pointed out in my book, The Global Bully, sanctions are an act of war and sometimes a precursor to invasion, as well as a retaliatory measure that does much more harm to the citizens than to the ruling class. Regardless of whether these sanctions were applied just to show the defiant country that the United States is serious about enforcing its global mandate, arrogance and intimidation have been displayed with Iran since Operation Ajax in 1953.
I have also discussed how the United States government has troops and bases all around Iran and that Iran is located in a neighborhood with several nuclear powers, and this alone may be motivation for securing updated weapons and preparing for the possible need to defend itself if Israel (a nuclear nation) or the United States (or any other country for that matter) decides to take a “preemptive strike” against its infrastructure or territory. This is not to say that Iran is a good actor around the world or that it does not instigate the United States at all, but rational leaders of any country will take actions to defend their borders. Therefore, Iran should be allowed to develop the tools that are necessary for such a task, as long as it does not utilize them outside of its borders. Whether or not Iran’s recent missile tests violate its obligations under the 2015 nuclear deal is debatable, but you can read this article and come to your own conclusion.
The Houthi attack on a Saudi ship in Yemen caused President Trump to spew more discontent at the Islamic republic, and of course, it is acceptable for the United States and Saudi Arabia to arm and support factions in the divided country, but Iran is not allowed the same privilege. There is a proxy war taking place between Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi’s government (backed by the United States and Saudi Arabia) and the Houthis (backed by Iran), and ISIS and AQAP (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) are also fighting for land. During the Bush and Obama administrations (and continued into the Trump administration), Yemen became the target of many American drone strikes (despite no declaration of war against the country by Congress). Just today, Yemen condemned Trump’s intelligence-gathering operation that occurred on January 29 due to several fatalities of civilians, and it has halted unapproved ground operations conducted by the United States (this excludes drone strikes). The government’s logic appears to be that when it kills people in other countries or manipulates other governments, there is justification, but when opposing or rival countries act in the same regions, unforgivable aggression has been committed. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to American foreign policy, where hypocrisy and failure (look at Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Libya) are considered justifications for continuing the status quo.
The United States government does not lead by example, but rather, it leads by coercion and intimidation. It is time Americans wake up to this reality and demand an end to this monstrosity that is deemed good policy by most in Washington, D.C. Will the United States invade Iran? We can only hope not. Perhaps the military-industrial complex would benefit from such a war, but we should ask whether or not it would be in the best interests of the American people. In closing, people should look at the issue of Iran ridding itself of the U.S. dollar for financial reporting and think about what happened shortly after Saddam Hussein made a similar move in 2000 (you make the call about whether or not there is a correlation) .
If you found this blog interesting or helpful in seeing a different perspective, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
Iran’s recent decision to test ballistic missiles has been met with harsh criticism by President Trump and the issuer of notices, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Although the president’s economic sanctions placed on its enemy have not been very substantive this time around, this does show how trigger-happy the administration is and how ready it is to force Iran to abide by the set of rules created by the United States government. As I have pointed out in my book, The Global Bully, sanctions are an act of war and sometimes a precursor to invasion, as well as a retaliatory measure that does much more harm to the citizens than to the ruling class. Regardless of whether these sanctions were applied just to show the defiant country that the United States is serious about enforcing its global mandate, arrogance and intimidation have been displayed with Iran since Operation Ajax in 1953.
I have also discussed how the United States government has troops and bases all around Iran and that Iran is located in a neighborhood with several nuclear powers, and this alone may be motivation for securing updated weapons and preparing for the possible need to defend itself if Israel (a nuclear nation) or the United States (or any other country for that matter) decides to take a “preemptive strike” against its infrastructure or territory. This is not to say that Iran is a good actor around the world or that it does not instigate the United States at all, but rational leaders of any country will take actions to defend their borders. Therefore, Iran should be allowed to develop the tools that are necessary for such a task, as long as it does not utilize them outside of its borders. Whether or not Iran’s recent missile tests violate its obligations under the 2015 nuclear deal is debatable, but you can read this article and come to your own conclusion.
The Houthi attack on a Saudi ship in Yemen caused President Trump to spew more discontent at the Islamic republic, and of course, it is acceptable for the United States and Saudi Arabia to arm and support factions in the divided country, but Iran is not allowed the same privilege. There is a proxy war taking place between Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi’s government (backed by the United States and Saudi Arabia) and the Houthis (backed by Iran), and ISIS and AQAP (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) are also fighting for land. During the Bush and Obama administrations (and continued into the Trump administration), Yemen became the target of many American drone strikes (despite no declaration of war against the country by Congress). Just today, Yemen condemned Trump’s intelligence-gathering operation that occurred on January 29 due to several fatalities of civilians, and it has halted unapproved ground operations conducted by the United States (this excludes drone strikes). The government’s logic appears to be that when it kills people in other countries or manipulates other governments, there is justification, but when opposing or rival countries act in the same regions, unforgivable aggression has been committed. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to American foreign policy, where hypocrisy and failure (look at Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Libya) are considered justifications for continuing the status quo.
The United States government does not lead by example, but rather, it leads by coercion and intimidation. It is time Americans wake up to this reality and demand an end to this monstrosity that is deemed good policy by most in Washington, D.C. Will the United States invade Iran? We can only hope not. Perhaps the military-industrial complex would benefit from such a war, but we should ask whether or not it would be in the best interests of the American people. In closing, people should look at the issue of Iran ridding itself of the U.S. dollar for financial reporting and think about what happened shortly after Saddam Hussein made a similar move in 2000 (you make the call about whether or not there is a correlation) .
If you found this blog interesting or helpful in seeing a different perspective, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
January 9, 2017
Obama's Farewell Gift to Russia
Is the Obama administration so eager to destroy Donald Trump’s supposed future legacy of improving relations between the United States and Russia that it needs to rush in those all-important economic sanctions that do nothing to deter the government that is targeted? When presidents leave office, they may become nervous about some of their accomplishments, or lack thereof, being replaced or shattered, but is it really in America’s best interests to risk a large-scale war with a powerful, nuclear-capable nation just because the Democrats lost the election?
President Obama’s executive edict in response to the alleged Russian hacking kicked out thirty-five Russian diplomats from the United States and attempts to punish Russia’s intelligence services for their naughty behavior, but instead of giving into the retaliatory, elementary school drama that is often associated with international politics, Russian President Vladimir Putin overruled his foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, and decided to disregard the sanctions. Waiting to see what Trump’s next move will be is prudent. At this point, the president-elect is skeptical about the American intelligence agencies’ reports, and if it comes to light that they issued false reports for partisan ends, it could mean another scandal perhaps worse than that of the preposterous Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction under the Bush administration.
In fact, John McAfee, founder of McAfee Antivirus, raised concerns about how the Russians could not have been responsible for the Democratic National Convention (DNC) hack, and Julian Assange has claimed that he did not get his information from the Russian government. Therefore, either the Russian government and Julian Assange are lying, or the American government is lying. Is it really out of the realm of possibility for the United States government to mislead the American people? Is this whole thing just anti-Russia propaganda?
Plus, even if Russia did leak the emails, does the United States have any room to speak? First of all, the United States uses cyber warfare on a regular basis (one such example is the Stuxnet virus released on Iranian facilities), and even President Obama has admitted that countries do this to each other. Secondly, Russia has accused the United States of influencing their elections. The American government has also been responsible for involving itself in other foreign elections, and even worse, it has overthrown numerous governments that it dislikes (from Guatemala and Panama to Iran and Libya to Indonesia).
It is a bit hypocritical for President Obama and other American officials to condemn this type of action. Regardless, the only data that has likely been released is embarrassing information on the Clinton campaign. Now that Clinton lost the election, it is time to look for someone or something to blame. So, here’s an idea: let us blame Russia for the loss, even if it means bringing the United States closer to conflict with another powerful nation. As President Obama packs up his things and prepares to leave the American castle, one thing that can be expected in his farewell address is more anti-Russia rhetoric.
Relations between Russia and the United States have been rocky over the last several years, and American propagandists will blame that on Russia’s interventions in Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia), Transnistria, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea (without considering the wishes of the people who live in those places), in conjunction with Russian deployments in Kaliningrad and violations of NATO’s airspace (a response to an ever-expanding American presence in the region). However, Americans should look at the United States’ expansion of NATO eastward, the deployment of missiles and troops in Eastern Europe (on Russia’s borders), and overall intimidation of the Russian Federation. We would feel uncomfortable if Russia had troops and missiles stationed in Canada and Mexico and was spreading anti-American propaganda.
For more information on how the United States government uses violence and intimidation both internationally and domestically, please check out my book, The Global Bully: How the United States Government Has Supported and Committed Acts of Terrorism from the Cold War to Today or my link.
President Obama’s executive edict in response to the alleged Russian hacking kicked out thirty-five Russian diplomats from the United States and attempts to punish Russia’s intelligence services for their naughty behavior, but instead of giving into the retaliatory, elementary school drama that is often associated with international politics, Russian President Vladimir Putin overruled his foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, and decided to disregard the sanctions. Waiting to see what Trump’s next move will be is prudent. At this point, the president-elect is skeptical about the American intelligence agencies’ reports, and if it comes to light that they issued false reports for partisan ends, it could mean another scandal perhaps worse than that of the preposterous Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction under the Bush administration.
In fact, John McAfee, founder of McAfee Antivirus, raised concerns about how the Russians could not have been responsible for the Democratic National Convention (DNC) hack, and Julian Assange has claimed that he did not get his information from the Russian government. Therefore, either the Russian government and Julian Assange are lying, or the American government is lying. Is it really out of the realm of possibility for the United States government to mislead the American people? Is this whole thing just anti-Russia propaganda?
Plus, even if Russia did leak the emails, does the United States have any room to speak? First of all, the United States uses cyber warfare on a regular basis (one such example is the Stuxnet virus released on Iranian facilities), and even President Obama has admitted that countries do this to each other. Secondly, Russia has accused the United States of influencing their elections. The American government has also been responsible for involving itself in other foreign elections, and even worse, it has overthrown numerous governments that it dislikes (from Guatemala and Panama to Iran and Libya to Indonesia).
It is a bit hypocritical for President Obama and other American officials to condemn this type of action. Regardless, the only data that has likely been released is embarrassing information on the Clinton campaign. Now that Clinton lost the election, it is time to look for someone or something to blame. So, here’s an idea: let us blame Russia for the loss, even if it means bringing the United States closer to conflict with another powerful nation. As President Obama packs up his things and prepares to leave the American castle, one thing that can be expected in his farewell address is more anti-Russia rhetoric.
Relations between Russia and the United States have been rocky over the last several years, and American propagandists will blame that on Russia’s interventions in Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia), Transnistria, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea (without considering the wishes of the people who live in those places), in conjunction with Russian deployments in Kaliningrad and violations of NATO’s airspace (a response to an ever-expanding American presence in the region). However, Americans should look at the United States’ expansion of NATO eastward, the deployment of missiles and troops in Eastern Europe (on Russia’s borders), and overall intimidation of the Russian Federation. We would feel uncomfortable if Russia had troops and missiles stationed in Canada and Mexico and was spreading anti-American propaganda.
For more information on how the United States government uses violence and intimidation both internationally and domestically, please check out my book, The Global Bully: How the United States Government Has Supported and Committed Acts of Terrorism from the Cold War to Today or my link.
