Things are awful quite...

What's going on with the "Arab Spring" everyone has been shouting about? Egypt got rid of their leader and handed everything over to the military but since then things have been pretty quite. No stories about new political parties vying to fill the void and no real confirmation on when the elections will happen. How about the economy and employment situation? Has any improvements been instituted yet? 

Tunisia, who started the revolution ball rooling has also been quite. The job situation fueled the rebellion but there has been no word about any improvements or new policies implemented to meet the protesters damands. The only thing they have accomplished is getting rid of the old leader. Shouldn't we be hearing about the progress in implmenting new policies for employment and the economy?

Libya is in the middle of a full fledged civil war so I don't expect anyhting to change there until the country is totally destroyed and they have nothing left to fight over. France is getting the opportunity to test their weapon systems in a realtime environment while the US is trying to remain in the background except when an operation calls for the kind of skills the other members of NATO do not possess.

Syria is busy killing everyone protesting the government with support from Iran and no one is paying attention in the UN.

Bahrain had to get support from Saudi Arabia to put down the protests in that country but the conflict in Bahrain was the work of Iran. Iran is doing everything they can to destablize the country along the Sunni-Shia boundries. Fortunately it looks like the Bahrain government has things under control.

This whole "Arab Spring" has so far been nothing but a sloganeering and alot of wishful thinking. People are braying about the new middle east but frankly I don't see any improvements being suggested let alone enacted. It's easy to man the barricades and shout slogans while fireing AK-47s in the air. Before you depose a government you probably should have a plan on what you intend to do once the government collapses. As with anything it's the details that matter not the bluster.

Israel is doing what they always do and that is keeping a sharp eye on their boarders. When people tried to swarm Israels borders last week from Syria, Egypt, Gaza, and the West bank to protest the 1948 war where Israel kicked their asses and claimed the land gained after fighting a defensive war. The Arabs are still screaming that it's not fair and they basically want a do ever. As far as the Arab citizens go they actually believe they won the 73 war since all the Arab countries involved have never published anything but lies and propaganda to their citizens. Even their school text books claim they won the war and that Israel attacked them. This blatant type of indoctrination is at the root of all the current problems between Israel and the Arabs. The Arabs also want to ignore the fact that they attacked Israel in 1973 and lost even more land after Israel cleaned their clocks. They basically want the land they lost in 3 wars of aggression and they have not even acknowledged this fact let alone offer an apology.  People have tried to say the most recent actions against Israel was a revolution along the lines of the others but none of the other countries going through the upheavals involved invading another country.

The US is being quite and pretty much neutral across the board waiting for the end game when they will approach the winners of these conflicts. Good strategy if you ask me.

Taking out Osama has also kept things interesting. The Pakistan ISI looks weak and ineffective because Osama was holed up across the street from their military academy for 5 years without them knowing. Of course the ISI could have known all along and chose not to reveal the fact but they certainly can't publicize this information to show the world they are not idiots. Pakistan was punked by the US and their military base was attacked over the weekend by the Taliban making the military look like incompetent boobs and this has raised the question on whether they can secure their nuclear weapons. Pakistan is also getting ready to lose the monetary support the US is handing out because of their mistakes. It's funny, Pakistan made a big deal of getting China to build a new deep water port thus sending the US a message that they have friends else where, however the Chinese government announced they had never been approached for this deal and they certainly have not entered into any agreement with Pakistan in this matter.

It's Getting Unbearable...

I don't know why I am so upset about the events happening in the middle east and it's relationship with Israel but I am. I am neither Jewish or of Arab descent so I really don't know why the current events surrounding these issues bother me. Masses of people from all over the world have abandoned reality and created a make believe narrative that will ultimately result in large scale death and destruction. I am dumbfounded when I see people who are supposed to be scholars re-writing history to support thier predetermined opinions on how Israel should behave. Even the most well know facts are being replaced by people who will wake up one day and say "my god what have I done?" . Some basic facts:

• Israel was home to both Arab and Jewish populations. FACT
• Israel became a safe haven for Jews when large numbers of them were driven out of the other middle east countries. FACT
• Israel also offered Europe's remaining Jewish citizens after WW2 a safe place to live. FACT
• I know the holocaust was 65 years ago but does that really matter? The holocaust should be held up for all time as an example of the level of depravity human beings are capable of descending into. FACT/OPINION
• The Jews who survived the holocaust were traumatized and fearful of everyone. They weren't the only traumatized victims coming out of that war by a long shot but they were victimized by one of the modern, smartest, and civilized societies at that time. They didn't settle for taking them out back and shooting them in the head. No, the Germans applied there well known engineering talents to make sure the killings were as efficient as possible. FACT
• In 1948 the land known as Palestine was actually part of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.
• The UN partition plan to re-defined the new borders was accepted by Israel but not by the Arabs. FACT
• 5 Arab countries attacked Israel in an all out offensive war. They lost. FACT
• Israel occupied territory as a result of the war. FACT
• The Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians disavowed responsibility for the land lost and declared the occupied territory as Palestine even though the Arabs never agreed to the partitioning plan before they attacked.  FACT
•  Palestine was the mechanism put in place to give the Arabs something which they could attack Israel with. FACT
• In 1967 Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and the Saudi Arabians built up their military forces aided by the USSR in a plan to attack Israel and claim the entire area Jew free. Israel countered before the Arab armies attacked. But make no mistake the Arabs were going to attack but their incompetent leaders were poor military planners. The Arabs lost and as a result Israel occupied more land to create a larger and more defensive posture in which to fight off future attacks. FACT/OPINION
• In 1973 the Arabs once again  attacked Israel without warning. FACT 
• The Arabs were supplied with the latest weapon systems of the day by the USSR. This included Sanger wire guided anti-tank missiles, infrared night scopes for their tanks, and the most advanced SAM systems of the time period. They also outnumbered the Israeli's 7 to 1 in tanks and 8 to 1 in number of soldiers. And they once again lost and Israel ended up occupying more land. FACT
• Israel returned the Sinai territory to Egypt after the Egyptian leader agreed to recognise Israel as a state and declare peaceful relations between both countries. This arrangement has lasted 45 years but is in danger of being discarded by recent events. FACT
• The land Israel occupied as a result of these wars have mimicked the time honored way of state building used by every country of the planet. FACT
• Factions in the Middle East have succinctly said that they seek nothing less than the destruction of Israel. They proclaim this often and loudly with no room for ambiguity. FACT
• Israel will never be destroyed. They have the ultimate weapons to initiate a devastating attack on every country in the world who would try to force the issue. It would be a pyrrhic battle in which no winners will emerge from but I have no doubt that the Israelis would go down in flames and take all of their antagonists with them before they could be forced to abandon their state. FACT/OPINION

If Israel's antagonists could accept or acknowledge any of these FACTS it would go a long way in solving the outstanding issues. Every thing I have listed as FACT is true. If someone reads this and disagree please explain why I am wrong.

TBC...

Continued Madness...

I have not posted any thing new in a while because frankly there has not been much worth talking about. The same ole tripe is being spewed around the Internet international forums and commentaries. But I am itching to put something in writing so I can clear my head and move on. Some of the recent subjects that have caught my attention are:

• The US Congressional leaders have failed miserably in discharging the duties they were elected to perform.Period. 
•  All parties deserve an equal amount of the blame. The recent budget fight highlighted their massive failures in managing the countries affairs. I wish the US Constitution allowed for the citizens to call for a popular vote of no confidence that can force early elections to replace those currently holding their positions.  A simple Yes or No ballot with a 2 week advance warning to cut down the amount of time the incumbents will have for campaigning. Leaving incompetents to finish their terms just gives them more time to screw things up. I believe this type of voting procedure would also force incumbents to do a better job knowing they can be replaced anytime by the electorate.
• Some of the more egregious decisions have been the adding of anti-choice provisions to the budget debates and carelessness with proposals involving cuts in Medicare.
• If cuts do need to made in the Medicare program they should be approached in a more forthright manner that does not panic those who depend on that service.
• Tax payers have been paying the Medicare tax in their wages since before I was born and they deserve a government who can take that money and ensure a benefit to those paying for it.
• Medicare can also be a good tool to lower the costs associated with health care. Health care delivery organizations can negotiate for cost reductions or Medicare could ban any organization from receiving and treating people using Medicare. This is especially effective when dealing with individuals or small groups of health care providers. Doctors have  used this same negotiating strategy with the HMO's and PPO's by forming groups of doctors into billing consortium's who would not accept particular HMO or PPO patients without negotiating fees they found acceptable. I actually developed a computer system in the early 90's that supported these types of operations. The government has the leverage to lower the cost of health care but they need to use it and place the public's interest first without regard to the health care special interests groups which always seem to get what they want.
• How long will the US last if our leaders are so unwilling to fulfill their obligations and put the people that represent first.? Our current political parties do nothing but attack each other relentlessly on every single issue. In our system of government their should be a whole set of issues and problems that the parties could find a middle ground on and leave the extremist positions to the fringe but today they practice the opposite.
• It's time for our military to leave the middle-east. There is nothing for the US to gain in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Keeping a good watch and leaving a couple of drones in the afflicted areas in case they are needed. The drone strategy has been the most successful tool in the fight against the extremists. They walk around looking at the sky wondering if they are next. They can not use any modern communication methods without being tracked so that will hamper their organizational efforts.
• The next time a terrorist act is carried out on US citizens the response should be brutal and immediate to those responsible.  Just like Israel's responses when attacked. The US has the capability to kill, maim, or just blowup anyone in the world without the use of ground troops and all of the associated costs of full wartime deployments. Terrorists will continue their attempts to attack and they might yet succeed at anytime but that is a manageable risk. The world is just to big to police constantly alone with wavering or non-existing support from our "allies" and we should accept that. 
• The US needs to stop worrying about what other countries think and say about the US. Most of it is bullshit. Many of the people complaining would absolutely kill for a visa to the US so they can go to the US. The US is populated by people who left behind their shit hole countries to find a better life and the majority of them have found it.
• We need to tackle the illegal immigration issue in the country. When US courts start listening to advice and complaints from the Mexican President we need to respond with a question of our own. Why are people desperate to leave Mexico and shouldn't the President of Mexico be doing something about the reason the people want to leave Mexico. And in a follow up we should ask them how they deal with illegal immigration on their southern border. They guard their border and deal harshly with people they catch coming into the country illegally.

Support...

I need to articulate some of my current thoughts on various topics.

1. I am a supporter of Israel because of the shrill denunciations and lies spread around the world by it's opponents.
2. I support the Freedom of Choice in the abortion debate and abortion issues have no buisness being injected into the budget fight.
3. I support neither the democrats or republicans that run the US. All they do is posture and compaign 24/7 totally ignoring the job they were elected to. If they were in the private sector I would fire them all.
4. I support bringing all US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan home and limiting continued interaction with either of their governments. Governments who were giving a chance re-build their countries without obstacles like Sadamm Hussein and the Taliban.
5. I support regulation in the private sector that require companies to give US citizens first grab at jobs and decreasing the number of H1-B visas.
6. I support adding small tariffs on imports from countries that erect barriers to US participation in their economies.
7. I support toal non-intervention on other countries problems no matter what. If it doesn't effect the US directly or compromise security.
8. I support aggressive government insentives for companies creating new energy sources which lower the US depedance on oil.

And life goes on...

It's been a couple of weeks since my last post but it hardly matters since the world situation in general have been nothing new. However, there are a few things that have crossed my mind and provoking comment.

• The situation in Libya has been a real mess compared to the revolts in the other middle-east and Africa states. The UN agreed to provide air cover for the rebels and it has only been partially effective and I doubt the rebels will prevail. The interesting part will be to see how Qaddafi deals with all of the countries who voted to remove him from power.
• I don't understand why the Presidents and leaders that are being asked to give up power have not done so voluntarily? All of the leaders in question have been in power for 20 years or more. Why don't they just grant themselves a generous retirement package and leave all the turmoil to someone else? 
• You could of heard a pin drop when the UN, Arab League, and French agreed to support a no-fly zone in Libya and the US pretty much stayed quite in the background.  After the UN resolution was passed the countries who voted fro it realized they did not have the means to enforce the no-fly zone. Any attempt they tried to make without the US would become a bloody mess. Without the US Qaddafi's air-defense system would have been much harder to neutralize. Most of the participating countries only had fighters that are not tremendously effective on ground targets. The US provided A-10's and gun ships that are specifically built to attack ground targets. The US also supplied the air traffic AWACS needed to run an air war. The other countries could have eventually succeeded but they would have taken a lot more damage then they have.
• The Libyan mess has also shown the sheer idiocy of the people who criticize US actions around the world. They rage about Qaddafi's brutality but seemed perfectly willing to accuse Saddam Hussein's brutality or the Taliban's enlightened rule. The same people clamoring for the US to stop becoming involved in other countries affairs are castigating it now for not getting involved more in places like Bahrain and Yemen. I wish they could make up their mind or shut up.

And the winner is ...

Something short to vent my frustration over the number of idiots participating in online discussions or the comment threads for posted stories. CNN is a top information provider. I won't vouch for the quality of information they pump out but the organization itself is highly visible.  The feedback discussions on their website are filled with an over abundance of liars, trolls, and outright idiots. For every intelligent and on topic comment there are 50 comments that get posted by people with an IQ of 50.  The web is polluted with such missives but the ratio of good versus bad on the CNN site is overwhelming. End of rant.

Consequences of Hate...

Well it looks like all the years of US bashing are finally bearing fruit. 90% of the complaints directed toward the US have been unsubstantiated  facts and out right propaganda. Lately it's been fashionable to claim that the US created and controlled the governments currently going through some difficulties. I call BS on this. During the cold war the US options basically came down to supporting anyone who was against the USSR. During the cold war the US was often blackmailed by those small country leaders who played the US and USSR against one another to gain US support. If the US couldn't oblige the USSR certainly would have provided the support.The US has always needed someone stable they could work with in country to country relations. It is the US governments responsibility to work on behalf of the US citizens to ensure and it's safety and prosperity . The well being of any other country has always been secondary. The US has been looking out for number 1 just like every other country on the planet looks after their own. The US prizes stability above all else. It is the citizens of a country who are most responsible for their circumtances. The countries currently in upheaval have always had the option of overthrowing their governments. Of course a lot of people will most certainly be killed but if the government is so bad sacrifices will need to be made. The citizens of any country greatly outnumber any governments military. With the easy availability of weapons those who want to rebel have the means. Iran used mass suicide charges using their citizens and even their children to fight off Iraq and it worked. Where their is the will there are always means.

However those who have been the loudest complainers are now castigating the US for not helping the rebel groups in Libya. Their rational for getting the US involved is to remove Libya's current government. They have proclaimed Qaddafi a vicious dictator who is killing the countries citizens. Now I have pretty much the same opinion Qaddafi but I see no reason the US needs to do anything. The same people calling for US intervention in Libya never seemed to be able to portray Saadam Hussien in the same light and called the US removal of him a "illegal war" and regime change was an unjust method. So this time around it looks like the US is going to heed their advice and this will guarantee the rebels will lose and Qaddafi will remain. This time the US was content on letting the UN work on the problem. It took the UN 3 weeks to make a decision and in that time Qaddafi's forces are defeating the rebels. The missile attacks and arial based attacks are now bombing military resources to slow down the defeat of the rebels. Tese actions are only going to slow down but not stop Qaddafi from putting down the rebels. There isn't a country in the world with the balls to actually send troops into the country to help the rebels defeat Qaddafi on the ground. Of course the US has demonstrated on more than one occasion that it has both the means and willingness to enter into such situations with any hope of success but have been castigated for years for our efforts. A lot of countries participating in the UN response didn't expect the US to defer to the UN and the Arab League and wait around until those groups made a decision. This is only a small example of what is going to happen in the future. The hate and lies constantly hurled against the US has started making US involvement in situations like this politically unsupportable by the US citizens. The absence or reduced presence of US power is not going to be kind to any who seek to improve their society. In fact the autocrats and dictatorial governments will become stronger and be harder to topple in the future.  

First Step...

One of the most popular critiques hurled against the US is that the country is an Empire or Imperial in nature.  This argument is then used as the base fact to support a wide range of other complaints against the US. If the truth is to be attained we will first need to expose this nonsense before continuing on to addressing other concerns and complaints. However, by definition and characteristics the US is not and has never been an Empire.

Many people assume that America is already an empire by being the world's only superpower, by virtue of its military supremacy, economic power, global influence, technological prowess, and world-wide alliances. The US can reasonably described as a hegemony but that status was only achieved over a long time period with the cooperation of a whole lot of other countries and a lot of luck. It was mainly then world spanning wars of the 40's and 50's that enabled the US to rise above others in the global hierarchy. 

The US political system is volatile. The presidential term limits alone create turnover after only 4 or 8 years and that is not enough time to apply an integrated and dominate foreign policy consistency. Every turnover of power presents a situation where those now in charge do not support all of the previous administrations policies. Even small changes can derail the countries foreign policy focus.

The Empire or Imperial descriptions are not correct. The US is often attacked because of it's military actions. The US is accused of warring for oil resources and in one sense they are. It is critical to the US as well as a whole lot of other countries that the oil continue to be distributed fairly across the globe. The US could have seized the oil resources in either Iraq or Kuwait by virtue of it's military strength but did not. Oil is sold at a market price that the producer countries can effect to their benefit thus allowing them to create great wealth for both the producer country and it's peoples but a lot of these governments never let any of that wealth to help it's impoverished people. These countries could be some of the most successful on the planet but the are not due to the type of rulers in that part of the world.

There have also been complaints about Western corporations stealing the oil. Most of the oil producing countries would still be barren if not foe these western countries who built the infrastructure needed to extract the oil in the first place. However, once everything was set up and running smoothly these countries "nationalized" all corporate assets with little or no compensation to those who lost their assets. If the oil producing countries are not careful they could find someone else willing to "Globalize" out the oil infrastructure from beneath them if the oil supply becomes unreliable due the the incompetence of the governments involved.

It's Always Something....

It seems that a large number of people in the world believe the US is somehow on the verge of collapsing or losing it's mojo but is that really true?  If take a good look at US history you can't help but note that the US has always been burdened with both actual and potential society wrecking issues. Just some of the examples are:

1. The founding of the US started off with a Revolutionary War involving England, France, and Spain who were all striving to become imperialist powers at the time.
2. The Declaration of Independence,Bill of Rights, and basic laws were created by the wealthy land owners at the time with very little if any input from the average citizen.
3. The time period when the US was spreading across the land was filled with violence against any natives who happened to get in the way of progress.  
4. The US prosecuted and luckily survived a brutal civil war. Most people claim that slavery was the only issue but slavery was low on the list of differences. The Federal government at the time was weak and divided and those seeking wealth and power saw their chance to grab some. If the south had been victorious it would have opened the door to balkanization resulting in the present day US being divided into many countries.
5. The disparity between the wealthy elite and the regular citizens was wider than it is today by a long shot.
6. The US suffered through a paralyzing depression where over 1/3 of the country was unemployed.
7. The US fought in WW1 and WW2 which bookended the depression.
8. The US fought in the Korean war.
9. The US fought a cold war for 30+ years.
10. Severe racism was endemic in the US. From the founding of the country to modern times.  
11. The US fought in the Vietnam war.
12. The US has had to deal with hostile middle eastern countries to secure oil supplies since the 1950's. Todays on-going hostility is nothing new.
13. There were "Death to America" chants in the middle east going back to the 1950's.

The US has always been struggling with debilitating trends and actions. The politics of these issues have divided the countries citizens many times. It's hard to look back on US  history and declare these were the good times. Sometimes things were good and sometimes they were not. As the world changes around us the US will always be changing to fit in. There will be both success and failure along with ups and downs. There are no absolutes when it comes to describing a country that is so diverse. The US can not claim perfection in any way but if we are lucky the country will never stop striving for that perfection. The US is still the most popular country where many people want to immigrate to from just about every country on the planet. The most important component in the allur of the US is that the country has always offered "Hope" to those seeking to better their lives and the US is still a country where "rags to riches" stories are created on a regular basis.

On-going Mayhem...

Well the revolutions in the middle east are proceeding as expected. Egyptians are challenging the military caretaker government to start addressing their original complaints such as releasing all political prisoners, releasing all the documentation detailing the former regime's actions, and schedule an orderly plan to replace the military caretakers and allow the citizens more control over who runs the country. As far as I can tell there has been little progress and thus the people are back on the streets.

Meanwhile in Libya the entrenched government is getting stronger by the day and there is a very good chance the existing regime will not collapse. Of course the international community is busy holding meetings and avoiding the question on what support should be given to those fighting the government. A couple more days of non-action will insure that the current government can finish their pogrom and resume control over the country.

In both of these conflicts the people pushing for change really have no idea what type of government they want to replace the old with. These seemingly spontaneous rebellions have all been about removing the current governments with little thought about how to create and organize a workable replacement government. The longer the opposition groups argue and fight amongst themselves the faster their countries will continue a descent into chaos. You just need to look at how Iraq has utterly failed to take advantage of having their former despised leadership eliminated and given a chance to start over. Make no mistake the US accomplished their military objectives in removing the former government. It was never the military responsibility to organize a replacement government. You would think with all of the suffering the Iraqis have dealt with would motivate some good faith efforts by their citizens in rebuilding their country but they are wasting their opportunity to do this. Same thing with Afghanistan. The Taliban government was shown the door and the Afghans have failed to take advantage of that.  In Egypt the former government was kept in power with strong military support and now the military has managed to eliminate the middle man and take all the power for themselves. The Lybian opposition is comprised of different tribal groups that hate each other and fight amongst themselves which will guarantee that a common government never gets implemented. The whole country is on the verge of being "balkanized" and everyone knows how well that type of governing usually works. 

  More later...

Wonders never cease...

It has taken a long time but someone has finally blamed Al-queda for the violent uprisings in Libya. The Libyan "Leader" himself says it is Al-queda who is causing all the trouble. Normally it is the US and possibly Israel who get blamed for these types of problems. If you can overlook the small fact that the Libyan leader is currently killing all the protesters he can find you can almost give him an attaboy.

The thing that has bothered me most about our "War on Terror" is the total lack of people who are willing to place any blame on Al-queda itself and instead save all their vitriol for the people trying to fight Al-queda. I don't subscribe to the Bush policy of "You are either with us or against us" argument but it would be nice for those who are busy criticizing the US leaders and policies to at least make an token attempt to put some of the responsibility on the terrorists whose actions have created the need for the current US policies.

In the past it was advertised that there would be no negotiating with terrorists because it validates the terrorists violence and if you start negotiating that will only legitimize and increase the chance of creating more terrorist actions in the future. This policy is similiar to the way law enforcement agencies do not pay ransoms to kidnappers because if they did the kidnappers would continue their actions to enhance thier revenue stream. (In certain cases ransom has been paid either by the family or other 3rd parties so the law enforcers can at least claim they did not violate their official policy.)  The problem today with terrorism is that from the very begining their have been a substantial amount of people who justify the terrorists actions by placing blame on the US or other international governments that have taken up arms.

On 9/11 the towers were still smoking when people started validating the terrorist actions by blaming US policy. As long as this type of behavior continues terrorism will continue. If the international community could form an united front against terrorism the problem could be dealt with. Instead countries have quietly mouthed standard condemnations and then used the terrorist actions to challenge US policy instead of condeming the terrorists actions. Those who abhore violence and warfare the most are the ones who are strengthing the terrorists hand by only critizing those who are actually fighting the terrorists. It is realpolitic gone amok and assures that the violence will continue into the future.

If the international community could have agreed unanimously that Sadam Hussien needed to be removed there would never have been a reason to invade Iraq a second time. There were countries who approved the UN declarations but when they were violated they did not have the will to enforce their own resolutions. By being unwilling to enforce their resolutions they make all of their resolutions worthless and we might as well as disband the UN or at least move it somewhere beside New York.Those people calling the the Iraq war "illegal" are idiots. Iraq signed a surrender after the first war and did not meet the terms of that surrender. That fact alone makes the war more than "legal". By not enforcing the surrender terms what use are they in the first place? The countries who fought hardest against the  war were also the ones that gave Sadaam some hope that he could continue his actions without any fear or consequences. I think what upset people most was the fact that Bush had the will to basically tell the UN to get bent and proceeded with his actions. Bush did the one thing that all of the political leaders in the world hate to do and that is he made a firm and unequivical decision based on what he thought was right instead of being overly concerned with the political hystaria that followed. His decision, like any decision, could be right or it could be wrong but he still had the guts to make it. There were also those countries who were busy taking kickbacks on the Iraqi oil program that was originally designed to funnel money to the Iraqi civilians. And those countries working on oil contracts with the Iraqi government certainly did not want a war to interfere with their operations. It has always annoyed me when people claim the US was in the war for oil when in fact the US does not import any oil from Iraq and there are no US corporations that were awarded oil contracts in Iraq either before or after the war. All of those contracts went to European countries.

The same thing is happening today in Iran. The sanctions against Iran are causing internal problems and might acheive their intended results but there are some countries who violate the sanctions and provide Iran with those items and services being denied in the sanctions. Just a small group of dissenting countries are enough to convince the Iranian leaders that the UN sanctions can not hurt them and they can continue their current policies regardless. All the authoritive leaders who are currently trashing international norms using violence or warfare only need a small sliver of hope that not everyone is against them and this hope will empower them until the very end.   

Unless Earth gets invaded by aliens I seriously doubt that the international community would ever see a reason to truely work together to solve some of our problems.

What is this Freedom Everyone Is Shouting About?

It seems that you can't turn the TV on or surf the net without seeing people running around screaming "We want Freedom!".  Are they currently locked in a cage? And if they are in cage who is responsible for putting them there in the first place? Is it the governments they have slavishly acquiesced to for over 60+ years? Or maybe it's  the US who has locked them down? After all when anything bad.happens it's always been safe to blame the US because the likely hood of getting your teeth smashed in is considerably less when bad mouthing someone like the US. It's definitely less risky than bad mouthing Iran. And speaking of Iran they seem to be in an awkward position at the moment. While the countries around them are having some political problems Iran has been busy arresting and killing anyone who might try to implement similar political changes in Iran. Of course they still have the old time tested strategy of blaming the US and Israel for all the trouble but that strategy is getting pretty thin.

Personally I think the responsible party for all of this unrest is the people themselves. The danger they face to today for fighting their governments is no more than it was 60+ years ago. So the question is why they let the situation continue for so long because of their inaction. Maybe they should have directed some of their passion into creating a better government and society for themselves instead of spending all their energy on their weekly "Death To America" rallies.

I hope it all works out for the people looking to change their government but I am very pessimistic about any real change happening. Until those fighting to remove their existing governments decide what they are going to replace it with the question will remain unanswered.

Conflicting Arguments...

It seems that the citizen uprisings in Egypt and the middle-east is causing a great amount of contradicting statements. About the only thing everyone agrees on is that the US is somehow responsible for all the trouble. The people supporting this opinion seem to have no problem with contradicting statements they utter.

The US is blamed with keeping Mubarak in power in Egypt which is nonsense. The US interaction with the Mubarak government was first and foremost meant to help support US policies in the region. There is not a single country in the world that does not seek the same types of relationships to support their own policies. The weaker countries protect themselves by playing the major powers off one another.  (ie. If the US won't agree to X then we can always ask the Soviet Union to give us X.) And this is exactly what Egypt and a great deal of other countries have done over the years. Egypt was a Soviet client state before the US really came onto the scene. As a matter of fact the Egyptians and other Arab countries were all armed with Soviet weapon systems.  The people laying all the blame on the US for "allowing Mubarak" to rule for so long completely contradicts the very same groups position on regime change. When the US went into Iraq and forced a regime change the world howled at the US interference but today the same group is complaining that the US didn't do the same thing in Egypt! So which is it? Regime change or non-intervention? This is a perfect example of damned if you do damned if you don't and frankly I am starting to get annoyed and depressed that people don't recognize this pattern. 

The party responsible for keeping Mubarak in power is the Egyptians themselves. Why didn't they stage these protests 25 years ago, 10 years ago or 5 Years ago if things were so bad? It's much easier to blame someone else instead of recognizing your own culpability in the type of world you end up living in and today the US is every ones patsy in this blame game.

I hope the situation in Egypt stabilizes and the people get what they want but I fear that they will get something different but I seriously doubt it will end up be any different than Mubarak's government. For now the military has taken control but it remains to be seen if they will be willing to step down in the near future. Mubarak operated his country for 30 years under a constant state of emergency which allowed him to basically do whatever he wanted to do in the cause of national security.  What's keeping the military from doing the same thing?

The Most Dangerous Right...

The right of "Freedom of Speech" that our constitution provides for is both one of the most necessary and one of the most dangerous "rights" in the book. The positive side is obvious in the extreme but the dangerous side is sometimes hard to define. The most recognized argument defining the limits on the freedom of speech is the ever popular example of  "You cannot yell Fire in a crowded theater!" I guess this example is suppose to point out that freedom of speech does not cover inciting dangerous or potentially dangerous actions. Personally I think that using this example is a gross misrepresentation of the 1st Amendment. The speech being protected today is doing nothing but creating dangerous situations that far surpass yelling fire in a theater.  The 1st Amendment is constantly used as a defense against anybody who speaks out against the content of someone else's speech.  The 1st Amendment is suppose to empower the citizenry to criticise the government without any fear of repercussions.  Repercussions such as preventing the citizenry to freely communicating with one another or subjecting citizens to arrest for speaking out. As an example just look at the recent Egyptian revolution. The government did their best to shutdown Internet access and quite a few people were jailed,beaten, and killed for speaking out. However no matter how necessary,beneficial, and powerful the 1st Amendment is it is also one of the main causes of the conflicts surrounding us today. The reason for this that it seems no one is ever willing to take responsibility for the actions caused by their statements. We are being constantly inundated with ridiculous propaganda, outright lies, and all types of manipulative information. It is getting so bad that I am honestly starting to wonder how long our civilization will last under this onslaught of "Free Speech". People have used the 1st Amendment to re-write history, incite violence, and purposely manipulate others.   If we could only devise a way to ensure that those using the freedom of speech have an IQ above room tempature.

Root of Insanity...

I think I have finally run across one of the most despicable websites on the Internet. Never before have I seen a collection of seemingly educated people living in alternate universe totally separated from reality. The site  http://www.veteranstoday.com  has a benign sounding name but the site is an example of one of the main sources of societal deconstruction using fabricated facts, unfounded innuendo, and unfettered BS. Everything from Holocaust denial to advocating the complete and total destruction of the United States and it's people. The commentary on this sight is so preposterous that I thought it was a parody site until I looked at it a little closer. This is the last time I will ever mention this site.

The Truth and Nothing But the Truth... Part2

Trying to compare current events against similiar events in the past can lead to some serious misunderstandings and any actions based on these understandings can lead to even more trouble. There are some popular comparisons that people like to use when debating the current state of international relations. The problem with some of these comparisons is that the events in the past have been painted with broad brush strokes and erroneous assumptions not based on fact have become "common knowledge". The problem with comparing current events against those in the past is that the severe lack of context often results in false or misleading comparsions. Here is an example that I think shows the problem of evaluating history without putting the events into there proper context:

1.  I believe there is a popular misconception that prior to WW2 the US was an isolationist country. The facts at the time really do not support that assessment, at least not using today's definition. The US was very much engaged with most of the international community in the pursuit of better trade relations and more influence.  Looking back at that time period requires you to first understand and accept the fact that at the time the US was NOT a world leader in anything and you need to use that context when evaluating the facts. Our military was anemic at best, the nation was suffering through the Great Depression, the gap between rich and poor was more pronounced than today, and the nation as a whole was not that mature when compared against the European countries at that time. The US international footprint was relatively small at the time but not because of choice but because the US was really just getting started as a nation. 
2. The US resistance to entering WW2 was mostly the result of it's prior involvement in WW1. The average US citizens had seen no benefits from it's WW1 involvement. According to the average citizens the only people who gained anything from WW1 was the US munition companies. (some things never change).  The only thing the average folks did see was the dead and injured who returned from the war without anything to show for the effort. Also in the late 1800's and early 1900's the US was still a country of immigrants. The majority of immigrants came to the US with nothing but the clothes on their backs to escape the European madhouse and really saw no real reason they should care about what was happening in the countries they left behind.
3. Today FDR is remembered as one the greatest US Presidents ever. However, at the time of his first and second terms he performed actions that skirted legality by a wide margin and displayed a gigantic helping of chutzpa when taking those actions he deemed necessary. He was also a member of the wealthy"elitist" class and made a fortune working on Wall Street before becoming president. Very similiar to the backgrounds of more recent presidents.  He worked behind the scenes and against the very clear wishes of Congress (both parties) and the countries citizens to aid Churchill in their war with Germany. His lend lease program combined with his decision to expand the shipping security zone to protect convoys to England clearly violated the Neutrality Act Congress had passed but he did it anyway. Anyone with half a brain at the time could see he was counting on using a German attack on an American ship to give him an excuse to join the war. He was very nearly was brought up on impeachment charges because of these actions and he was accused of getting the US involved in an "illegal war".  He also "broke the law" when he ordered wire taps on suspected spies after Congress had specifically passed a law preventing this very action but FDR argued the law didn't apply to issues related to national security and ordered it anyway. Actually he didn't really even argue he just wrote a directive and gave it to the Secretary of State to enforce. Is any of this starting to sound familiar? FDR barely won a second term. His opponent at the time was a guy named Wilkey who ran on a strict and very popular no war platform. The acrimony and hostility between the political parties were just as bad if not worse than they are today and the campaign was brutal. The vote was close but FDR won and afterwards he appointed Wilkey, one of his greatest critics, to the position of VP and sent him to Europe to meet with Churchill and to look at the war situation first hand. When Wilkey returned to the US he changed his opposition to the war and started supporting FDR policies. Only a blind and deaf person could have witnessed the carnage in Europe at the time and still argue against getting involved.
4. I just recently saw an interesting show that included some of our recent presidents offering their assessment's on FDR's presidency. They all agreed that he was an exceptional President. Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Bush 1 all agreed that sometimes the President needs to go beyond what is technically legal when it comes to protecting the countries security interests. All pretty much agreed that strict adherence to the Constitution and rule of law should not be a national death pact. I was surprised at Carter's stance on this issue.
5. At the time there were many picketing anti-war activists. They would have made today's anti-war crowd look pathetic and un-organized in comparison. Of course these anti-war activist looked like a bunch of idiots after the US citizens learned of the atrocities taking place in Europe. It took a while for word of the atrocities to become disseminated to the public at large because of the primitive communication systems of the day. They didn't have Facebook or Twitter at the time.
6. The people during this time period faced war and atrocity up close once the war was joined. The US was spared any damage to the countries infrastructure and cities but everyone did experience having to send loved ones off to war and never see them alive again. There was rationing, long work hours, and a great deal of uncertainty about how things were really progressing in the war. Today we know 5 seconds after a soilder stubs his toe on the other side of the world but back then it could take months to get any reliable information on the on-going battles. The citizens of this time knew the meaning of sacrifice and I sometimes think our current generation would be a big dissappointment to the people from that era. It won't be long to the last of this generation is gone and I sincerly hope that their sacrifices will not be forgotten because they really did change the world. The current generations contributions so far have been the iPod,SmartPhones, deadlier weapon systems, political correctness, and the Internet so we can complain about everything in real time.
7. After the war the US military and political establishment policies were a direct result of the experiences people faced in the war. The people making the policies at the time had been actual witnesses to undescribable horror and were determined to avoid that again at all cost. This raised the level of paranoia directed at the Soviet Union and served as the basis of US foreign and military policy from back then up to today. When evaluating US policies today you need to understand how it evolved. Policy for any large country is complex and once it gets going it's hard to change course. I think things have been changing but it won't happen overnight. It will take years before we see any results of changes being pushed and implemented today.
8. The US did not save the world single handed in WW2 but it helped. If FDR had not made the choices he did the US would have still entered the war at a later date but the cost in materials and lives would have been much greater. Germany, Japan, and Russia were the epitome of evil at the time and FDR was one of the first to recognize that fact and did everything he could to counter it. 50 years from now I wonder how people will look back at our current leaders and judge their actions. I would not be surprised that history ends up being kind to George Bush for his contributions in challeging the status quo of the middle eastern countries. WIthout the US's stirring up trouble in the Middle East would the citizens of the middle east be revolting against their governments today? US involvement in the region has shown the spotlight on the lives of the people in the region. Sure it's created a lot of animosity towards the US but if any country can absorb that animosity it is the US. The US is both stable and militarily secure so why not provide the focal point of peoples fear and anger if they us that fear and anger to change their lives for the better.

The Truth and Nothing But the Truth...

One of pet peeves is watching as others succumb to propaganda and bad information without question. People tend to only embrace facts that support their opinions and pre-conceived notions.  The Internet is full of bad information being advertised as the truth and it keeps getting harder to recognise the truth.
Before the Internet if you wanted to study a subject in any detail you would have relied on books. Books that provided factual information were fact checked and references included. To get a book published required the publisher to commit resources to verify the content. A publisher could not afford to publish books with mistakes and still expect to generate revenu from the book sales. Of course mistakes have made it past the fact checkers and if that occurred the publisher could issue a retraction like the Newspapers often do when they get the various verifiable facts wrong.  Today anyone can publish anything on the Internet without performing any fact checking. Once the information is in cyber-space people can use the incorrect data to formulate their opinions. In many online forums there will be someone who posts something that is not true (either by accident or on purpose) and there will be many who respond to this information as though it was the truth.  By the time you get to the end of the discussion thread the fallacy will have been reinforced. In the more biased hardcore political forums if anyone tries to interject a correction that varies with the stated information they are often out numbered by those who believe they know the truth. This is what usually starts the flame war where facts tend to be ignored just to win the ongoing debate at all costs. The drive to "win" often overshadows the facts causing conflicts.


Truth is not a right-wrong binary construct. The determine the whole truth you must consider the context in which the information is being proferred. Context can include things such as location and time. People who study history and offer up their opinions on a past event can look at the facts but totally misunderstand the truth because of their viewpoint. We live our lives in the "now". We look at the world events using our lifetime experiences as the basis of our cognitive processes when trying to understand the facts. This can be obvious or subliminal in nature but it is an important factor in how we understand the world around us. Lacking context when trying to determine the truth provides the means in which understanding can be manipulated and twisted. In today's world we are surrounded by information that has been manipulated in such a fashion and if you do not make a sincere effort to see your way around this manipulation you will never really know the real truth.

Neverending Madness...

Well things are moving along quite nicely in Egypt today. The citizenry are at each others throats and the Internet was just turned back on so everybody can see what a bloody nut house this revolution has created. About the only thing the pro and anti government activists agree on is that the US is responsible for creating this situation. It's becoming quite comforting to know that everyone always remembers the good ole US whenever they need a reason to devolve into mindless rabble. And you just know every other country in the world is loving it. All the other countries with diplomatic and business relations in Egypt get a free pass from any criticisms about their involvement with the government.  You would think that the US is the only country that has diplomatic relations with Egypt.

Countries work to create diplomatic relationships with as many countries as possible to try and create a climate of cooperation that can benefit both countries in the relationship. Even countries at each others throat work to maintain diplomatic contacts with their adversaries. The US and Soviet Union were combatants in the global political theater over the past 45 years and even at the worst of times the President and Premier as well as the lower level diplomats had instant access to one another via the "red phone".  It seemed that when it came to nuclear weapons both sides were able to drop the diplomatic pretense and talk directly to the person in charge at anytime a potential nuclear situation came up. I still think it is amazing that neither the US or the Soviet Union ever used their nuclear arsenals. It's comforting to know that no matter how corrupt or incompetent the governments may have been there was at least some sanity and commonsense applied when it came to the use of nuclear weapons. I think the world dodged a bullet in the early 50's when the US did not deploy nuclear weapons during the Korean war. Except for the bombs dropped on Japan it was probably the only time the US could have gotten away with using nuclear weapons again without the fear of a nuclear reprisal. The Soviet Union was not a major player in the Korean conflict and they were the only ones who might have been able to deploy nuclear weapons at the time and China did not have that capability. 

Diplomatic relationships are vital in the world. That's why the recent Wiki-leaked diplomatic cables could cause problems between countries. Nothing secret or surprising has surfaced in the released cables but there have been frank assessments of individuals and countries that were embarrassing and really didn't need exposing. That's also why a countries embassy grounds are considered a sovereign part of the country the embassy is representing. The host countries are responsible for providing security and services to all of the embassies in their country with the expectation that the same consideration will be applied towards their own embassies. So that being said the US and Egyptian diplomatic relations were centered around issues that both the US and Egypt thought important. The US wanted to reduce the possibility of war with Israel and wanted stability around the Suez Canal shipment routes, and they wanted someone who they could rely on in that geographical region. The Egyptians were also trying to reduce the chances of continued hostilities with Israel having lost the last 3 times they attacked Israel and they wanted special consideration from the US regarding access to trade advantages and technology. Egypt use to be a Soviet client state and relied on Soviet weapon systems that ultimately came up short against the newer Israeli and US weapons systems and Egypt wanted to upgrade.  

So it is distressing to keep hearing people denigrate the past US-Egyptian diplomatic relationship. The US is constantly being singled out as an interfering presence in other foreign governments but when the US refuses to interfere in the current Egyptian revolution they are accused of supporting a dictator. The US is accused of backing Mubarak over the past 30 years when in fact the US was only maintaining normal diplomatic relations and not trying to openly challenge the Egyptian leadership. If the US is going to be castigated on this so should every other country in world with diplomatic relationships with Egypt. Why is the US being singled out? Why has it taken the Egyptians 30 years to decide they want another leader and actually do something about it? 

I hope things work out for the Egyptians but in that region of the world they rarely do. The entire region is filled with people who have been spoon feed nothing but anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda from early childhood and taught that all their problems have been caused by the US or Israel. Of course this conveniently lets their piss poor leaders as well as themselves off the hook of responsibility. And to think some of these people accuse Americans of blindly swallowing the government line. If they seriously want to change their society stop blaming others and get to work on your own problems. Until that happens I would not require but I would support a total break in the Egyptian-US relationship similar to the US break with Iran until the Egyption citizens publicly request diplomatic relations be resumed. Either way there will be no big loss on the US side of the equation.

Open to Interpretation...

Every day events happen all around us in every corner of the world and how we perceive the event can depend on where we happen to be standing at the time. But no matter where you are standing or what your individual perception happens to be the real truth of the event exists. In today's world it is becoming harder and harder to recognize the real truth of an event after being inundated with other peoples contradicting perceptions and opinions. A lot of people form their opinions on what others "say" about an event instead of examining the actual event itself. The advent of  instant and global communication capabilities has energized this behavior to the point of minimizing the actual facts of an event and turning the focus to what people think about the event and there is a world of difference between these 2 different viewpoints. The whole process has basically turned into an adversarial free for all amongst warring groups who each think their perception is correct. The truth of an event no longer matters as long as one group "wins" the debate usually by any means necessary. This has a tendency to skew the actual facts and twist the reality of what really happened in the first place. What's worse is this leads to a situation where future perceptions get built on top of fallacies instead of fact.

I like to think of it as aggregated facts. You aggregate to simplify future calculations or actions. An aggregate can serve as a break point that verifies all previous calculations are correct up to this point. However, if the aggregate is not accurate any future calculations or decisions built using that faulty aggregate end up being false.

One example would be the ongoing conflicts involving the US and Iran. Just about anytime this subject is addressed people start skipping back in history to see who wronged who first and it is inevitable that someone will mention the US removing the Iranian president in 1953 and because of this the US is always wrong in relation to Iran. They are in effect setting a break point at this event and using it to justify their later arguments and opinions. The problem with this assertion is that the people never investigate in depth what actually happened in 1953. They just automatically assume the US committed some grievous act and then they build their subsequent arguments using that assumption. I don't know all the facts of that particular situation but I have not been able to find anyone who really does. The facts I have found point to the British objecting to the Iranians nationalizing their oil industry. An industry that the British contributed substantially to building. This entire region was once under British control. The British went as far as setting up a naval blockade to prevent Iran from exporting or importing oil related cargo. It is then assumed that the CIA did "something" to make this problem magically disappear by removing Mossedegh. My question is what exactly did they do? Did they threaten to invade? Did they go around killing Mossegdegh's family and friends? Did they just payoff the entire upper hierarchy in the Iranian government at the time? Well whatever happened was ultimately enacted by the Iranians themselves. So who were the Iranians who benefited from this action and there had to be a hell of a lot of them to overtake the entire government without starting a nasty civil war. What sword of Damocles was the US holding above the Iranians to force this action? And why should this event have any meaningful impact on US-Iranian relations today? The Iranians are in the situation they are now because of their own actions and shortcomings. The same applies to the US and the problems we are facing as country. The progressive revolutionary leaders in 1979 are the ones responsible for the Islamic madhouse they created. They were more interested in sticking it to the US than they were about changing the way their country was run and that gave the hard line Islamic party all they time they needed to take control. And to top it off the most educated and successful Iranians, the ones who could have contributed much to Iranian society, left the country in droves before the militant islamists ruined the country. I don't really care what the US did or did not do in 1953 but the 1979 destruction of a country is all on the Iranians themselves and as soon as they are willing to admit that and stop their "Death to America" national holidays the sooner they can go about fixing their system. The same will apply to the Egyptians and any other repressed country who often use incomplete and misleading aggregated historical "facts" to explain why they are in their current situation and who is to blame.

The real culprits in creating chaos are those who call themselves Progressives. They are never without a complaint or criticism but usually come up short on any solutions to the problems they are bitching about. They blindly support anyone who believes as they do and anyone who will help them stick it to the "Man". From the French politico's in the 30's who practically guaranteed France would fall to Germany by interfering with military organization efforts to the knot headed college students in the 50's running around campus waving Mao's little red book around while Mao himself was in the middle of killing an estimated 30 Million people. And then you have all the knuckleheads running around with Che Guevara t-shirts spouting Marxist slogans and pimping for Castro and all of the revolutionary changes he enacted in the paradise known  as Cuba.

Stupidity of Today...

Another wonderful day in the information age. I have been scanning some of today's headlines and commentaries but had to stop before my head blew up and scattered parts of my brain around the office. The Egyptians are still going strong with their revolution and they are beginning to see some definite changes. The local stores have run out of food and fuel, the tourists have joined the mass exodus taking their money with them, there have been mass prison escapes, and vandalism and looting has made it's inevitable appearance. As far as I can tell the revolution is really making a difference. What will really kick things into high gear is if Mubarak says screw it and just walkouts. Who will be running things then? Maybe they can setup a Facebook page and advertise it using tweets to round up some volunteers.

Some other minor irritants:

• Some one commented that 4 out of the 9 US supreme court justices are not familiar with Facebook and Tweeting. First I am not sure how this person came up with the 4 out 9 stat because I can't find a poll anywhere. Second, the person postulates that because of this serious shortfall in knowledge these same justices could never understand what the "People" are really complaining about in the current revolutions taking place around the world. This statement was posted in a discussion about the Egyptian revolution. I failed to see the relevance myself.
• One of the really annoying things I can't stand is when people use the word  "Oligarchy" to describe anyone that happens not to be poor. In my book there is nothing wrong with wanting to succeed in life and being rewarded financially for it. That's why I tried to get decent grades in highschool and went to college and majored in a field that actually has some relevance outside of the classroom.
• Ran across some more Wikileak news today. This time it was about Chavez paying off the leader of Honduras with sweet oil contracts in return for removing FARC from the official terrorist organization. I believe the Honduran president was shown the door right after this happened. Of course the Venezulan government denied the implications contained in the leaked cables and suggested it was nothing but another "false flag" cooked up by the CIA. This renforces the pattern of claiming that only the leaks that look make the US bad are true and all the others are not true. I believe Iran approached the problem the same way.
• I am tired of seeing all of the comments littered around the internet discussions claiming that Americans are totally ignorant of the "Truth" because everyone only watches Fox News. The people spouting this nonsense seem to believe that they are somehow the only one's capable of searching the Internet or accessing a foreign news service and forming reasonable opinions on todays issues. On the subject of Fox News. In my entire life I have watched maybe 5 minutes of a Fox News show and that was when I was waiting in line at the Fed-ex office. However, With the amount of comments on the Net calling Fox News all kinds of unflatering names their ratings must be through the roof. Just look at any forum discussing US or World events and you will see numerous comments about Fox. My question is if Fox is suppose to be so bad who tuned into a Fox show lnong enough to make this determination? I bet 90% of the people complaining about Fox have never even watched it.

Consequences of Actions...

I have been looking at some of the online message boards to determine how the protests in Egypt are coming along and based on what I have seen so far we are in for rough times ahead. Almost 100% of posters of middle east origin are urging any new Egyptian government to spurn it's treaty with Israel and start actively working against Israels continued existence. Now Israel is territorially secure with it's nuclear capabilities but that doesn't mean they won't be attacked by the Arabs. Egypt could refuse to block weapon shipments into Gaza from the Egyptian side of the border. They could also start supporting Hamas, Syria, and Iran in the media with non-stop verbal attacks. If the Islamists ends up running the show in Egypt things could be even worse. If events take this direction I predict several things:

1. If Israel feels besieged and backed into a corner they will unleash their military for real. Operation "Cast Lead" and their Lebanon war will look like walks in the park compared to what Israel could unleash.
2. If by chance Turkey gets any ideas on joining in the fun I guarantee the US would make sure they sit down and re-think their plan through one more time.
3. The Palestinians will never see any peace of any kind except in death and they can thank the surrounding Arab countries for putting them out of their misery once and for all. After all it's the surrounding Arab countries who created and fomented the Palestinian problem in the first place.

Like the US, Israel has shown the world in both words and deeds that it will use force whenever they deem it necessary without regard to what other countries or especially the UN says. And Israel also knows that there is not a single country on the planet outside of the middle east who would commit troops or equipment in a war against Israel. Hell, the US is the only country capable of moving large military assets around the world in a timely fashion and we already have enough forces in the area to back up Israel if it comes down to that. 

Even though I didn't really support the Iraq and Afghanistan wars I do believe it was necessary to show the world that the US will not beholden to world opinion and certainly not to the UN when it comes to using force in it's own interests. For too many years the world has set by and did nothing to reign in the international terrorists, despotic dictators, and their many enablers and supporters. And yes this definitely includes the US as well. Popping off a few cruise missiles might make you feel good but they are not terribly effective with no follow-up.

UN resolutions, peace quartets,  and endless discussion groups can only go so far. If there are no real consequences to behaving a certain way why would talking about it produce any worthwhile results?  A wake up call was finally needed and 9/11 gave the US government the opportunity to deliver such a message. The threat of force only works if the negotiating parties actually believe you are willing to use force when the discussions fail.

CNN has posted an opinion piece basically blaming the US for the unrest in Egypt and Tunisia. The commentator says that the US has been a strong backer of both governments in the past and it's their fault (the US governments) that these countries are in distress. The US has been working with the existing governments because both countries gained from the interaction. Is the commentator suggesting the US government should have been pursuing regime change? It's the same old BS. If the US speaks out they are interfering and if they don't speak out they are supporting the evil and corrupt governments. You can't have it both ways. The commentator used Iran as an example of the US speaking out for the Green revolution but not speaking out and supporting the current Egyptian revolution. These 2 situations are not the same. The US has no diplomatic relations with Iran so there is nothing to lose by giving them a hard time. The US currently has diplomatic relations with Egypt and does not want to jeopardise their relations by becoming involved in a situation that is entirely internal to Egypt and still volatile. People also forget that the US did become active in the Venezuela revolution by supporting the revolutionaries but in the end Chavez came out on top and relations between the 2 countries have basically ceased to exist. Why take the chance in Egypt? What if Mubarak survives? No, the US is not to blame for the current mess. The blame falls on the Egyptians themselves and it is up to them to direct their own future. The first step in doing this is to stop blaming others for all your problems and start addressing your own problems.

I wish the US would just work with the exisiting governments and do what they can to benefit the US and leave all the revolutionaries to fend for themselves. Let China come and start working on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations and see how far they get in the mad house of the middle east. Although I have to say China has been very successful in handling situations like this. Starting with Mao who killed an estimated 30 million people who didn't leap forward fast enough, taking care of the trouble makers in Tibet, handling the Uighars nuisances, and basically imprisoning or killing anyone who disagrees with the Chinese governments policies. China has acheived steller results from their steady and consistant manner of dealing with these types of problems and issues so I say give them a chance to get involved and the US can sit back and watch the fun.

Tweaking Reality...

Well the protests in the Middle east are still on-going and I have yet to see anyone burning an American Flag which is quite a nice change of pace. The question is how long will this last? People have been criticizing the US for supporting the existing Egyptian government over the years but what was Washington suppose to do. Implement "regime change" in Egypt or Tunisia? I think it is better that the US government withhold comment until after the crisis is over. Don't give either side in the conflict a way to bring the US into the middle of the ongoing madness. The US can adjust their foreign policy accordingly once the fighting stops.

The fact is that Egypt was not a traditional US client state. Up until the 70's Egypt was a Soviet client state. It was the Soviets who armed Egypt with the advanced weapons used against Israel in the 73 war. The US was muddled in Vietnam at the time and was not on the scene. The US eventually helped re-supply the Israelis but it was a close thing. Both the Israeli and US intelligence services dropped the ball and were blindsided by the Arab attack. Before the attack the Soviets had supplied Egypt with the most advanced anti-tank,anti-air weapon systems, and night vision technology available at the time. It also gave the Soviets the chance to test their SAM technology for the first time in a real war environment.  The fact that the Arabs were still defeated says more about Arab military ineptitude than it does does about Israeli military skill. After the war Egypt sued for peace with Israel in return for the Israelis returning the Sinai back to Egypt. Egypt was the only middle east country smart enough to engage the Israelis and create a treaty that has lasted over 20 years. Sadat was enlightened enough to understand that the "Palestinians" were never going to recover their so called country so with that determination he decided to move on. If the rest of the Arab world been brave enough to follow Sadat's lead I think the middle east would be a much different place today. It's ironic that Mubarak came to power because of that assassination and he unleashed brutal attacks on those Islamists that were responsible for the assassination and he has never stopped his persecution of the Muslim Brotherhood and their supporters. I have no doubt living under his rule has been hard for some people. However I don't think you can always believe all of the criticism hurled at him and his regime. The Islamist in the population know how to manipulate the press and through the press manipulate world opinion to achieve their goals which is nothing short of  the implementation of an Islamic government. Stir up enough of the regular population and point them to the protests and they can weaken the government and provide the opportunity for the Islamist takeover. The same thing happened in Iran. The population does have valid complaints that should be addressed but they are also susceptible  to manipulation themselves.

The fact is that Egypt has never given Washington a reason for complaint so why should the US make any effort to harm Egypt's government. It's not the US governments primary role to care about the well being of citizens from another country. Their job is to care about US citizens. It's up to the citizens in their own countries to control their own destiny and if the succeed for the better that is good and if they fail to achieve their goals it is all their fault and can't be blamed on the US or ant other foreign power.

Let the games begin...

Well it seems like the middle east is once again on the front page of every website and newspaper. Evidently the populations of Tunisia and Egypt have decided they want new leadership to replace their current autocratic governments. They are asking for their governments to allow the regular folks a larger role in deciding how the country should be run.  This participation could come in the form of democratic voting or just elevating an existing leader by popular acclaim. I think they both have a realistic shot at changing their governments for the better as long as certain groups do not get involved. I'm mainly talking about the Islamist groups. So far they have kept a low profile in both countries but how long will that last? Both countries could expect a lot of international support if the Islamist's stay out of it. Most civilized countries hold nothing but disdain for the existing Islamic governments and a good chunk of the world equates "Islamic" with "Terrorist". Now not every person who supports Islamist ways of governing is a terrorist but the association is there. Another significant hurdle they will have to cross is determining which political model will replace the existing government. This is where all of the different groups will start maneuvering themselves to stake their claim and push their agenda. This process could last a couple of months or a couple of years but until this issue is settled don't expect things to change for the better just because the current leadership has been shown the door.

Iran is a good example on how things can go from bad to worse after the revolution has been won. In 1979 the Iranian citizens rebelled against the Shah and forced him out of the country. It was originally student driven revolution that wanted to create a more open and liberal society. Just like college kids everywhere they were idealist. However, as things came to a head there were other groups that joined the revolution. These different groups represented every political flavor from Marxist to Islamist with a whole bunch of others in the middle. None of these groups commanded a clear majority when the revolution began. This is where it all fell apart. The student leaders who were fronting the revolution thought it was more important to invade the US embassy and take hostages then trying to push their ideals forward and seal the deal. It was at this point that the Islamic groups used this distraction and the time it provided to bolster their majority and finally take total control of the country. In my opinion the Iranians had removed one bad government and replaced it with something even worse. Under the theocracy Iran went from a fairly liberal and west facing country to a harsh Islamist state ruled by strict Sharia laws and the rest is history.

The countries rebelling today could end up following Iran's example if they do not act responsibly and quickly to replace the government they are removing.

Another example of how "revolutions" can make things go from bad to worse can be found in France circa 1930's. Their political parties at the time were so divided and confrontational that they were not even able to mount any real defense of their country when the Germans came calling. The leftists, conservatives, Marxists, communists, and fascists were all responsible for turning France into a German protectorate practically overnight. At some point even the most contentious political bickering needs to give way to the pragmatic solutions and actions needed to maintain a countries ability to support their citizens. Once a solid framework is established the fine art of politicking and associated chaos can resume.

Unavoidable Conflict ...

In today's free wheeling and reckless information society we are creating a world that can only be described as one that follows the "many-worlds" theory based on quantum mechanics. Through the use of anecdotal evidence, ad homonym fallacies, outright lies, historical revisionism, questionable equivalency strategies, and biased propaganda peddled as fact the world is being steadily driven towards a world wide conflict and like all grand conflicts it will be ultimately settled by violence. Each side of the conflict will believe without a doubt that they are right and their opponents are wrong and there will be no negotiations or compromises until after the bullets and bombs start flying and people start dying. The fact that 2 or more groups can look at the same hard facts and come up with such opposing world views is humanities curse.

I am not talking about minor or petty issues I am referring to the conflicts based on political, religious, societal,  economics, and cultural ideologies. We have allowed ego and emotion to override commonsense and this has fomented such hate amongst each other that I see no way to avoid the coming conflict. I can only hope I am no  longer around when it finally happens. Violence is a large part of human nature and in order to temper and reduce the level of violence there will need to be a dramatic event that finally forces each side towards sanity and compromise. For the 1939 Germans the dramatic event was the total destruction of their country. Before their defeat they saw military violence as a necessary evil but after having Berlin and  the rest of their country reduced to ruble they tried to re-build a society without creating a heavy dependence on the military. They were able to do this and feel good about themselves because the US military basically took over the responsibility of protecting West Germany against Soviet aggression at the end of WW2 and for most of the period known as the cold war.  Of course as time has gone by they have built up their military and in theory they could provide for their own defense but in practice they are still relying on the US to back them up when needed. Germany is not the only country in the world that assumes military help from the US will be forthcoming if they ever need it. Of course to actually come out and say this publicly is out of the question. Most of these countries are to busy criticizing and blaming the US for all of the world's ills. Due to this state of affairs I really doubt the US will be interested in backing up anyone except ourselves when the next world shattering cataclysm arrives.

9/11 could have been such an event that caused the civilized world to finally unite over the issue of international militant terrorism but instead it has only served to aggravate the situation further. 9/11 could have provided the necessary cover for even the most despotic regimes to come together in fighting world wide terrorism. It started off good but the major international players started to waffle on what actions to actually undertake to fight this scourge and then everything fell apart. The US wanted to use force to tackle the problem that people have been negotiating over for the past 60 years with no end in sight. Others wanted to stay away from using military force for various reasons and in the end we ended up back where we began. I have mentioned in previous posts that I believe violence can useful under the right circumstances and to rule out violence from the start removes one of the main motivations of all humans, which is to continue living. In the conflict to come it will not be another Iraq, Vietnam, or Afghanistan. It will be more like WW2 on steroids. The US scored total victory in WW2 by using nuclear weapons on Japan. There are people wringing their hands today about the morality of using those nukes but the people complaining were not watching their friends and loved ones being killed for over 5 years of brutal war. The hand wringers also dismiss that fact that had the US invaded Japan or even block aided Japan the number of casulaties would have exceeded those made by the nuclear bombs. The allies lost more soldiers during the storming of Normandy than we have lost in both Iraq and Afghanistan put together. Context and perspective is required when analyzing conflicts.  The Japanese were given the choice to surrender before the first bomb and before the second bomb and they declined both times. When they did finally surrender it was totally unconditional and we protected them from Soviet aggression and helped them re-build their country while the Japanese retained 100% sovereignty of their country. Compare that against the fate of East Germany and Poland.  

It's a shame that we allow a minority dictate our actions and initiate the conditions where force is required to support their warped agendas. I'm specifically talking about both the hard left and hard right extremists who are responsible for 99% of the hatred in today's world. These polar opposites both claim the truth as their own and if you don't agree you are considered an idiot. If we are to lessen the amount of destruction in the coming conflict I think we need to do several things to hopefully give civilization a chance of surviving the next round of madness.

1. The US needs to close all existing military bases unless the host country explicitly and openly requests their continued presence and are willing to pay the expenses. The US military is more than capable of deploying military power anywhere in the world if necessary. This will easily remove one issue of complaint leveled at the US and reduce tension.
2. The US needs to continue pushing alternative energy technologies to reduce our dependence on imported energy and help reduce carbon emissions in the environment. These actions will help reduce the level of tension with the volatile middle eastern oil providers and also reduce some of the acrimony of environmental activists. When our dependency on oil starts to decline the oil producing countries are going to panic. Most of them have no other means of generating revenue and the amount of foreign investment and foreign aid will decrease leading to even greater societal and economic ruin.  And after their past behavior I seriously doubt the average US citizen will give a damn about what happens to them.
3. In the spirit of information transparency the government and all of the political parties need to start publishing detailed reports on all corporations doing business in the US. Easy to understand information on profits, losses, jobs created in the US, jobs lost in the US, and a summary of the amount of taxes the corporation has paid. All of this information is available in the current corporation prospectives published for the corporate shareholders. This information just needs to be collected and published in a format that allows someone without a MBA to understand. All of the political groups are always attacking each other when in reality they really have very little impact on the societies economic well being. Shining the light on the real power brokers can help force them to change their behavior. I am not advocating more government regulation I am only advocating that the public be made aware  of how our corporations are really affecting our lives.
4. If the worst case scenario does happen and we become involved in wide ranging war of survival as a nation we need to commit ourselves to total war and destroy our enemies without hesitation. Trying to fight a "humane" war only lengthens the war and rarely results in less casualties.

The Bottom Line...

It seems that there will be no peace in the world until we are able to settle the nuclear weapons controversies currently upsetting the planetary population. The fact is that we humans are violent and vicious creatures and we need to acknowledge that characteristic as the first step in solving this nuclear threat problem. There are basically 3 ways to look at this issue. The first way is from the anti-war, peace will overcome, can't we all get along crowd. These people live in a fantasy world were all of our big problems and conflicts can be settled by just talking with one another. The fact that this method has never worked since the dawn of time does not stop them from trying. The next group supports the status-quo. The existing nuclear powers can be considered basically trustworthy since no one has ever used their nuclear arsenal since WW2. The US and Soviet Union were able to muddle through 35 years of cold war without pulling out their nukes. Instead the major powers in the world have had to settle with using small country proxies and limited warfare (ie. no nukes) to spread their influence in the world. The existing nuclear powers have displayed a level of trust where no one even suggests that the US or Russia or even China would launch a nuclear strike. The whole MADD scenario practically guarantees this. The last group in this sad saga is the small , mainly middle-eastern countries who have never shown they can be trusted with any weapon more dangerous than a pocket knife. These countries control their populations using brutality, propaganda, and by demonizing of the outside world (ie. non-muslim) for causing all of their problems. The leaders of these countries have never displayed any scruples or limits when it has come to attacking their opponents. I'm not so sure that the MADD strategy would prevent any of these countries from launching or providing the means for a non-state actor to launch a nuclear attack. That is the main worry I have about the spread of nuclear capabilities. The more nuclear weapons floating around increases the chance of a non-state actor getting their hands on one. Does anyone really think Al-Quiada or any other terrorist group would hesitate a single minute from using a nuclear weapon? Of course we could probably determine whose stockpile the weapon came from after the fact but then what would we do? Strike back at the country who let their weapons fall into terrorist hands? I don't see this happening in the political correctness dungeon we have placed ourselves in. Non-state actors end up becoming just another weapon for the despots in the world and it is this scenario that troubles me when talking about nuclear weapons proliferation.

*Warning - Reading this might be hazerdous to your health*
The only country I believe really needs a nuclear weapon today is Israel. They have been under attack for 60 years and so far their conventional forces have been able to do the job but the enemies of Israel have not giving up. However, I believe their enemies understand if Israel was attacked and it looked like defeat, and defeat would mean Israel would no longer exist, they would have no problems with turning Tehran, Mecca, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon into glass craters without a second thought and they would be right in doing so.