Donald Trump has worn me down

When I read the reports of Donald Trump’s address to the United Nations, I could not get over the feeling that it was George Washington’s worst nightmare.

Washington warned against factions.  Donald Trump is creating them faster than I can even type “faction”.

In his Farewell Address, which the Senate reads every year and then ignores, George Washington warned against factions:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”

Donald Trump railed against North Korea and Iran.  George Washington warned against being too close to other nations and against being too hostile to foreign nations:

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp
the applause and confidence of the people to surrender
their interests.”

I plan to send this reminder to my Senators: Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar.  If you are a U.S. reader, I hope you will send something similar to your Senators, regardless of their party.

But I have no idea how many real, live U.S. readers I have.  Every so often I get a big wave of Russian readers.  My feed is generally United Kingdom readers.  I get a lot of French readers, but I only have three correspondents in France.  Are these other readers really French, or are they Russian trolls?  I do know that at least one U.S. troll site is really a Russian front.

These trolls and Donald Trump have worn me down.  I don’t really know when I will be inspired to post more here.

Hypocritic oath and an ignored reading

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

U.S. Constitution, Article VI

Somehow, we have a Congress that gave an oath to the Koch brothers and made sure they passed the religious anti-tax test of Grover Norquist.

Every year the Senate has a public reading of George Washington’s “Farewell Address” and the next day they ignore what he wrote.  Maybe many of them stayed away during the reading or slept through it.

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.  Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it?  Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

"In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim."

Who has the U.S. become beholden to either as a friend or as an enemy: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, North Korea, Cuba .

Iran: A Cultural Lesson for Americans

The Iranian movie “A Separation” is really about interpersonal clashes that can occur in any country.  However, it is a glimpse into the lives of people in different classes and their hopes and concerns.

The take away for anybody with an open mind is that we are not at war with people in many countries.  People in other countries have their hopes and dreams, jobs and responsibilities, and can care for one another as well as get into unreasonable disputes.

One thing leads to another

I received an email from the Toronto Globe and Mail offering an introductory $1.99/week offer.  This is because I am a casual non-paying user.  I sent the following to feedback:

Thanks for your persistence in trying to get me to subscribe, but I am "overwhelmed" by the New York Times and two Minnesota dailies.

I only went to the Globe and Mail to point out to some relatives in Bradford how much news they were missing by watching TV news.

I learned about the Muslim father who didn't want his children in music classes because music was "haram".  Then I saw Zarqa Nawaz's commentary.

Oh, she's the creator of "Little Mosque on the Prairie".  I saw some episodes long ago.  Now we have watched five seasons and will watch the final season in a few weeks.

I also looked up military bands in Islamic countries.  The Saudi Arabian band played "The Star Spangled Banner" for Pres. Obama.  I also found a picture of Iranian trombonists marching past Pres. Ahmadinejad.  If music was haram these countries would be the first to abolish military bands.

Thanks for publishing the Globe and Mail.  I just wish I had the time to read it as much as I do the New York Times.
End of Globe and Mail letter

That led me to look up Ahmadinejad, former president of Iran, and I found that he wrote a letter to Donald Trump.  See http://www.politico.eu/article/iran-former-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-donald-trump/

That in turn led me to
http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-bans-iran-profits-migration-muslim-ban-isil-terrorism-foreign-policy-middle-east/

When will we ever learn?  It seems OK for the U.S. to meddle in other countries and have military operations wherever we please, but if other countries have military exercises in the seas near their border, the U.S. howls aggression.

Poor George Washington, spinning in his grave whenever his “Farewell Address” is read in the U.S. Senate, and then the Senate and others do exactly the opposite of his advice.

"Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other."

Quote of the day: corporation interest in strong dollar

"The reason that our government doesn’t intervene to push down the value of the dollar is that powerful U.S. transnational corporations like Wal-Mart prefer a strong dollar because it makes imports and overseas labor cheaper for them.”

“Will Trump outdo Obama in handling US-China: No: Even before taking office, Trump has made a mess”
- Mark Weisbrot, Duluth News Tribune, 2016-01-07

The “other side” is “Yes: His policies will protect our allies, economy, citizens from Chinese bullying”
- Pete Hoekstra

Why does so much writing, politics, and whatever have to be either/or?  There are so many more considerations than “either side” puts forth.

In support of Weisbrot, I’d cite “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”  Also, Republicans have turned the Constitution upside down so many times; in this case they have replaced Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states to commerce having the power to regulate Congress!!

I wonder if any other democratic nation has as many “pariah” states as the United States: Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.  Yet we support many broken or rigid states far worse than Iran.

Be careful of the "domino assumption" of conquest

The domino "theory" touted so much as justification for the invasion of Vietnam has a fatal flaw .

It assumes dominos stood on end.  However the game of dominos is played with the pieces laying flat.  And when a player places a double there are three possible moves for the other player at that place.

Think Sarajevo 1914.  An assassination of two people brought about so many deaths completely unrelated to that event.

Now we have State Dept. analysts calling for more U.S. involvement in Syria.  I assume that Russia and Iran will react negatively.  I am certain that there will be more lone wolf attacks in the U.S. against the "war on Islam”.

There really are only two religions

What? You think there are dozens of major religions and thousands of sects within them.  That may be true when you consider that many people believe in a long list of do’s and don’ts that are peculiar to their particular “religion”.  But if you look beyond the creeds and admonitions, you will find that are only two basic belief systems: generosity to others and narrow systems of “we are right and you are wrong”.  And all the major religions have many generous believers and far too many hateful believers.

In the third and fourth centuries there were major fights over what the exact natures were of God and Christ.  Often these fights were more political than religious, often depending on the belief of the current Roman Emperor.   Those who didn’t hold the right belief could be exiled and have their writings burned.

These persecutions of others in the name of Christianity continued through the centuries and into this century.

We have Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of Spain, who set out to rid Spain of “heretics”, generally meaning Jews and Muslims.  He was more merciful than some of his predecessors; he didn’t torture suspects without the testimony of at least two witnesses of “good nature”.  John Calvin was instrumental in the burning of Michael Servetus at the stake along with his books.  His crime: denying the Holy Trinity.  The Ku Klux Klan upheld “Christian morality” by bombing black churches, killing innocent children.

On the other hand, we have many examples of Christian generosity.  The Quakers were very active in the anti-slavery movement.  Florence Nightingale tended to the wounded and dying in the Crimean War.  Mother Theresa cared for the dying in India.  Martin Luther King, Jr. called for non-violent resistance to segregation and other maltreatment of blacks and others.

Islam has been called a religion of peace, but human arrogance has subverted it, just as it subverted Christianity.  Muhammad had not been dead long before his followers started bickering over who was his rightly heir.  If I’m reading the Wikipedia entry on Sunni-Shia correctly, Sunnis believe the leader of Islam is selected by consensus and Shias believe the leadership is inherited by descendants of Muhammad.  There are many more differences, many similar to the Protestant-Catholic split in Christianity.

Just like with Christianity, many wars have been fought between these two groups over the centuries.  Meddling from “Christian” powers has exacerbated these differences in the last hundred years, opening the old sores of the Crusades.  We have Muslim-Muslim violence and Muslim-Christian violence.  Shias blow up Sunni mosques and Sunnis blow up Shiite mosques.  Sunni Saudi Arabia doesn’t want Shiite Iran to gain to much influence and Iran doesn’t want Saudi Arabia to gain much influence.  Into this antagonism is thrown the wild card of Daesh (aka Islamic state).  Daesh shows about as much mercy as did the “Christians” mentioned above.

An interesting aspect of the Koran are the injunctions to have proof for your knowledge.  This may be why in the Dark Ages of Christianity, Arab mathematics and science were making great strides.

I didn’t have time to check it out thoroughly, but some say that Islam means peace.  Google Translate didn’t give me this, but a Wikipedia entry on Islam did say that Islam comes from the trilateral root s-l-m.  One of these words is “salaam” for peace.  Hm,  close to the Hebrew “shalom”.

Charity, especially to the poor, is one of the five pillars of Islam.  The word for charity is zakat, which also means purification.

One Islamic charity is the Red Crescent, the equivalent of the Red Cross.  I haven’t read much about it recently, but it has been active in disasters.

Two well-known Muslims who come to mind with a more peaceful outlook are Malala Yousafzai and Muhammad Yunis, both Nobel Peace Prize laureates. 

Malala is the young Pakistani girl who was shot by terrorists who didn’t think girls should be in school.  Fortunately for her and many others, she survived the attack.

Muhammad Yunis is the founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh.  The Grameen Bank provides low-interest, small loans to the poor.  These loans have allowed many people to start small businesses to support themselves.

We often think of Buddhists as being pacifists.  “One’s mind should be free from hurting or harming others” and several other sayings.  Unfortunately, down through the centuries, Buddhists have been involved in wars and killing.  Think of the “King of Siam”.  The news has recently had many stories of Buddhist rioting against Muslims.  Of course, the Taliban didn’t help by destroying Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, this is not a new phenomenon.  The first Muslims killed by Burmese were in the 11th Century.  In the 17th Century Muslims who fled India after losing a war of succession were killed after a dispute with a Burmese pirate king.  Some modern Muslims have fled Burma to Thailand where they have been put in several refugee camps.  There are also reports that the Thai military towed boatloads of Muslims out to sea and left them there.

Fortunately, we have Buddhists like the Dalai Lama.  A refugee from his own country, he still manages to be cheerful and work to promote peace.  He too won a Nobel Peace Prize.

If I put a damper on your Christmas cheer, I’m sorry.  But remember that Christmas is a celebration of the birth of the “Prince of Peace”.  I hope that the examples I gave of people of different faiths working for peace will give you hope for a brighter future.  With our help, the religion of generosity will prevail.

Also in the Reader Weekly, 2015-12-24 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/12/24/6439_there_really_are_only_two_religions

Bombs away!

No, I don’t mean drop bombs from an airplane.  I mean bombs go away, bombs never to be used again.  Let’s get rid of nuclear weapons, drone bombers, conventional bombs, cannons, and all other weapons that indiscriminately kill bad people as well as good people.

Yes, ’n’ how many times must the cannonballs fly
Before they’re forever banned?
Yes, ’n’ how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?

From Bob Dylan’s web site at  http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/blowin-wind

Unfortunately, the answer is not blowing in the wind from the mouths of politicians around the world.  They blow out phrases like “defense”, “saving jobs”, and “gun rights”.

We should ask “defense of what”?  Defense of the right to tell other people how to live?  Defense from dictators?  Strange, we are allies with lots of dictators, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.  Oh, but they are “our” dictators, not “their” dictators.  Defense from Communism?  Communism as a label is all but dead.  “Communism” in China is just a label for another dictatorship that is withering away.  “Communism” in North Korea is a name for a paranoid dictatorship.  Our “defense” against North Korea only serves to feed the paranoia.

Another paranoid quasi-dictatorship is Russia.  But consider the historical reason for its paranoia.  The Mongols invaded, the French invaded, the Germans invaded twice, and now the alliance that was built as defense against the Soviet Union keeps expanding, feeding the paranoia of not only Vladimir Putin, but many ordinary Russians.  Of course, it doesn’t help the alliance that Putin’s given name contains the Russian words for lord and world.

If we are so interested in “saving jobs”, we should never have instituted Prohibition.  Think of how many bartenders, servers, distillers, and brewers lost their jobs.  Prohibition did help the gun industry, guns for both the bootleggers and for the police.

Do we want to “save jobs” at the cost of lives far, far away?  How many wedding guests should die because somebody up in the sky decided the guests were “terrorists”?  How many hospitals must be destroyed because enemy combatants were believed to be hiding there?  Interesting, the “enemy combatants” live in the country; the bombers are from a country far, far away.

I didn’t know guns had “rights”.  As far as protection in case of a terrorist attack, would more people die because some of the target group had weapons?  John pulls out a gun to shoot the terrorists.  Mary sees John with a gun in his hand and thinking he is a terrorist, shoots him.  Even the police have a hard time shooting the terrorists.  And the police get wounded and killed.  Major Hassan at Fort Hood wounded and downed a police officer who had excellent scores in marksmanship.  Her partner managed to wound Hassan enough to get him to stop shooting.

Maybe the better idea is to keep military-style weapons in armories and not make them easily available to the general public.  Many seem to have forgotten that we had armories to keep the more deadly weapons away from the general public but available to the militia in case of insurrection.

Another better idea is to use propaganda instead of bombs.

Instead of attacking Israel, Palestinian protesters should fly children’s balloons over Israel.  Each balloon would carry a slip of paper with the words of Hillel in Hebrew: “Do not unto your neighbor what you would not have him do unto you; this is the whole Law; the rest is commentary.”

Instead of burying Daesh terrorists in bomb debris, bury them in pamphlets: “...and you should forgive and overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving.” _ Qur’an (Surah 24, “The Light”, v. 22)

And of course, the “bomb them back to the Stone Age” bloviators who claim to be “Christian” should receive letters from their constituents: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” – Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 7:12

I am surprised that Iran didn’t use this latter quotation with those negotiating to stop Iran’s nuclear capacity.  All the nuclear-armed negotiators except the Chinese purport to be Christians.  If the negotiating countries didn’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons, shouldn’t Iran have proposed some schedule for these “nuclear powers” to eliminate their nuclear weapons?

Maybe the only answer is for a peace coalition to be formed in the United Nations.  It could start with countries without militaries, like Iceland and Costa Rica.  This coalition could offer a time table for the elimination of nuclear weapons, then of massive navies, then of bombs, then of armies.

Impossible?  Improbable?  Maybe!  Consider that Europe had a very vicious war, with many, many civilian deaths on both sides, seventy years ago.  The Cold War ended twenty-four years ago.  And a country divided by that war is now a major player on the world stage.

The answer my friend is blowing in your votes!

“Blasphemy” cuts two ways

Many Muslims complain about the “blasphemy” of cartoonists’ and others’ depictions of Mohammad.  More extreme Muslims consider any non-belief in Islam as “blasphemy”.

What if non-Muslims considered any slanderous statements about their beliefs as “blasphemy”?  What would Muslims think of non-Muslims shooting or blowing up Muslims who made these slanderous statements.  Unfortunately, too many non-Muslims commit these heinous deeds against Muslims, and generally these Muslim victims never made any such statements.

One of the phrases many Americans consider annoying is one made by the Iranian revolutions is “Marg bar Amrika!”  “Death to America!”

Fortunately, there are Iranian politicians who would like to see this phrase fall out of use.  They figure it is counter-productive to reaching an agreement with the West about Iran’s nuclear capabilities.  See
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10390938/Iran-attempts-to-silence-its-Death-to-America-chants.html

What all those hardliners who profess Christian or Islamic values is a key value of both religions is forgiveness.

Foreign policy foreign to Founders

What would George Washington think of the foreign relations of our Presidents for the last 100 years?  Or even two hundred years?

Consider what George Washington wrote in his “Farewell Address”:

“Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”

Poor George probably spun in his grave when Madeleine Albright said, “What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?”

“…the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party … opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

How often does the influence of Israel hamper U.S. policy in the Middle East?  Sometimes the Democrats and Republicans both work overtime to show how great their support of Israel is.

“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.”

Japan and Vietnam have forgiven the U.S. for the damage done to them.  I wonder when the U.S. will get around to forgiving Cuba and Iran for the minor damage done to it.

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”

I wonder if George Washington would appreciate being called “the leader of the free world”?

“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”

George Washington really would really disapprove of the hundreds of U.S. bases around the world.

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world—so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)—I repeat it therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”

Would George Washington approve of the U.S. staying in NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

“But if I may even flatter myself that [these counsels] may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism—this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.”

Unfortunately, faction arose strongly shortly after Washington left office – Jefferson and Adams became strong political opponents.  Fortunately, they did become friends later in life.

Both Jefferson and Madison waged war on the Barbary Pirates who demanded tribute to not attack U.S. ships in the Mediterranean and ransom for captured sailors.  These were wars with limited objectives that ended with treaties favorable to the United States.

On the other hand Madison’s war with Great Britain was called just that by those opposed to it – “Mr. Madison’s War”.  The opposition was particularly strong in New England where many merchants continued to trade with Britain.

One of the first major expansions of U.S. influence was the Monroe Doctrine to curb any influence by European powers over the newly independent countries of Latin America.

“The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”

How often did the U.S. interfere with “the free and independent condition” of these countries?  George Washington’s “foreign intrigue” certainly was practiced in Latin America by many of his successors.

The very faction that Washington warned against, one section of the country against another, led to the Civil War.

And on and on it went, war after war.  Some required U.S. involvement; many didn’t.  Some of the latter were called “wars of choice” by critics.

Those who signed the Constitution and promoted it knew that circumstances and the Constitution would change, but would they approve of all the changes?

Is ISIS Islam's Ku Klux Klan?

The Ku Klux Klan has a corrupt version of Christianity.  If you don’t behave as they wish, they think they have the right to kill you, gruesomely.  ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) has a corrupt version of Islam. If you don’t behave as they wish, they think they have the right to kill you, gruesomely. 

The Klan wore white hoods to hide their identity.  ISIS wears black hoods to hide their identity. 
The Klan is still alive and well in the U.S., maybe not as deadly as before, but just as hateful towards those they don’t like.  See “At Gateway to Hamptons, Ku Klux Klan Advertises for New Members”, Al Baker, New York Times, 2014-08-29.  The Klan’s targets are immigrants.

The Klan bombed black churches.  ISIS bombs Shiite mosques.

Christian leaders outside the South condemned the Ku Klux Klan.  Those Christian leaders in the South who spoke out against the Klan would be intimidated overtly or covertly.  An illustration of how much courage it took to stand up for the rights of Negros is “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee.

Muslim leaders outside the areas controlled by ISIS have spoken out against ISIS.  One is Othman Atta, Executive Director of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee.  Some British imams have issued a fatwa calling ISIS “heretical” and stating that it is “prohibited to support or join” ISIS.  A Muslim cleric in India declared ISIS is “not just anti-Islamic but are enemies of humanity as well.”  I can’t verify it with multiple sources, but supposedly ISIS executed 12 clerics in Mosul because they would not swear fidelity to ISIS.

For more see “How Islamic State resembles the Ku Klux Klan”, Brian Denson, The Oregonian, 2014-08-24, http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/how_islamic_state_isis_resembl.html

Some are calling on President Obama to do something about ISIS and do it yesterday.  But what can the United States do other than make matters worse?  It is an outside power that really doesn’t understand all the dynamics of other countries and cultures.  Look at the messes in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They were in turn caused by one man, Osama bin Laden, a former ally, who didn’t like the U.S. putting troops into his Holy Land, Saudi Arabia.  Bin Laden decided to strike back at the U.S. and did so several times.  Will ISIS strike back in similar ways?

Consider that fighting ISIS may be fighting two enemies with different agendas.  ISIS are a set of fanatical jihadists who want everyone to follow their way or die.  They are allied with Sunnis who resent the Iraqi government, dominated by Shias, exercising too much control over the Sunni dominated areas.

Wouldn’t you think that Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would be under a bigger threat from ISIS than the U.S. would?  All of these have bigger armies than ISIS.  It seems only Iran is making any known effort to contain ISIS, and even that is trying to be done with a low profile.

The United States gave over one billion dollars in military assistance to Egypt in 2012.  Egypt can easily spend that as it sees fit.  It has an estimated annual military budget over seven billion dollars.  ISIS supposedly has stolen over two billion dollars, but who will be selling it arms and how much of that money can it actually access and use, like gold bullion?

Saudi Arabia is a big customer of military suppliers.  It has 233,500 active military personnel, over a thousand tanks, and over 200 attack aircraft.  Should not that force be sufficient to overwhelm ISIS with firepower and personnel?  ISIS has more than ten thousand fighters as of July 2014 and estimates keep climbing.  Even if ISIS has 100,000 fighters, would they be a match for Saudi Arabia with all of its aircraft?

King Abdul of Saudi Arabia said recently, “Fight terrorism with force, reason and speed.”

Turkey has been fighting ISIS at its border with some success, but groups like ISIS will keep coming back.

It seems this is another case of “Let’s you and him fight.”  Let the U.S. come in and settle other people’s problem (or think it had) and let the U.S. take the blame if things go wrong.  When it comes to war, Murphy’s law definitely applies.

So I have two big questions.  Why haven’t Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran taken a much larger and forceful role in combatting ISIS?  ISIS is a much greater existential threat to them than to the U.S.  Is President Obama pushing on these countries to do more?

So, your Majesty, why not be the leader of the Islamic world and take on ISIS?  Don’t you have the advantage of force, reason and speed?  You don’t have to get your parliament’s permission, tacit or otherwise.  And you don’t have to get the backing of your people.

Mel keeps wondering who elected the President of the United States as “leader of the free world.”

Published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/09/04/4020_is_isis_islams_ku_klux_klan, 2014-09-04.

The blog version includes corrections to the published version.

Let’s you and him fight

The Middle East is in turmoil because there are fanatics who think their way is the only way and those who disagree should die.  Many seem to think the United States should take responsibility for this mess and clean it up.  But as we have seen from Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military cannot solve local and cultural political problems.

We are sending billions of dollars to Egypt, sell billions of armament to Saudi Arabia, and ostracize Iran.  All three plus Turkey have a greater interest in regional stability.  Why not encourage them to take leadership in attempting to solve the regional problems.

Consider also, that U.S. involvement in Middle East just encourages the recruitment of the susceptible for direct attacks on the United States.

Muslim opposition to ISIS is growing because ISIS is the anti-thesis of Islam.  See “Top Saudi Cleric: ISIS is Enemy No. 1 of Islam, ‘Destroying Human Civilization’”.

Now if the Muslim states in the area would take more action than words in curbing ISIS.

When the big boys play, the little kids get hurt

I’m not talking about playgrounds but battle grounds.  And too many big boys want to make everywhere a battle ground.

Does anyone really know what Vladimir Putin’s game is with Ukraine and other countries bordering Russia?  Is he on a power trip or is he concerned that the West is encroaching on Russia and is a threat to the existence of Russia?

If it is strictly a power trip, then he is following in the steps of the Tsars and Stalin.  The Tsars and Stalin used their populations as cannon fodder for their own ends.  How many people are going to die before Putin’s goals are met.  Will the shooting down of Malaysia Air 17 give him pause in his power trip.

If he is concerned with the West encroaching on Russia, maybe he should join the West in providing a parliamentary and economic framework for all of Europe.  Major threats to Russia have all but disappeared.  Napoleon is dead and today’s France has no interest in attacking Moscow.  The Kaiser and Hitler are both dead and today’s Germany has no interest in attacking Leningrad or Stalingrad.

Whatever Putin’s game is with Ukraine, let’s hope that he takes to heart that his big boy play has really hurt lots of “little kids” who have nothing to do with his game.

Israel is a parliamentary state with many political parties.  No party ever seems to gain a majority of seats.  In order to govern, parties have to form coalitions.  Too often these coalitions include some religious party that believes that God gave Israel to the Jews about 3,000 years ago.  About 2,000 years ago the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem and Jews fled to Europe and Africa.  Others moved in and eventually became today’s Arabs.

About eighty years ago Hitler with his big boy games decided that Jews were not part of these games and started executing them in obscene numbers.  Those Jews who could fled the areas Hitler controlled, some of them fleeing to Palestine.

To simplify history, all hell broke loose when the big boys of the European and American powers declared through the U.N. that a certain part of Palestine would become the new state of Israel. Now another set of big boys is playing various games that never seem to end.  The latest games are kidnapping and killing teenagers for no other reason that they were of the “other”.  Now that game has escalated with all the “little kids” in Gaza wondering where they can flee to escape the violence of the game..

Nicholas Kristoff wrote a good column on how the intransigence of both sides perpetuates the problem.  See “Who’s Right and Wrong in the Middle East?”, New York Times Sunday Review, July 20, 2014.

Mosaddegh was the duly elected prime minister of Iran.  He decided that Iran wasn’t getting enough marbles from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and nationalized it.  The big boys in Whitehall and Foggy Bottom arranged to have Mosaddegh overthrown and have Reza Pahlavi reinstated as Shah.  Among other things the Shah did was have his secret service, Savak, take out the little kids that didn’t play the Shah’s way.
Savak’s dirty tricks were no secret.  In fact, a colleague who was supporting a Univac computer in Tehran asked me to join him.  No way did I want to move from Sweden to a country like Iran.  In fact, in the last year I was in Sweden (1974), Iranian students were demonstrating in Stockholm against the Shah.

By 1979 Ayotollah Khomeni had overthrown the Shah and set up a new set of big boy rules; many of these rules were not to the little kids’ benefit.

But the big boys in Washington were not happy with the overthrow of the Shah, especially when the U.S. Embassy was taken over and diplomats held prisoner.

And matters got worse.  First, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, even when he used poison gas on Iranian troops.  Second when the U.S. decided Saddam was not to its liking and went to war against him, the U.S. shot down an Iranian airliner with over 200 “little kids” on board, few if any who were part of the big boy games.

And still the games go on, although in a more civilized manner than for the last two decades.  Iran is negotiating with the U.S. and others about how much nuclear capability Iran should have.  But the big boys like the U.S. and the U.K. aren’t offering to reduce their nuclear capability, a capability that some hawks wouldn’t hesitate using to flatten Iran, including all the “little kids” who have nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear capability or intentions.

Another big boy game going on is China’s assertion of sovereignty over offshore islands.  I recently read an article by a Chinese or Vietnamese author who said that China really has more to gain by playing nice than by throwing its weight around.  It is ironic that China is still holding a grudge about another nation that threw its weight around to gain supremacy in the Western Pacific: Japan.

The “little kids” sing, “When will they ever learn” and the big boys never do.

This was also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, July 24, 2014 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/07/24/3781_when_the_big_boys_play_the_little_kids_get_hurt.

Fools rush in where linguists fear to tread

From a very old undated note on my desk:

What is the percentage of those who speak Spanish advising more military aid to El Salvador and of those advising against military aid?

This still holds in so much of what goes on in the world in 2014.  Fools rush in where linguists fear to tread.

Politicians kiss what?

Once upon a time, the running gag about political campaigning was that vote seekers were out kissing babies.  Now it seems that politicians are out kissing rich old men and not on their foreheads.

The latest kowtowing was the parade of Republican hopefuls to visit Sherman Adelson to seek his blessing on their quest.  The worst groveling was when Gov. Chris Christie apologized to Adelson for a remark about Israel.

This obscene parade is a sign of how much we have moved from a “democracy” to a definite plutocracy.

Have we become like Iran where the ayatollahs have to approve the candidates?

I can’t say it too much.  The best way to stop this trend is to be sure to always vote in every election.  We have too many elections where the “winner” comes in a distant second to a de facto “none of the above”.  A majority of the registered voters don’t show up for the primaries.  More people don’t vote in the regular elections than vote for the supposed winner.

Let's you and him fight!

“There are people who would love to see America fight their war for them,” Kerry said. “But that is not their choice.”

– "U.S. coming under fire from Mideast allies, who see retrenchment", Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, 2014-01-24.

Finally, the U.S. is recognizing that it is not the world's policeman and it cannot stop every "bad guy" from harming the "good guys".  Generally when we fight the "bad guys", many of the "good guys" resent the U.S. coming in and disrupting their country.

I often wonder why the U.S. has to "train" a government's soldiers and police in counter-insurgency or whatever.  It seems the ragtag bad guys do quite well with AK-47s and IEDs than the government does with it more powerful weapons.  Could it be that the soldiers and police are in it only because it is a job, they can extort people, and they really don't have much faith in the government?

I often wonder why we don't say to corrupt or ineffective leaders "Shape up or we ship out!"

Are we on the cusp of peace or of war?

President Rouhani of Iran is working to make life more open for Iranians and to build more bridges to the West.  See "Not for Prime Time: Music Video with Iran's President" and "Iran Invites Inspectors to Nuclear Site".

On the other hand, China has declared certain air space as requiring permission for others to enter.  The U.S., Korea, and Japan felt compelled to enter that air space.  Now China is sending fighter jets into that space.  See "China Sends Jets into 'Air Defense' Zone After Flights by Japan and Korea".

We have one situation slightly defused and another situation ignited.  The first can bring about more peace, and the second can put war a lot closer than most of us want.  Will we have a Kennedy and a Khrushchev to resolve the latter?

The Axis of Weasels

Syria, Iran, and North Korea have voted against the Arms Trade Treaty.  An axis of weasels that would rather have the right to threaten opponents, domestic and foreign, than have a reduction in the arms trade that enables petty tyrants and terrorists to destabilize countries.

Now, thanks to a few who wrongly fear that the Arms Trade Treaty would take away their right to have their guns, the United States may be prohibited by a vote of the Senate from signing the treaty, thus joining the Axis of Weasels.

Oh, well, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned against the military-industrial complex would be a RINO to those opposing the Arms Trade Treaty.

See "Tell the Truth about the Arms Trade Treaty", Rachel Stohl, New York Times, 2013-04-11

Muslims do speak out

Some people, I hope they are few, complain that Muslims don't speak out about terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam.  Did we have a lot of Christians in the South who spoke out against the Ku Klux Klan?  How many southerners were as strong defending the rights of blacks as Atticus Finch of Harper Lee's "To Kill A Mockingbird"  How many of us speak out against anybody who unfairly speaks ill of another person or group?

Like any very large group, Muslims have a diverse set of views.  Too often, like in other groups, the rigid dominate any discourse.  Iran under the Shah was a rigid dictatorship that allowed quite a range of freedom in non-political behavior.  Iran under the Ayatollahs is a rigid sort-of democracy that constricts freedoms in many non-political behaviors.  Unfortunately, it has become even more rigid and even less democratic since the election fraud of 2009.

As seen in the riots in Egypt, Muslims have a wide range of opinions of what government should be about, not all think that Shari'a law is a legitimate source of government.  Remember also that more people showed up to mourn the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi than took part in the attack or justified it.

See also "Exploiting the Prophet", Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, 2012-09-22

One group of Muslims has set out to be a more open religious group that allows for more diversity and less gender or other sexual divisions.  It is Muslims for Progressive Values.  Among other practices prayer meetings are not segregated by gender and women do lead prayers.  They were supposedly changing their website on January 25th, but as of this posting it hasn't happened.  If the "Keep It Halal" video is not on the site when you visit, you might find it on YouTube at http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=44UsNBJE2ho&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D44UsNBJE2ho.

War of words better than war of swords

Iran threatens to sue Google over dropping the name of the Persian Gulf from Google Maps.  See
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/iran-sue-google-over-dropping-092013861.html

Probably Google was caught between a rock and a hard place because Arabs want to call it the Arabian Gulf. 

Maybe the best way of dealing with Iran's supposed development of nuclear weapons is to sue them over violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  Sure, it was signed during the Shah's regime, but the current government has not withdrawn from the treaty as has North Korea according to Wikipedia's List of Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.