California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

A Superpower in Decline

by John Lawrence

1) Rights taken away from women. The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to outlaw nearly all abortions in Arizona will likely lead to an influx of patients fleeing the state to find care in California, abortion rights activists said.

2) The world's policeman can't police its own borders. The asylum law lets anyone setting foot on American soil ask for asylum. Court dates for asylum cases are, on average, more than four years out in the future, and even longer for final decisions. Over 3 million cases were pending before immigration courts near the end of 2023, with the backlog growing by 1 million since 2022.

3) The archaic electoral college has never been replaced by a direct popular vote for President. The result is that the winner of the popular vote has not been elected President. Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but Bush was elected President. The Florida Supreme Court sided with Gore, but Bush appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately voted 5 to 4 to reverse the Florida court’s decision and halt the recount. With Florida in hand, Bush won the Electoral College 271 to 266, while Gore ended up getting 500,000 more votes in the popular vote. As a result Gore's push for limits on global warming was lost as Bush promoted fossil fuels. Also Bush lied the US into a disastrous war in Iraq that resulted in Iraq becoming an ally of Iran.

4) 750 military bases in 80 countries are sitting ducks for an attack by Iran or its proxies. The largest U.S. base in the Middle East is located in Qatar, known as Al Udeid Air Base and built in 1996. Other countries where the U.S. has a presence include Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The US spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. Three American service members were killed and dozens more were injured in an unmanned aerial drone attack on a base known as Tower 22 in Jordan on January 28, 2024. Now that the US is expecting an attack by Iran, which sitting duck will be next?

5) An insurrectionist with several dozen indictments is allowed to run for President. Last year, Donald Trump became the first former president of the United States to be criminally indicted. Over the span of five months, he was indicted in four separate criminal cases and charged on a total of 91 felony counts.

6) Futile wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush lied us into war in Iraq. Osama bin Laden eventually killed in Obama administration by small Seal team, proving futility of invading Afghanistan

7) Wealth inequality. The United States exhibits wider disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed nation. There are now more billionaires than ever: 2,781 in all, 141 more than last year and 26 more than the record set in 2021. They’re richer than ever, worth $14.2 trillion in aggregate, up by $2 trillion from 2023 and $1.1 trillion above the previous record, also set in 2021. 

8) Housing unaffordability. San Diego families need an income of nearly $275,000 a year to afford a mortgage on a home, which is nearly double what it was before the pandemic, according to a new report from the real estate website Zillow.

9) Homelessness is an intractable problem. On any given night in the United States, more than half a million people experience homelessness.

10) The filibuster rule and the bicameral legislature. Nothing much can get done unless one party controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. President Biden looks stupid since he can't even keep his commitments to NATO because the Republican controlled House won't vote the funds Biden has promised. This means Ukraine will lose the war with Russia, and other countries cannot trust the US to keep its commitments.

11) The Second Amendment. No other country allows the uncontrolled proliferation of guns. More Americans died of gun-related injuries in 2021 than in any other year on record, according to the latest available statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That included record numbers of both gun murders and gun suicides.

Off the Top of My Head

Netanyahu is Playing Biden for a Sucker

by John Lawrence

It's clear that Netanyahu doesn't condone the two state solution which Biden favors. Despite Netanyahu's intransigence, Biden and the US keep on giving Israel, one of the most prosperous countries in the world, more money. While the US has given Israel around $4 billion annually, it has given a relative pittance of $500 million annually to the impoverished Palestinian people. Most knowledgeable people think that a two state solution is the only way to resolve not only the crisis in Israel and Palestine, but in the larger Middle East as well. However, Biden is not demanding that Netanyahu accede to the two state solution. Why not? Why does the US keep giving billions of dollars to Israel when Israel is belligerent and intransigent about a rational solution to the problems between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Instead, an intractable problem remains, one which is guaranteed to provide additional conflict and bloodshed in perpetuity. I have written before that the US and the UN should impose a two state solution on Israel and Palestine. Indulging Israel only means that the conflict in the Middle East will never end. The additional issue is that the US has some 30 military bases in the Middle East. The people on these bases are sitting ducks to be picked off by militias operating in those areas as we saw recently when 3 US soldiers were killed at Tower 22 in Iraq. Why are these bases still there? Iraq doesn't want them there. Syria doesn't want them there. They are just contributing to the enmity that exists between some countries, mainly Shiite countries, and the US. Bin Laden's big beef with the US was the presence of US military bases in Saudi Arabia and Somalia. He sought to drive US personnel out of these areas by force. When that didn't work, he began formulating plans to attack the West with an evolving, deadly new brand of jihad. We all know what that led to. Clearly US military bases in the area are a major irritant to Shiite countries such as Iran, Iraq and Syria. And it is cooling what had seemed to be promising developments with the Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

I wrote previously:

The Two State Solution Must Be Created, Implemented and Enforced ... Now.

We know what a Two State solution would look like. Even all the details have been worked out. It's just that Israel and the Palestinians won't agree to it. Therefore, it must be imposed on them ... both. They should not be free to continue their mutual madness forever. What a bizarre notion of "freedom:" this portends. Why, sir, your freedom includes a right to hate and attack your neighbor in perpetuity. Free and sovereign states should not be impeded from protecting themselves even if in the long run they are not protecting themselves but just involving themselves in endless rounds of attacks and counter attacks. The world's most powerful nation just stands back and says in effect "we don't want to impose ourselves on your freedom and sovereignty. You have a sovereign right to go on with endless rounds of revenge, hatred and war."

UN peacekeepers should separate the two sides and impose peace on Israel and Palestine by imposing a two state solution backed by the power of the US. The world should say to them, "Enough." You guys are totally incapable of solving your problems, and, left to your own devices, you will go on killing each other indefinitely. By virtue of your incompetence at creating peace among yourselves, you have both lost your right to come up with a workable solution, and, therefore, one must be imposed on you, like it or not. You have both lost your right to be completely free and sovereign nations. You are both making the world a worse place. Therefore, the world community has lost its patience and tolerance for your local squabbles which are forcing the whole world to stop what it is doing and deal with your seemingly overwhelming problems. We'd like to get on with solving the problem of climate change instead of devoting our attention to interminably, intermittent wars.

World leaders seem to be more adept on giving military advice rather than advice on creating peace in the world. They are just moving pieces around on a chess board devoid of any consideration of how many people will be killed or maimed in the process. For them war is a rational game. The peace makers can't seem to make a rational game out of the steps necessary to create peace in the world. It's not in their play book. So millions of innocents have to suffer because one side is right and the other side is wrong or vice versa. Where are the leaders willing to take a chance on peace?

Off the Top of My Head

Why Not Issue an ID Card to Every Member of the Human Race?

by John Lawrence

Every member of the human race should be issued an ID card at birth which qualifies them for all the rights and privileges of being a human without respect to nationality, ethnicity or religion. Every member of the human race deserves a certain status, dignity and respect given to them as their birthright, and it's the duty of every other member to respect those rights and privileges. Human beings need to deethnicize, dereligicize and denationicize. In short we need to secularize. No one's religion, ethnicity or national origin should take priority over one's rights as a human being. Most of the problems of humanity have come about because of rivalries having to do with religion, ethnicity or nationalistic hubris. People have hubris about their political and economic systems thinking that their system is better than someone else's system. Why not respect whatever system some other country chooses to enact? The bottom line is everyone regardless of where they live or where they came from or what religion they choose to be a part of deserves certain basic human rights as a function of being a human being. Wars have been fought over religion for thousands of years. Muslims and Christians fought for hundreds of years during the Crusades era. Protestants and Catholics fought wars in Europe for hundreds of years. Hindus and Muslims fought for years until the partition of India in 1947.

The following is from Wikipedia:

The Partition of India in 1947 was the change of political borders and the division of other assets that accompanied the dissolution of the British Raj in the Indian subcontinent and the creation of two independent dominions in South Asia: India and Pakistan. The Dominion of India is today the Republic of India, and the Dominion of Pakistan—which at the time comprised two regions lying on either side of India—is now the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh. The partition was outlined in the Indian Independence Act 1947. The change of political borders notably included the division of two provinces of British India, Bengal and Punjab. The majority Muslim districts in these provinces were awarded to Pakistan and the majority non-Muslim to India. The other assets that were divided included the British Indian Army, the Royal Indian Navy, the Royal Indian Air Force, the Indian Civil Service, the railways, and the central treasury. Provisions for self-governing independent Pakistan and India legally came into existence at midnight on 14 and 15 August 1947 respectively.

Perhaps the partition of India could be a template for a cease fire and  political settlement of the wars in Ukraine and Israel/Palestine. Borders have been moved for millennia and imposed from the outside. Borders were moved after the First World War and after the Second World War. Since the end of World War II, the international community has been committed to the preservation of territorial borders as they existed at that time. Is this realistic or even desirable when the movement of borders could resolve wars and create peaceful solutions? Borders have been changing for millennia. Saying that the world is outraged by a violation of international norms regarding territorial integrity disregards the fact that wars and disputes might be better ended by readjusting international borders. In both wars the two parties are contesting international boundaries when a redrawing of those boundaries might yield a better solution than the obliteration of one people by another, leaving the warring parties to either win or lose the war while civilian lives are being destroyed. What is more important - the retention of current borders with the concomitant destruction of civilian lives and property or the redrawing of borders while acknowledging the rights of human beings as people to exist?

In Ukraine a partition drawn where the front lines are now located might bring the bloodshed to an end. Is it right that the people of Ukraine should suffer and die over where the borders between the two adjacent countries should be drawn. After all eastern Ukraine and Crimea have been part of the Russian empire since the time of Catherine the Great. Most of Ukraine fell to the Russian Empire under the reign of Catherine the Great; the Crimean Khanate was annexed by Russia in 1783, following the Emigration of Christians from Crimea in 1778, and in 1793 right-bank Ukraine was annexed by Russia in the Second Partition of Poland. In Israel/Palestine IMHO the borders should be redrawn so that both Israel and Palestine have roughly the same amount of contiguous territory. That means that the West Bank should be expanded and Gaza eliminated as Palestinian territory. Does it make sense for the Palestinians to have two discontiguous pieces of real estate as a national entity? There should be international recognition of two separate contiguous states. Leaving it up to Israel and the Palestinians to work this out is a mistake. They will never do it voluntarily; they will fight on in perpetuity. A two state solution must be imposed from the outside with a powerful coalition probably involving the US guaranteeing the peace. What good is the military might of the US if it can't be used to impose and guarantee a peaceful solution to hostilities whether or not the hostile parties agree to it. Once the territorial boundaries are equalized, the two countries should be treated and resourced equally again whether they like it or not. One country should not be favored over the other.

War is about winning or losing irregardless of human suffering. As modern warfare has developed, the ones doing the suffering and dying are primarily civilians not soldiers as was the case in the old days, and now in Gaza the civilians doing the dying are mostly children. This is a pathetic indictment of the modern world and the human race. Humans have fought wars and committed atrocities for hundreds of thousands of years and yet we have, as a race, learned absolutely nothing. The situation has only gotten worse. Condemning the other side and insisting that our side win the war is only causing continued human - mainly civilian - mainly women and children - suffering death and destruction because (mainly men) have their egos involved and are just moving military pieces around on a chess board. Insisting on the respect and dignity given to every human qua human as being more important than who wins and who loses a war would be an advance in human civilization. The secularization of the human world with respect to religion, ethnicity and national boundaries needs to happen or humans will continue to destroy each other in the name of religion, ethnicity and national boundaries.

Off the Top of My Head

The Two State Solution Must Be Created, Implemented and Enforced ... Now

by John Lawrence

So now they are having a 5 day peace after which time they will resume the killing? They should be using the time to come up with a permanent solution, not just pausing the killing for humanitarian reasons. That's a contradiction in terms. The US has the power to impose a Two State solution on Israel and the Palestinians instead of leaving it up to them. Leaving it up to them means that it will never happen. They will go on killing each other till the end of time. What good is unlimited military power unless it is used to impose peace? What is the principal here - that every "free" state is free to make peace or war as they so choose. I say that peace needs to be imposed, and in this case it can be imposed because neither state is big enough to resist it if that is what the world community wants to do. Israel and the Palestinians should not be free to kill each other till the end of time. Mose Allison has a song with the lyric, "Everyone's crying peace on earth just as soon as we win this war." Now even that lyric has been corrupted to, "Everyone's crying peace on earth (temporarily) until we can get on with this war." But squandering a pause in the fighting for humanitarian reasons seems a travesty knowing that in a few days, once those humanitarian reasons have been accomplished, we will get on with what we really want to do - continue the war!

We know what a Two State solution would look like. Even all the details have been worked out. It's just that Israel and the Palestinians won't agree to it. Therefore, it must be imposed on them ... both. They should not be free to continue their mutual madness forever. What a bizarre notion of "freedom:" this portends. Why, sir, your freedom includes a right to hate and attack your neighbor in perpetuity. Free and sovereign states should not be impeded from protecting themselves even if in the long run they are not protecting themselves but just involving themselves in endless rounds of attacks and counter attacks. The world's most powerful nation just stands back and says in effect "we don't want to impose ourselves on your freedom and sovereignty. You have a sovereign right to go on with endless rounds of revenge, hatred and war."

UN peacekeepers should separate the two sides and impose peace on Israel and Palestine by imposing a two state solution backed by the power of the US. The world should say to them, "Enough." You guys are totally incapable of solving your problems, and, left to your own devices, you will go on killing each other indefinitely. By virtue of your incompetence at creating peace among yourselves, you have both lost your right to come up with a workable solution, and, therefore, one must be imposed on you, like it or not. You have both lost your right to be completely free and sovereign nations. You are both making the world a worse place. Therefore, the world community has lost its patience and tolerance for your local squabbles which are forcing the whole world to stop what it is doing and deal with your seemingly overwhelming problems. We'd like to get on with solving the problem of climate change instead of devoting our attention to interminably, intermittent wars.

End War Before It Ends Us

A bloodied Palestinian man carries his baby into Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.  (Photo by Momen Faiz/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

by Robert C. Koehler

Oct 15, 2023, Common Dreams

We have to learn to value and connect with one another, even, or especially, when it’s the last thing we can imagine doing.

Humanity’s cancer shows up in Israel and Palestine. Missiles fly, hell makes global headlines, thousands of people die, many of them (oh God, of course) children.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant declares: “We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly. . . . We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything will be closed.”

That’ll show ’em! Revenge rules. Kill the human animals, even if they’re toddlers.

Here’s the vicious cycle of war: One side commits a heinous crime against humanity — e.g, Hamas fires missiles into Israel, killing more than 700 people. This justifies an even more heinous response from Israel, firing its own (far more sophisticated) missiles into Gaza, declaring war on a trapped population of people in the “open air prison” of Gaza. Both sides feel justified as they continue to commit crimes against humanity — you know, look what they did! The essence of war is dehumanization.

I write these words not to try to “equalize” the wrongs of this conflict or to shrug off its history: the colonization of Palestine in the wake of World War I, the savage destruction of hundreds of its villages in the creation of the state of Israel. As Chris Hedges writes:

“Israel has spoken this blood-soaked language of violence to the Palestinians since Zionist militias seized more than 78 percent of historic Palestine, destroyed some 530 Palestinian villages and cities, and killed about 15,000 Palestinians in more than 70 massacres. Some 750,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed between 1947 and 1949 to create the state of Israel in 1948.”

In other words, he asks: What did Israel expect? This latest war is just one more upsurge of retaliation by a suppressed segment of humanity. Hamas, Gaza’s current governing organization, is deemed a terrorist organization — certainly by much of the U.S. media — but here’s the thing: Almost every national government with a military is a terrorist organization, or at least potentially so. The United States certainly is. Terrorism is just another word for war.

We live in a world that remains trapped in the consciousness of war. The only way to deal with harm and danger is to inflict it yourself. They just killed our children, so we’re gonna kill theirs. Whoever kills the most children wins, or so it seems.

Is a different way of thinking possible at the level of geopolitics? Is a world without war possible?

Orly Noy, who is Israeli (editor of the Hebrew-language news magazine Local Call), describes how terrifying it got when Hamas fired its missiles into Israel. Writing in The Guardian, she notes: “The public desire for revenge is both understandable and terrifying, but the erasure of any moral red line is always a frightening thing.

“It is important not to minimize or condone the heinous crimes committed by Hamas. But it is also important to remind ourselves that everything it is inflicting on us now, we have been inflicting on the Palestinians for years. . . . I keep reminding myself that ignoring this context is giving up a piece of my own humanity. Because violence devoid of any context leads to only one possible response: revenge.

And revenge, she writes, “is the opposite of security, it is the opposite of peace, it is also the opposite of justice. It is nothing but more violence.

“. . . we have not only brought Gaza to the brink of starvation, we have brought it to a state of collapse. Always in the name of security. How much security did we get? Where will another round of revenge take us?

“Terrible crimes were committed against Israelis this Saturday, crimes that the mind cannot fathom — and in this time of dark grief, I cling to the one thing I have left to hold on to: my humanity. The absolute belief that this hell is not predestined. Not for us, nor for them.”

How can her understanding of this terrifying moment be multiplied by, oh, let us say, seven billion human minds? Revenge and war don’t work. Even our enemy acts in a context. And conflict can only be understood — and transcended — in the context of all parties that are part of it. This is the creation of peace.

Yes, alas, this is more complicated than simply kicking someone’s ass — winning the game. It’s almost as though there’s a global commercial interest in keeping conflict alive — not just among political hawks and the arms dealers, but . . . well, as a lifelong journalist, I can certainly add my profession to the list: If it bleeds, it leads, as they say. How many headlines do you see that read: “Israel and Palestine (or Russia and Ukraine) Engage in Empathic Dialogue, Find Understanding”?

My God, making connection, even with the enemy? This is not what governments fund. This is not how we understand ourselves. At best, ending war — transcending war — is an unfathomably long, seemingly impossible process, and our understanding of what it will take is minimal, compared to how much we understand, let us say, about the structure of the atom.

Or is it so minimal? Perhaps we know more than we think we do. As the late Marion Woodman, author and Jungian psychologist, wrote: “Power in the sense of controlling somebody else is different from personal presence. That kind of power — patriarchal power — does not value other people. What I strive for instead is empowerment.”

We have to push on. We have to learn to value and connect with one another, even, or especially, when it’s the last thing we can imagine doing. This may well be the primary task of being human. If we don’t end war, it will certainly end us.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

 

 

Robert C. Koehler

Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. Koehler has been the recipient of multiple awards for writing and journalism from organizations including the National Newspaper Association, Suburban Newspapers of America, and the Chicago Headline Club. He's a regular contributor to such high-profile websites as Common Dreams and the Huffington Post. Eschewing political labels, Koehler considers himself a "peace journalist. He has been an editor at Tribune Media Services and a reporter, columnist and copy desk chief at Lerner Newspapers, a chain of neighborhood and suburban newspapers in the Chicago area. Koehler launched his column in 1999. Born in Detroit and raised in suburban Dearborn, Koehler has lived in Chicago since 1976. He earned a master's degree in creative writing from Columbia College and has taught writing at both the college and high school levels. Koehler is a widower and single parent. He explores both conditions at great depth in his writing. His book, "Courage Grows Strong at the Wound" (2016). Contact him or visit his website at commonwonders.com.

Full Bio >

Off the Top of My Head

Two Contradictions in the Narrative About the War

by John Lawrence

1) That Saudi Arabia is a good friend. Then why do they refuse to pump more oil to relieve the gas crisis? 2) That it's a war between democracy and autocracy. Then why is the world's largest democracy, India, on the side of Russia? Let's take #1 first. If Saudi Arabia is our great friend, they could end the gas crisis tomorrow simply by pumping more oil. This they refuse to do. So whose side are they on? For all the criticism of Putin as a butcher, we forget that Mohammed bin Salman, affectionately known as MBS, had Jamal Khasoggi butchered. Khashoggi, 59, was a Saudi citizen living in Northern Virginia and writing columns for The Washington Post that were often critical of the Saudi monarchy. He was killed during a visit to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2, 2018. His body was dismembered, and his remains have never been found. Then Donald Trump, defying Congress, proceeded to sell billions of dollars worth of weapons to the Saudis. Reuters reported:

"The Trump administration informed congressional committees that it will go ahead with 22 military sales to the Saudis, United Arab Emirates and Jordan, infuriating lawmakers by circumventing a long-standing precedent for congressional review of major weapons sales.

"Members of Congress had been blocking sales of offensive military equipment to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for months, angry about the huge civilian toll from their air campaign in Yemen, as well as human rights abuses such as the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at a Saudi consulate in Turkey."

I repeat whose side are they on, and what values do they and our vaunted "western values" have in common? But enough on the Saudis.

Let's take #2. India, I repeat, the world's largest democracy, is on the side of Russia. At least they have not sided with the US, NATO and the west even though they supposedly share our democratic values which are totally at odds with "autocratic values." The narrative that the war in Ukraine represents a war between democratic values and autocratic values is totally bogus. India has long been a purchaser of Russian military equipment and was an ally with Russian support in its war with Pakistan. India’s friendship with the then-Soviet Union became official in 1971, after the two countries signed a Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation. That year, the Soviets backed India in a war with Pakistan that ultimately led to the independence of Bangladesh. The US backed Pakistan. Now India is taking up the slack by buying more Russian oil, oil that isn't being sold to the western world which needs it badly to get gas prices back to normal. China is buying more Russian Ural crude oil as well.

As the world rallies to condemn Russia, India remains silent on the sideline. In addition to India some other countries siding with Russia or at least remaining neutral are China, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Algeria, South Africa, Angola, Morocco. Nearly half of all the countries that abstained from condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine at the U.N. General Assembly are in Africa, and many are reluctant to join sanctions against Russia. In fact, only 28 out of the 54 African countries (just over 51 percent) represented in the U.N. voted in favor of the resolution. So not all countries are willing to turn Putin into a pariah and Russia into a pariah state. Even South Africa, which has a parliamentary democracy and is a strategic partner of the United States, was not willing to condemn Putin.

However, the war ends, it is important for world peace and the fight against climate change, let alone globalized markets, that some sort of constructive alliance among all countries be enacted taking the security interests of all countries into account. The problem with NATO is that it didn't do that. In fact the expansion of NATO eastward rubbed Russia's nose in the fact that it had lost the Cold War. Some American leaders gloated over that fact. Instead Russia should have been accepted into the community of nations. If Finland right on Russia's border can remain nonaligned and neutral without threat of invasion, perhaps that would have been the best course for other nations on Russia's border as well.

 

Off the Top of My Head

The BIG LIE

by John Lawrence

A lot of people still believe the Big Lie - that Joe Biden didn't legitimately win the election. What isn't talked about is all the other Big Lies which the Republican party has been telling their constituents for years: the Big Lie that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, the Big Lie that Obama was born in Kenya, the Big Lie about selling arms to Iran to benefit the Contras, the Big Lie represented by the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which escalated  the Vietnam war (OK that was Johnson, a Democrat), the Big Lie that Hillary was responsible for the death of White House attorney Vince Foster, the Big Lie that Hillary ran a child sex ring in a pizza restaurant and much more. There are more Big Lies, most of them associated with Republicans, especially Republican Presidents George W Bush, Ronald Reagan and Dick Nixon (his Big Lie was "I am not a crook.").

Lying is part and parcel of the way Republicans do business. How else to get a bunch of people to vote against their own real interests? Republicans have trained their base to respond favorably to them based on lies. Lies are usually juicier than the truth. The truth is often very mundane and quotidian. The truth is that Hillary was a very experienced and capable public servant. That's not too exciting. And then there was George H W Bush's dog whistle racist campaign ad about Willy Horton, a murderer who escaped prison on a week-end pass devised by his opponent Michael Dukakis. Racism probably won Bush the Presidency.

George W Bush was determined to invade Iraq. He went out of his way to no avail to pin 9/11 on Saddam. When no evidence could be found of this, he fabricated evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. In The Untold History of the United States, the authors write:

"Lacking evidence, they manufactured their own. Cheney and Libby pointed repeatedly to a meeting in Prague between the hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official, even though Tenet had proved that Atta was in the United States at the time of the alleged meeting, living in Virginia in the shadow of CIA headquarters. ...

"Using this kind of notoriously false information, the administration challenged the findings of CIA analysts and UN weapons inspectors and tirelessly made its case for invading Iraq. "We know they have weapons of mass destruction," Rumsfield insisted. "There isn't any debate about it." In early October 2002, Bush, echoing a similar warning from Rice a month before, announced, "we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." But no one could outdo Cheney when it came to outright fabrications and dire prognostications:

"'The Iraqi regime has ... been very busy in enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue the nuclear program. ... Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror and a seat at a top [sic] 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail. Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction; there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, our allies and us.'"

Of course after the invasion no weapons of mass destruction were actually found. Recently deceased and highly decorated General Colin Powell was sent forth to argue about the existence of WMD in Iraq. The authors continue:

"But the most ignominious moment came on February 5, 2003, when Secretary of State Colin Powell, the most respected and trusted member of the administration, went before the United Nations and made the case for war. Bush had handpicked Powell for the job. "You have the credibility to do this," he told Powell. "Maybe they'll believe you." ...

"It was a thoroughly shameful performance that Powell later called a low point in his career. ... Members of the intelligence community were outraged over Pentagon neocons' hijacking, distorting and fabricating intelligence. When the nonexistent WMD failed to materialize, New York Time columnist Nicholas Kristof described them as "spitting mad" and eager to have their say. One lashed out, "As an employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency, I know that this administration has lied to the public to get support for its attacks on Iraq."

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said, "As we know today, the Bush administration's reasons for the Iraq war were based on lies."

George W Bush's Big Lie cost a lot of American and Iraqi lives. So far Trump's Big Lie has cost the lives of relatively few Capitol policemen. But the stage is set for an assault on American democracy itself. The perpetration of Trump's Big Lie is being carried on by his henchmen in Congress and in the media. Their use of symbols such as flags in the January 6 insurrection is reminiscent of all the flags, symbols and pageantry of Nazi Germany, much of which was designed by Hitler himself who was an artist who failed to gain entrance to the Munich University before aspiring to world domination. The cries of "We're Number 1" by the insurrectionists and other bellicose Americans are echoes of their predecessors' cries of "Heil Hitler."

Off the Top of My Head

That's Not Who We Are

by John Lawrence

Obama declared: "That's not who we are" when opining about the more hateful aspects of American society. But the reality is that's who we veritably is, at least some of us Americans. It's impossible to generalize about the American character. We are not a monolithic society. Take Charlottesville for instance. Latter day confederates and ku klux klaners. That's not who we are? That's who some of us are. That's the problem. There is no common set of values. Trump said there were good people on both sides. What is the definition of a "good person"? Is it one who fights to maintain his own way of life or is it one who tries to reach accommodation with others and understand their point of view. For America as a nation in general, it is more the former than the latter. Historically at least since WW II, the US has always taken the path of using force and power to maintain its standing in the world and to maintain its right to exploit the resources of weaker nations while ignoring the welfare of their people. The US has supported right wing, authoritarian dictatorships in South America and elsewhere so that the "supply chain" of natural resources could be extracted and shipped back to the homeland while keeping the cheap native labor cheap. There was no effort to improve the lifestyles of the natives. Those locals who sought to do so were overthrown and right wing dictatorships were installed in Chile, Nicaragua, Argentina, Iran and many other countries too numerous to mention. For many years it was all about the oil. Now we realize that that oil transformed into greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is what's killing us.

When Gorbachev sought detente and the elimination of nuclear weapons in the world, Reagan hung on to his Star Wars fantasy. Neoconservatives in the Reagan administration considered Gorbachev's stated desire to bring peace to the world a sign of weakness to be exploited rather than a signal that a new era of peace could be at hand. This neoconservative foreign policy has been the policy of US Presidents both Democrat and Republican. Jimmy Carter had his Zbigniew Brzezhinski. Nixon had his Henry Kissenger. Reagan and the Bushes had a whole host of neocons fashioning their foreign policy. Reagan himself had no idea about what to do other than that he was against communism. Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick wrote in "The Untold History of the United States":

"But what is Reagan's real legacy? One of the most poorly informed and least engaged chief executives in U.S. history, he empowered a right wing resurgence of hard-line anti-communists who militarized U.S. foreign policy and rekindled the Cold War. He paid lip service to democracy while arming and supporting repressive dictators. He turned local and regional conflicts in the Middle East and Latin America into Cold War battlegrounds, unleashing a reig of terror to suppres popular movements. He spent enormous sums on the military while cutting social programs for the poor. He sharply reduced taxes on the wealthy, tripling the national debt and transforming the U.S. from the world's leading creditor in 1981 into its biggest debtor by 1985. In October 1987, he oversaw the worst stock market collapse since the Great Depression. He let the chance to rid to rid the world of offensive nuclear weapons [proposed by Gorbachev] slip through his fingers because he wouldn't let go of a childish fantasy [Star Wars]. And as for his much-vaunted role in ending the Cold War, as we shall see, the lion's share of credit goes instead to his Soviet counterpart,. Mikhail Gorbachev."

Is it any wonder then, that a chauvinistic and self-serving foreign policy has been internalized by so many "patriots" like the ones who attacked Capitol police on January 6, 2021? They just want what we already have: access to the natural resources of the world for Americans at the expense of indigenous peoples, the continuation of a way of life that favors the fortunes of white, European immigrants at the expense of African American forced immigrants, Latin American immigrants as well as Native Americans. When Obama says over and over, "That's not who we are," it's wishful, thinking because that's exactly who many of us are.

Off the Top of My Head

Was Biden Supposed to Micromanage the Logistics of the Withdrawal?

by John Lawrence

What were all those people in the Pentagon doing once Biden announced the end of the war? Biden announced on July 8, 2021 that the war would end as of August 31. Why wasn't the US Defense Department working overtime to do contingency and logistics planning. Why weren't Americans and Afghans who helped us being taken out of the country as of that date? Why did they wait for Kabul to fall? This is incompetency on the part of the Pentagon and the Defense Department. Biden shouldn't have had to micromanage the logistics. Why didn't they expect chaos? Why didn't our military hold Kabul until everyone was out safely? Instead they let the Taliban waltz into Kabul. It just goes to show the incompetency of the top echelon of US military planners.

Hopefully, the secure air corridor, similar to the Berlin airlift, will be sufficient to get most of the people, who need to get out, out. The troops Biden sent in will have to do crowd control and secure the airport for the next few weeks. The whole operation in Afghanistan was a disaster. Evidently, the Afghan military couldn't do anything without the support of American contractors? You mean that the bloated American military is incompetent to do anything without private contractors? Evidently, so. Now a bunch of war apologists are rueing the day that the American military is leaving Afghanistan. Oh, Al Qaeda will come back; ISIS will establish themselves there. Why don't they stop and ask the question why all these Islamists are so upset with the US? Is it because the US has been killing them for years. It's not too late for the US to become a constructive force in the world instead of just trying "to protect American interests." China is building infrastructure throughout Asia and beyond. The US could cooperate with China in becoming a builder rather than a destroyer. Besides, unless the two major polluting countries of the world get together, the earth is already doomed to a climate catastrophe.

It's not about forcing the rest of the world to bow down to us. It's about time that the world's wealthiest country becomes a constructive player on the world scene instead of threatening everyone with sanctions or our military might. It's time to guarantee the Palestinians their own homeland. This would do a lot to dispel the rancor against the US. Instead of "defund the police" we should be chanting "defund the military". The 800 military bases around the world need to be abandoned and the troops sent home from there just like they were abandoned in Afghanistan. By the way why wasn't all the military equipment and resources just left there to fall into the hands of the Taliban? Oh I see. There will be money to procure a lot more once the Defense Department submits its budgetary needs post Afghanistan. When the US becomes a force for peace in the world and uses its abundant resources to alleviate poverty and fight climate change, then the US will be playing a constructive role in the world and not just defending US interests.

Off the Top of My Head

Question: Who Won the Afghanistan War? Answer: Osama bin Laden

by John Lawrence

Bin Laden's stated purpose for attacking the US was to attract the US into a protracted war in the Middle East that would fritter away US blood and treasure. If bin Laden were alive today, after American expenditures of $2 trillion and 2000 American lives in Afghanistan, I think he would say "Mission Accomplished". However, most of that money never left the US. It was snatched up by the military-industrial complex - by the likes of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. According to a tape released by Al-Jazeera and reported by CNN, Osama said:

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript. He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers." "We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said. He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration." "All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.

Well, bin Laden is only partially correct. It's impossible to bankrupt the US as Modern Monetary Theory has made clear. As a nation with a sovereign currency, the US can just have the Federal Reserve print as much money as needed to fight wars or for any other purpose. Actually, the $2 trillion spent by US taxpayers largely on weapons supplied by the military-industrial complex kept the economy humming quite nicely because war spending as well as selling weapons to other countries is contributive to the US economy.

The US should never have invaded the "nation" of Afghanistan at all. When bin Laden was based there, Afghanistan was only a partially governed country. Large parts of it were ungoverned and ungovernable. This is the space Al Qaeda occupied. The Taliban only governed part of the country. As President Obama demonstrated, it was possible to track bin Laden down and kill him in a special operation without having ever invaded a country and for very little cost. But that wasn't good enough for George W Bush. He wanted to be a war time President. Now 20 years later, the Taliban are in a position to rule over all of Afghanistan. It's Vietnam all over again. The US goes into a country, sets up a puppet government and leaves at some time at which the puppet government and its fighting force collapse after much expenditure of blood and treasure. Will we ever learn that indigenous forces will eventually win out?

The good news is that the US, having lost the war in Vietnam, is now one if its largest trading partners. Vietnam is currently our 13th largest goods trading partner with $77.5 billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2019. Goods exports totaled $10.9 billion; goods imports totaled $66.6 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Vietnam was $55.8 billion in 2019. Perhaps, after the US loses the war in Afghanistan, Afghanistan can also normalize itself and become a trading partner with the US. This is the much preferred outcome compared to a war the US didn't lose in Korea which resulted in a stalemate. The result there is a nightmare for the US in the North which has nuclear weapons and missiles capable of reaching the US. If the US had lost that war as well, things would probably have normalized there without a northern dictator with a vendetta against the US and weapons pointed at us

Now the job for Biden is to get Americans and Afghanis who cooperated with us out of Afghanistan safely and discreetly. That's the purpose of the forces he recently sent back in. We don't want to repeat the humiliating hasty exit from Vietnam, and we owe it to those who cooperated with us to give them a safe harbor. Expect Little Afghanistans to sprout up in major American cities perhaps right next door to all the little Vietnams and Little Iraqs. Afghani restaurants will provide even more cultural diversity for the American palate.

Off the Top of My Head

What a Bozo: Trump's Middle East "Peace" Plan

by John Lawrence, January 30, 2020

Suppose you and your best friend got together and worked out a peace plan between you and your worst enemy without either of you ever consulting your worst enemy. Suppose your peace plan gives all the best parts to yourself and the worst parts to your worst enemy. That's a Peace Plan? Get real. Trump and Netanyahu are chumps and suckers. Total amateurs who don't know a peace plan from a hole in the ground. They should have saved their blowhard breath. Then they try to buy off the Palestinians with $50 billion. Chump change, really.

It's a total non-starter. But it's what you'd expect from a couple of greedy, insensitive bastards. Supposedly, Jared Kushner worked this all out. You've got a couple of New York real estate developers thinking they know how to create peace in the Middle East. Really? You have to start by treating both sides with respect and acknowledging the human dignity and equality of both sides. This was the furthest thing from their imaginations. This peace plan is all about Israel and not at all about Palestine. Here, Palestine, we're gonna shove this down your throat with a spoonful of sugar ($50 billion) to make the medicine go down. If you don't like it, lump it, because this is the best deal you're ever gonna get.

Needless to say, the total insensitivity of Trump and Netanyahu and the total lack of even trying to treat the Palestinians with respect dooms this ersatz peace plan before the words of self congratulations were even spoken by a pair of indicted and impeached hacks who are trying to capture the spotlight and somewhat salvage their ruined reputations. When will we ever get talented, diplomatic and sensitive men to lead both countries? Oh, I guess we'll have to elect women for that. These two men are taking the low road where you ask your enemy to make all the sacrifices in order to have peace. No sacrifices for Israel. All the sacrifices go on the heads of the Palestinians. Now I suppose that Trump in his inimitable bombastic way will claim he has created peace in the middle east, something his predecessors had utterly failed to do.

"It's stunning that Donald Trump doesn't know that this is insulting to Palestinians," tweeted James Zogby, founder of the Arab American Institute. A peace plan that's an insult to one of the parties. Now that's a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one. It's downright Orwellian. Recall that George Orwell in his novel, "1984" famously said “War is peace / freedom is slavery [and] ignorance is strength.” This perfectly fits Trump and Netanyahu and their followers. But then again it's the philosophy of the US government which believes it can create peace by keeping the world in a constant state of war, military threat or sanctions.

So Israel is proposing a land swap. They'll take the Jordan valley which is the breadbasket of Palestine while generously giving Palestine some of the useless desert that now belongs to Israel. Sort of a reminder of the homelands many Indians and South Africans were deported to - worthless, barren scarps of land. In return the favored people will keep the lush parts. Who are they trying to kid? Who are they trying to fool? We'll take the best for ourselves and give you the scraps from the table. How do they justify this? Because they're "better" than the Palestinians? Smarter? No doubt. What they forget is that Palestinians are human beings too and not about to take a back seat to Israel, thank you. They're not going to the back of the bus. Have Israelis not learned anything from the struggles of other peoples? Or of themselves? Think reciprocity.

'This Is Not a Peace Plan, It Is a War Plan': Trump-Netanyahu Deal Decried as Shameful Attack on Palestinian Rights

Published on Tuesday, January 28, 2020

by Common Dreams

"Any attempt to address the Israeli-Palestinian issue that does not begin and end with the full acknowledgment of the Palestinian right to self-determination, freedom, justice, and equality is a non-starter."

by Julia Conley, staff writer

 

32 Comments

Palestinians watch the televised press conference of U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on January 28, 2020, at the Khan Yunis refugee camp in the southern Gaza Strip. (Photo: Said Khatib/AFP via Getty Images)

Human rights advocates condemned U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "annexation plan" for large swaths of Palestinian territory as the two leaders on Tuesday presented what they termed a "peace deal" for Israel and Palestine.

"This is not a peace plan. It is theft. It is erasure."
—Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)

Critics joined Palestinian leaders in rejecting the premise of the so-called "vision for peace," which was drafted by the White House and Netanyahu without the input of Palestinians.

The resulting plan is "shameful and disingenuous," tweeted Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).

They could have guaranteed justice, and brought everyone into this peace deal.

Instead these two embattled heads of state, impeached and indicted, have a “ just us” peace deal.

It’s shameful and disingenuous! https://t.co/THIniOEv8B

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) January 28, 2020

The plan aims to expand and make official Israeli control of Palestinian territories while assuring Palestine that it will be afforded "a pathway to a future state"—but one that will have no military of its own and in which Israel will maintain security control over some areas. 

"This is not a peace plan," tweeted Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights. "It is a war plan."

This is not a peace plan, it is a war plan.

A war on peace
A war on justice
A war on freedom
A war on equality

A war on Palestinian existence

— (((YousefMunayyer))) (@YousefMunayyer) January 28, 2020

"It's stunning that Donald Trump doesn't know that this is insulting to Palestinians," tweeted James Zogby, founder of the Arab American Institute.

It’s stunning that @realDonaldTrump doesn’t know that this is insulting to Palestinians. It’s not a “state” it’s a “Bantustan.” Palestinians lose more land w/out sovereignty & independence. Israel gets more land & keeps settlements. It’s Trump’s plan to try to legalize illegality https://t.co/RDE6iJ0krf

— James J. Zogby (@jjz1600) January 28, 2020

"This plan is simply a rubber stamp for the Israeli government's continuing violations of international law, separate-and-unequal policies, land grabs, and human rights abuses against the Palestinian people," said the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights in a statement. "Any attempt to address the Israeli-Palestinian issue that does not begin and end with the full acknowledgment of the Palestinian right to self-determination, freedom, justice, and equality is a non-starter."

Major points within the deal include:

• Jerusalem will be established as Israel's "undivided" capitol, undermining Palestinians' aim to recognize East Jerusalem as their capitol;
• the recognition of the majority of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine;
• the recognition of the Jordan Valley, which makes up a third of the occupied West Bank, as part of Israel; and
• the refusal by Israel to grant Palestinians the "right to return" to their homes lost in the Six-Day War and other conflicts.

Palestinians in occupied territories held protests on Tuesday ahead of the deal's announcement. Larger demonstrations are planned for Wednesday.

"I am not against peace, but what is being talked about is not peace," Ahmed Shafiq, a student in Gaza, told The Guardian. "Peace is not imposed on people."

The so-called "peace deal" amounts to "an endorsement of Israel's aggression, allowing it to take over whatever Palestinian lands it wants and punishing the victims for daring to object to having their homeland stolen," said Omar Baddar, deputy director of the Arab American Institute, in a short video the group released.

Want to know why this "ultimate deal" is a sham & a disgrace that will never lead to peace? @OmarBaddar explains:#DealOfTheCentury #Apartheid pic.twitter.com/1k9Ig0q9ND

— Arab American Instit. (@AAIUSA) January 28, 2020

A map released showing Trump and Netanyahu's vision for the future of Palestine resembled "a Native American reservation" more than a sovereign state, said entrepreneur Shahed Amanullah.

This doesn't look like a state. It looks like a Native American reservation. https://t.co/ZwHMt0L0V7 pic.twitter.com/S2gO5gdV4t

— Shahed Amanullah (@shahed) January 28, 2020

"This is not a peace plan," tweeted Omar. "It is theft. It is erasure."

Munayyer of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights called on Americans and the international community to reject Trump's attempt to "whitewash the apartheid reality alongside his Israeli partners-in-war-crimes."

"The only suitable response from people of conscience is to reject this effort and demand immediate accountability for Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights," Munayyer said. "The separate-and-unequal reality the Israeli government has imposed on Palestinians, with the support of the U.S., flies in the face of the values Americans claim to uphold. Freedom, justice, and equality for Palestinians is the only way forward.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), whose parents immigrated to the U.S. from occupied Palestine, slammed Trump and Netanyahu for releasing the plan as both are facing re-election campaigns and legal battles.

"It's fitting that the Trump-Netanyahu plan was released by a forever impeached president on the same day that Netanyahu was indicted for corruption," Tlaib tweeted. "This political stunt gets us no closer to peace or justice."

It’s fitting that the @realDonaldTrump-@netanyahu "plan" was released by a forever impeached President on the same day that Netanyahu was indicted for corruption.

This political stunt gets us no closer to peace or justice. As a member of Congress, I consider it a non-starter. https://t.co/PIYYZ75PWc

— Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) January 28, 2020

"This is a political ploy by both leaders to distract from their abuse of power, designed to help Netanyahu win the election in less than six weeks," Emily Meyer, co-founder of Jewish progressive group If Not Now, said in a statement. "The plan itself is a plan for permanent Israeli military occupation and control, not a plan for peace. It is simply a continuation of Trump's strategy since entering office: to disenfranchise Palestinians and deny their rights, their agency, and even their identity."

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

Turkish Groups Are Building 10,000 Houses for Refugees While US Builds Zero for Homeless

by John Lawrence, January 26, 2020

January 23, 2020 - NY Times reports:

ANKARA — Turkish aid groups have begun building more than 10,000 houses in Syria's northwestern province of Idlib to shelter growing numbers of people displaced by fighting, while Turkey seeks to prevent a new influx of migrants fleeing from Syria.

The houses are being erected near a Syrian village next to the Turkish border, an area so far spared from the air strikes and fighting which have uprooted hundreds of thousands of people.

Syrian and Russian forces have bombarded rebel-controlled targets in Idlib this week despite a deal between Turkey and Russia, which back opposing sides in the conflict, for a Jan. 12 ceasefire. On Thursday Russia said hundreds of Syrian militants launched attacks on Syrian government forces in Idlib.

Turkey already hosts more than 3.5 million Syrian refugees and fears that the fighting in Idlib - the last notable rebel stronghold in Syria after almost nine years of conflict - could drive millions more across the border. ...

"We provide food and clothes to the families on the migrant trail, but we also need to provide them shelter throughout the winter months," IHH Deputy Chairman Serkan Nergis said.

Nergis said the houses would provide better shelter than the existing tent camps near the border. The houses "will begin hosting their guests in a few days", with the goal of accommodating 60,000 people, Nergis said. ...

Turkey's Kizilay aid group also said this week it will build 1,000 emergency housing units in Idlib, which would be completed in 2-3 weeks.

Meanwhile, the US, both at the state and national levels, dithers for years and years and has not built one house for the 500,000 homeless people in the US. If Turkey can build 1000 housing units in 2-3 weeks, it seems that the US should be able to build just one here in the 30 years this crisis has been developing. There is also the issue that the US should be doing more to help Middle East refugees since the American military did a lot to create them.

However, the best that the City of San Diego and other California cities can do is to provide safe parking lots so that homeless people with vehicles can park them there and sleep there. It's a far cry from some Third World country able to build 1000 houses in 2-3 weeks. The US and California in particular have been dithering for years while housing prices and rents have skyrocketed to the point that only hedge funds and a few rich people can afford to buy a house any more. The hedge fund Blackstone boasts on its website: "We are a global leader in real estate investing. We seek to utilize our global expertise and presence to generate attractive returns for our investors and to make a positive impact on the communities in which we invest."

The Sothebys International Real Estate site says: "The Sotheby's International Realty® network provides access to luxury real estate and homes for sale worldwide. Our website lets you search property listings globally, and includes a large inventory of luxury homes for sale. Our listings include all types of homes, including houses, condos, townhomes, villas and more. We can also match your lifestyle choices such as waterfront, golf, island, vacation, mountain and many others." Berkshire Hathaway Home Services boasts "Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices is a real estate brokerage franchise network designed for today’s real estate market. From first time homebuyers to high-end residential markets to middle-market communities to commercial real estate, our franchisees are down to earth, nimble and local experts. This network of members and agents wouldn’t be a part of the Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices network if they weren’t."

All the free money the Fed is pumping into the economy, which hedge funds have access to, is driving up the cost of real estate just as it is bidding up the stock market. These guys know that so they buy low and as the real estate market appreciates, they sell high and higher. This effectively prices the little guy out of the market - both the home buying market and the rental market - creating  ever more homeless people including those who have at least one asset - their car. The homeless are really US internal refugees. Other countries like Turkey actually help refugees and build houses for them in their home countries so they don't flood across the border. The US neither builds homes for its homeless population nor does it build homes for poor people in Central America who are attempting to flood across US borders.

Off the Top of My Head

The Bully in the White House

by John Lawrence, January 8, 2020

One man has infinitely more power than any other individual in the whole world, and that man is Donald Trump, a narcissistic egomaniac whom the American people have entrusted with the fate of their country. His idea of America First is to bully other countries, friends and foes alike, into doing what he wants them to do which usually has more to do with his pet peeves than any notion of what would make the world a better place, much less in what might keep America safe. He is losing America;'s place as a trusted moral leader with the result that America is becoming a pariah if not a laughing stock among the world's leaders. Here's a guy with no governmental, much less diplomatic, experience whose idea of America first is America uber alles. America will tell the rest of the world how they can best serve America, and, if they don't like it, Trump will apply sanctions.

The predictable result is, whereas in the past the dollar was the most trusted currency in the world where everybody wanted to stash their savings, the dollar is rapidly being downgraded to a currency that has been weaponized, a currency used to sanction and intimidate individuals, businesses and nations alike. Other nations are beating a hasty retreat from the use of the dollar in doing business. Trump has used dollar sanctions to force regime change although it hasn't worked so far. He has used it to prevent a pipeline from being built between Russia and Germany although that won't stop the pipeline from being completed.

Trump has systematically ramped up pressure on Iran. Starting by withdrawing from the nuclear agreement followed by increasing sanctions followed by assassinating a beloved public figure, Trump has brought the US to the brink of another war in the Middle East. Iran, evidently, won't be cowed into submission by Trump's bullying tactics, but then those tactics have been used by other Republican Presidents and their neocon advisors for years with the result that the world has become a more dangerous and less safe place not only for Americans but for American allies, who are about at their wits' ends with him, as well.

While millions languish in refugee camps as a result of America's Middle East wars which have accomplished nothing except to give the military a workout, we are seeing more billions of dollars flushed down the drain to support those in the military-industrial complex who profit from war. Without a permanent war time economy, unemployment would soar as it did in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War when many employees of the aerospace corporations were laid off especially in southern California. But the US is flirting with economic disaster by taking on more debt each year at a time when the rest of the world is losing their appetite for US Treasuries. The Federal Reserve has come to the rescue by taking a large proportion of this debt onto its balance sheet signaling that they will be the buyer of last resort.

This is a remarkable solution since the Federal Reserve is keeping the economy afloat by printing money, and they've found out that, as long as they give this money to Wall Street and not to ordinary working people, this doesn't produce inflation. It just increases asset prices, namely, real estate and the stock market. This increases the wealth not only of the billionaire class but also of anyone owning a home or anyone who has a 401k from their job. It's the perfect solution because it can go on forever supposedly. It affects adversely poor people who find rents skyrocketing and who are not invested in a 401k, but the majority of the population, at least the voting majority, is probably pretty pleased with the performance of the economy as their wealth increases despite the increasing inequality gap between the very rich and the very poor. So money can continue to pour into the military-industrial complex producing a full employment economy with increasing GDP.

Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker said famously that it was the job of the Fed to take away the punch bowl just as the party started to heat up because this caused inflation. But there is no inflation in the US now so it's the best of both worlds: the Fed just keeps adding punch to the punch bowl and many Americans - except the poor - are partying heartily.

Off the Top of My Head

What the World Needs Now

by John Lawrence, October 28, 2019

No, we don't need another aircraft carrier. We don't need another Aegis weapon system. We don't need a Paladin tank. What the world needs now is proper sanitation. An estimated 1.8 billion people (25% of the world's population) don't have access to adequate sanitation. They have no running water. They have no flush toilets. Because of this, approximately 140 million people develop dysentery each year, and about 600,000 die. Most of these deaths occur in developing countries among children under age five. They all die for lack of something we take for granted - a flush toilet and an adequate sanitation system. Access to safe sanitation reduces child diarrhea by 30 percent and significantly increases school attendance by the way. 

Because latrines in developing countries are such gross and smelly places, about 892 million people, or 12 percent of the global population, practice open defecation. Seventy-six percent (678 million) of the 892 million people practicing open defecation in the world live in just seven countries, India being the largest. What happens with the latrines is that the poop is hand scooped out and dumped in the rivers where it contaminates the water that children play in, and they get dysentery. All for the lack of something that Americans and Europeans take for granted - a flush toilet.

Clean water and adequate sanitation should be the basics provided to every human being worldwide. Instead the US is more concerned with the development of weapons systems. It took one very wealthy and intelligent American, namely Bill Gates, to decide to do something about this problem. He attacked it with all the considerable resources at his disposal and came up with a sanitary toilet that required no electricity or running water. Also a sanitation system was developed that required no electricity or running water. The problem was that these inventions were too expensive to deploy on a mass basis.

Gates has also done much to eradicate polio in the world. Again due to his considerable mental and financial resources, polio was almost eradicated in Nigeria until Boko Haram intervened and started killing vaccination workers. In India polio has been entirely eradicated. In 1988, when the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) was launched, polio was present in more than 125 countries and paralyzed about 1,000 children per day. Thanks to immunization efforts that have reached nearly 3 billion children, the incidence of polio has decreased by 99 percent since then. India, which was long considered the most difficult place to end the disease, hasn’t reported a polio case since 2011. Today, polio is found only in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nigeria. These are the exact places that terrorism runs rampant. Maybe a functioning sanitation system would go a long way to eliminate terrorism as well.

But why isn't the United States with its considerable resources doing more to improve the lives of the world's population thus eliminating the breeding grounds for terrorism? There is USAID started by President John Kennedy. In FY 2016, USAID invested more than $441.5 million toward water and sanitation efforts in 47 countries and regions, including 13 high-priority countries. The Gates Foundation in and of itself spends almost that much in this area. Surely, a great country like the US could do a lot more. It spends 10,000 times as much on weapons systems development as it does on the development of basic life saving sanitation and clean water systems in the developing world. These are the US national priorities.

Bill Gates is trying to reinvent the toilet, not exactly a high tech undertaking. This is from the Gates website:

Bill Gates Launches Reinvented Toilet Expo Showcasing New Pathogen-Killing Sanitation Products That Don’t Require Sewers or Water Lines

Gates Foundation and Global Partners Announce Commitments to Advance Commercialization of Disruptive, Off-Grid Toilet Technologies

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

206-709-3400

[email protected]

follow @gatesfoundation

BEIJING, November 6, 2018 – The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) and the China Chamber of International Commerce (CCOIC), today joined global innovators, development banks, private-sector players, and governments at the Reinvented Toilet Expo in Beijing. Together, they committed to accelerate the commercialization and adoption of disruptive sanitation technologies world-wide over the next decade. Rapid expansion of new, off-grid sanitation products and systems could dramatically reduce the global human and economic toll of unsafe sanitation, including the deaths of half a million children under the age of 5 each year and the more than $200 billion that is lost due to health care costs and decreased income and productivity.

Note how involved China is. If the US wants to make America great again, perhaps they should take a page out of China's book and participate in making the world a better place instead of just a better place for US weapons sales. China is taking a leading role in making the world a better place with its Belt and Road initiative and now with its efforts to reinvent the toilet. All the US is trying to do is to slow down China in a pathetic attempt to compete with them.

Russia, Turkey agree to jointly remove Kurdish fighters along Turkey’s border in northern Syria

 

Erdogan vows to 'crush the heads' of Kurdish fighters if cease-fire fails

 

 

 

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Oct. 19 he would continue an offensive if a deal on the withdrawal of Kurdish forces was not fully implemented. (Reuters)

By 

Kareem Fahim and 

Sarah Dadouch 

Oct. 22, 2019 at 11:14 a.m. PDT

ISTANBUL — Russia agreed on Tuesday to help remove Syrian Kurdish fighters from a large swath of Turkey’s southern border, giving its blessing to a Turkish military operation against a Kurdish-led force that had allied with the United States.

The agreement, reached after an hours-long meeting between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Black Sea resort town of Sochi, addressed several of Turkey’s core security demands, including the establishment of a “safe zone” that would push the Kurdish-led force back from its frontier.

And it cemented Russia’s role as Syria’s central power broker, at a moment when the influence of the United States in the region is dissipating.

The agreement said Russia and the Syrian government, its ally, would start removing Kurdish militias from the border region beginning at noon Wednesday. That expanded on a previous agreement between the United States and Turkey, which had established a Turkish military zone along a narrower strip of the border.

After the Kurdish militias had withdrawn, Turkey and Russia would begin joint patrols in the border region.

The Erdogan government had earlier threatened to restart its military offensive if the Kurdish fighters did not fully withdraw from a predetermined area along Syria’s northern border with Turkey by Tuesday evening. If the withdrawal is completed, Ankara has agreed to permanently halt its offensive, which is aimed at creating a vast buffer zone for Turkey along much of its border with Syria. 

Erdogan’s meeting with Putin, the Syrian government’s most powerful supporter, had been widely expected to center on the thorny aftermath of Turkey’s military operation and the rapidly shifting Syrian map of control, as U.S. troops withdraw and competing factions rush to fill the void. 

 

Mapping out Turkey's invasion of northern Syria

 

 

Here's where chaos unfolded in northern Syria as Turkey launched an invasion following President Trump's Oct. 6 decision to withdraw U.S. troops from the area. (Joyce Lee, William Neff/The Washington Post)

Trump says a limited number of troops will remain in Syria after ordering a complete withdrawal

“These are very critical days in the region,” Erdogan said after being greeted by Putin in Sochi. “The Peace Spring operation and this meeting will create very important opportunities,” he added referring to the title Turkey has given its military operation. 

There were signs of trouble with the cease-fire even as the meeting in Russia got underway. The Kurdish-led militias, known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, said they had only partially completed their withdrawal from an area that stretches roughly 70 miles along Turkey’s border, and 20 miles deep into Syrian territory. 

A photo from the Syrian Arab News Agency shows Syrian army units deploying in Hasakah province, Syria, Oct. 22. (SANA shows Syrian army units deploying in Hasakah province, Syria, Oct. 22.)

Mervan Qamishlo, an SDF spokesman, blamed what he said were ongoing attacks by Turkey and allied forces for the delay and said Kurdish-led forces had withdrawn only from the Syrian town of Ras al-Ayn. 

Read More ...

Off the Top of My Head

Will the Real Terrorists Please Stand Up?

by John Lawrence, October 22, 2019

In this strange never never land, allies become terrorists and terrorists become allies. Let's get this straight. The Kurds were our allies, that is they were, before Turkey, which is our ally, announced that they were terrorists. One day they were our allies, the next they were terrorists as announced by our ally, Turkey. Oh, what tangled webs we weave! What happened with the abrupt pullout of American troops from Syria is that diplomacy went entirely down the drain. A diplomatic solution should have been sought before the American pullout which would have at least protected the Kurds who were American allies in the successful elimination of the real terrorists - ISIS. Now the real terrorists have been given a new lease on life while our former allies, having been completely sold down the drain by the US, have been declared as terrorists.

Without formally announcing it, the US has lost the war in Syria. Bashar al-Assad, whose regime the US sought to change, has remained in power. What's more he has formed an alliance with the Kurds, America's former allies, against Turkey which wants to annex a 20 mile by 250 mile strip of Syria. There is a possible solution to this whole mess if the countries involved were at all interested in anything other than a military solution to every problem. Start by analyzing each party's interests. As far as Bashar al-Assad is concerned, he wants to remain in power as Predident of Syria. As far as Turkey is concerned, they want to relocate Syrian refugees now living in Turkey back to Syria, and they want relief from the trouble the Kurds are causing inside Turkey. As far as the Kurds are concerned, they want a piece of land that they can call home without being hounded by Turkey.

So far only Bashar al-Assad has got his way. He will remain in power, the US having failed to oust him. The crux of the matter is giving the Kurds officially some kind of homeland especially after they fought on behalf of the US with just that in mind. The Kurdish homeland should be an autonomous region in northern Syria and possibly Iraq. If that had been negotiated successfully, Syria, Kurtdistan and Turkey could have achieved a peaceful settlement. Trump's abrupt removal of troops from Syria without at least first seeking a peace deal was shameful to say the least. The US lost all leverage and lost all credibility in one fateful stroke by the hapless and ignorant Trump. Now the situation has devolved disastrously for the Kurds whom Turkey considers terrorists. The Syrian refugees could have been repatriated, Turkey could have had a peace deal with the Kurds if they were willing to relocate to an autonomous region in Northern Syria and Bashar al-Assad could be happy. Since the US is unwilling to work things out with the various countries involved including Russia and Iran who are Bashar's allies, the whole situation is a shambles.

Perhaps Russia, Iran and Syria can work things out diplomatically. The US has foregone the privilege of being the peacemaker in the region. The US has mutated from being a peacemaker to a warmonger in the region starting with George W Bush's lies to get the US involved in war in Iraq. It has gone downhill from there. The US was at the height of its prestige and credibility after WW II. I have the utmost respect and patriotic regard for America's conduct in that era. Most of which that has happened since though, including the Vietnam and Korean wars, has only diminished US credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world. Trump has put the final nail in the coffin of the US' reputation and credibility.

'Go Home America. After You Made Our Sons Die': Outraged Syrian Kurds Throw Dirt and Rotten Food at Fleeing US Troops

Published on Monday, October 21, 2019

by Common Dreams

"To the U.S. Army who are leaving northeast Syria, tell your children that the children of the Kurds were killed by the Turks and you did nothing to protect them."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

2 Comments

Residents angry over the U.S. withdrawal from Syria hurl potatoes at American military vehicles in the town of Qamishli, Syria on Monday, October 21, 2019. (Photo: ANHA/Twitter Screengrab)

Outraged residents of the heavily Kurdish city of Qamishli, Syria on Monday hurled potatoes, rotten fruit, and dirt at American soldiers departing the northeastern region of the country on orders from U.S. President Donald Trump, whose decision paved the way for a deadly Turkish invasion.

"Like rats, America is running away," one man shouted in Arabic as a convoy of armored vehicles made its way through the city.

Other angry residents shouted "America liar" and "No America" in English as they pelted the U.S. vehicles with food.

"The scene encapsulated the Kurds' feelings of betrayal and added a new indignity to an American withdrawal that has been rushed and saw several close brushes with Turkish-backed forces," the Associated Press reported. "The Kurds were stunned when President Donald Trump two weeks ago abruptly decided to pull U.S. troops out of border areas, abandoning their allied Kurdish-backed fighters ahead of Turkey's invasion."

Watch:

Stones and rotten fruit for the withdrawing US force. What a farce this has been. pic.twitter.com/PN82C6I18a

— Adam Harvey (@adharves) October 21, 2019

‘Go home America. After you made our sons die.’ There‘s such a sense of betrayal here in north east Syria. pic.twitter.com/bYVuy3Ycb7

— Adam Harvey (@adharves) October 21, 2019

 

The incident in Qamishli came hours after a group of protesters near the town of Tal Tamr blocked the road as U.S. tanks and trucks made their way from northeastern Syria to Iraq.

"To the U.S. Army who are leaving northeast Syria, tell your children that the children of the Kurds were killed by the Turks and you did nothing to protect them," read a sign raised by one resident.

"Thanks for U.S. people, but Trump betrayed us," read another sign.

Tonight in N. Syria, Kurds showing their reaction to US forces who are ordered to withdraw. Emotional signs pointing out how people left defenseless #SaveKurds pic.twitter.com/ED75LooPVY

— Mutlu Civiroglu (@mutludc) October 21, 2019

The New York Times reported Sunday evening that Trump is considering a new plan that would leave 200 American troops in Syria to "combat the Islamic State and block the advance of Syrian government and Russian forces into the region's coveted oil fields."

Earlier Sunday, Trump tweeted that the U.S. has "secured the oil" in Syria and is "bringing soldiers home." But, as Common Dreams reported Monday, Pentagon chief Mark Esper confirmed the 1,000 American troops withdrawing from Syria are shifting to Iraq, not returning to the United States.

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

Trump and Biden Both Corrupt

by John Lawrence, October 14, 2019

What Trump did was worse, but Biden doesn't have clean hands either. Trump told Ukraine leader he wanted dirt on Biden or he wouldn't get his money. Biden told Ukrainian leader he wanted prosecutor removed or he wouldn't get his money. Both were meddling in affairs of another sovereign country. To boot Hunter Biden was getting $50,000 a month for a no show job at a Ukrainian gas company. Of course Joe would say, "We have done nothing wrong." Theoretically at least they did nothing wrong. Joe did nothing wrong when he voted to take bankruptcy protection away from student loan debtors either. Theoretically, Trump did nothing wrong when he asked Ukrainian leader for dirt on Joe Biden. Does it say in the Constitution you can't do that? I don't think so.

The point is both these guys, Biden and Trump, are corrupt. Ukraine is corrupt and US policy in Ukraine is corrupt. The US should never be selling weapons to Ukraine or anybody else. A pox on both their houses. We need bold new leadership not an idiot with no political experience nor do we need the "senator from MBNA", who voted for everything credit card companies wanted. Trump is not only an idiot, but he has no command of the English language. He calls a conversation with the Ukrainian leader "perfect" and "beautiful." What kind of a way is that to describe a conversation? Maybe the way a sixth grader would do it. He's the most inarticulate President we've ever had, and that's just for starters. But he sure does know how to rev up a crowd - a crowd with the mentality of sixth graders.

One more point about the Bidens. Trump complains about the Chinese stealing American intellectual property. What better way to do it than to have Hunter Biden become part of a Chines private equity fund? The Chinese are just using American financial methods to take over. A private equity fund buys other corporations, then strips them of their assets and takes them bankrupt. One of those assets of course is intellectual property. What better way than to install Hunter Biden as one of the principles, take over American companies and then strip them of their assets just like American capitalists are doing. You see the Chinese are just using the means of American capitalism to accomplish their objectives. You can't fault them for trying to imitate us. Again Hunter did nothing wrong. Taking over companies, laying off employees and raiding their pension funds is just good ol American capitalism. Why, are we getting upset that the Chinese are just following in our footsteps?

Enough of this nonsense. Both Trump and Biden are has beens that should have been never wases. Let's elect someone who takes climate change seriously, who wants to get on with the Green New Deal like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. Time's a wasting, folks. We've got ten years in order to escape the worst effects of climate change. Trump is right about the endless wars, but he's a total nincompoop about Syria. Take the money devoted to the military and put it towards infrastructure, conversion to renewable energy, diplomatic settlement of disputes with other countries and between other countries, honor the United Nations, build housing for the homeless, shore up the Social Security of senior citizens and implement Medicare for All who want it.

Nothing is as ridiculous as selling out our ally the Kurds who are considered terrorists by our ally the Turks who are now setting out to destroy our ally the Kurds who we've sold down the river 8 times before. These idiots, not just Trump, in charge of American foreign policy are complete idiots including Lindsay Graham and all the neocons. Let's get rid of them, make restitution to the hundreds of thousands of displaced persons and refugees that American policy has created in the Middle East and start creating a more peaceful world. That means we stop selling weapons to oil billionaires like the Saudis or anybody else, make peace with Iran, cooperate with Russia and China and build a better world instead of one that is militarized to the hilt. American policy could have settlled the Syrian, Kurdish, Turkish issues by diplomacy instead of just scooting out and leaving it up to others to fight it out. Not to mention the escape of all the ISIS folks we and the Kurds had captured. Now there off to create another caliphate, and we can start all over.

Off the Top of My Head

Omar Accused of Being Anti-Semitic for Suggesting that the US Contributes Too Much Money to Israel?

by John Lawrence, March 11, 2019

Yes, Israel has a lobby called AIPAC. It's purpose is to get American lawmakers to contribute more money to Israel, already a very prosperous country. Omar tweeted, "It's all about the Benjamins, baby," which some have taken to be anti-semitic. I thought the word "Benjamin" was an anti-semitic slur that I'd never heard of. But it turns out to be a reference to Benjamin Franklin on the $100 bill. Meanwhile, the US gives nothing to Israel's poor neighbors, the Palestinians having cut the relatively meager $200 million it had been giving out of the budget at the urging of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. NPR reported: "The Trump administration announced Friday that it has cut nearly all the money the U.S. had planned to spend on aid projects for the Palestinians this year —including money to address a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip."

So why is the American media jumping all over Omar, a Muslim, for supporting her Muslim fellow religionists in Palestine which is suffering a humanitarian crisis? It seems that the slightest criticism of Israel will get the powers-that-be jumping all over you and calling you anti-semitic. Omar has a right to call out the US for giving a huge amount of foreign aid to a country that doesn't need it while totally neglecting its poorer neighbor. Her problem is that she and the other Muslim woman in Congress, Rashida Tlaib, will be attacked any time they take a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel stand. This cuts off debate; it cuts off discussion about how to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem and bring peace to that region. It shuts the mouths of anyone daring to be pro-Palestinian.

However, Rabbi Jill Jacobs writes in the Washington Post:

Despite what some pro-Israel organizations would have us believe, not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Like all countries, Israel has a duty to uphold international human rights laws and to protect the rights of those living under its control. One may protest the use of live fire on unarmed protesters, the closure of the Gaza border and the subsequent humanitarian crisis, the military occupation of the Palestinian territories, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attacks on democracy and incitement against human rights leaders without invoking anti-Semitic tropes. Such policies would be wrong in any country, whether carried out by Jews or other people.

However, there is legitimate criticism of Israel, which the two Muslim Members of Congress should not suppress. The government of Israel has been criticized for issues regarding Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories, its treatment of Palestinian Arabs, the conduct of Israeli Defense Forces during conflicts and the blockade of the Gaza Strip.  Other historic issues with ongoing consequences have also been criticized including: the refusal to allow post-war Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, and the prolonged occupation of territories gained in war and the construction of settlements therein.

Among the most controversial policies enacted as part of its occupation, Israel has established numerous Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The international community considers these settlements illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. The United Nations Security Council has consistently reaffirmed that settlements in that territory are void of legality and are a "flagrant violation of international law", most recently with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334. The creation and ongoing expansion of the settlements have led to Israel's policies being criticized as an example of colonialism.

Perhaps if Israel did something nice for the Palestinians like easing the humanitarian crisis, lifting the plight of those living in absolute poverty or reducing settlements in disputed lands, then the conflict between Palestine and Israel could start to be ameliorated. As long as both sides are intransigent, this area of the world will remain mired in conflict and war. The two Muslim women in Congress should continue to speak out on a more even handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli situation. They are the only ones representing the Palestinian point of view.

Off the Top of My Head

End the War in Afghanistan; Use Money Saved for Border Security

by John Lawrence, January 4, 2019

The war in Afghanistan is costing US taxpayers $45 billion per year. That's 123,287,671.233 a day. Why not end it and spend the money on enhanced border security which might include a wall in some places. I'd like to see a comprehensive, well thought out plan for border security, not just throwing money at some wall for political purposes. If these presumably intelligent people in Congress can't do something intelligent in a rational manner instead of just playing politics, it's a harbinger that the end is near for US domination of the world. The newly elected Democrat controlled House of Representatives is a step in the right direction. However, Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate will block everything the Progressives want to do, just like they did with Obama.

So we will continue to have a neocon world view with Trump running a non-stop reelection campaign. The only hope for this country is to get rid of Trump and elect a Democratic Senate in 2020. Then maybe some wars will end, some infrastructure will get built, inequality will be abated and some sense will be instilled at the national level. Meanwhile the rest of the world is passing us by. China is in the process of proving that communism (at least the Chinese variant of it) is superior to capitalism (at least the American version of it). They just landed on the back side of the moon for Pete's sake. The US has teamed up with the worst actor in the Middle East - Saudi Arabia - making it dubious that America has any claim to moral leadership in the world.

The playbook for the Republicans, when the Democrats take power, will be to insist that they pay down the deficit - the deficit that the Republicans have run up with their tax cuts for the wealthy. The Dems shouldn't fall for that the way Bill Clinton did. Fool me once ... you can't get fooled again, as George W Bush famously said. Instead the Dems should implement their Green New Deal, excoriating fossil fuels and insisting on a transfer to renewable energy with all deliberate haste or ASAP, whichever comes sooner. They need to deal with the 40 million Americans who are living in extreme poverty and the ever growing number of homeless Americans, including homeless children and veterans.

Ending the wars in the Middle East, shutting down the 179 military bases in Germany and the 109 in Japan should be high on he Democratic agenda. Maybe they can work with Trump on that. His America First agenda calls for letting other advanced countries foot their own bills for their military defense. Why not work with him to accomplish that and use at least some of the money for enhanced border security?

Anti-War Voices: Of Course Trump Should Withdraw US Troops From Syria... and Afghanistan and Yemen and Iraq and...

Wednesday, December 19, 2018 by Common Dreams

 

"The US has been waging endless war for a generation, wasting trillions of dollars and costing countless lives, and we're no better off for it."

 

 

 

by 

Jon Queally, staff writer

 

 83 Comments

"President Trump is absolutely right to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria," said Paul Kawika Martin of Peace Action. "President Obama deployed U.S. soldiers to Syria in violation of international law, and the ongoing U.S. presence there only serves to prolong the war and fuel the risk of confrontation with Russia, Iran, and other parties to the conflict." (Photo: DoD/flickr/cc)

Even as the Pentagon stammered and the retired generals, ex-CIA chiefs, and war hawks from both major political parties took to the cable news to warn against the prospect of less war—or at least U.S. involvement in them—peace groups on Wednesday afternoon applauded news reporting that President Donald Trump has ordered the withdrawal of U.S. ground forces from Syria.

"President Trump is absolutely right to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria," said Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, in response to reporting from the New York Times and others.

"President Obama deployed U.S. soldiers to Syria in violation of international law," he said, "and the ongoing U.S. presence there only serves to prolong the war and fuel the risk of confrontation with Russia, Iran, and other parties to the conflict."

The US should not have been in #Syria without constitutional authorization by #Congress. @realDonaldTrump is correct to cease our military presence. Now the US needs to support a political solution and humanitarian needs including helping refugees. https://t.co/qZuMWpejkU pic.twitter.com/rWO44Hj1FG

— Paul Kawika Martin (@PaulKawika) December 19, 2018

A troop withdrawal, Martin added, does not mean the U.S. cannot have a role in helping the Syrian people or securing a better future for the nation. "The U.S. can and should pursue a more active role in negotiations aimed at securing a political solution and a lasting peace in Syria, and should step up funding for humanitarian aid," Martin said. "President Trump should also rethink his administration's callous, discriminatory refugee policies and immediately increase the number of refugees allowed into the United States rather than continuing to shut our doors to Syrians fleeing a war that the U.S. has played such a significant role in."

My statement supporting decision by @realDonaldTrump to withdraw US troops from Syria. It was wrong when the Obama Administration took part in unauthorized war actions in Syria without a strategy. It was wrong for the Trump Administration to continue it. https://t.co/K8zONxPKnw

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) December 19, 2018

The anti-war and human rights group CodePink also applauded the prospect of all U.S. troops leaving Syria.

"We believe the U.S. withdrawal from Syria is a positive contribution to the peace process,"  said the group's co-founder Medea Benjamin. A withdrawal, she added, also "decreases the tensions between the United States and Iran that could have escalated the dangerous proxy wars that have been victimizing the Syrian people."

Putting focus on the war's countless victims, Benjamin said her group is calling "on all foreign powers that have been involved in Syria’s destruction, including the United States, to take responsibility for rebuilding this nation and providing assistance to the Syrian people, including the refugees, who have suffered so tragically for over seven years."

Benjamin said she further hopes that the decision will also mark the start of further reevaluation of U.S. troops stationed around the world. "This is particularly true in Afghanistan," she said, "where some 16,000 US soldiers are engaged in a war that is beginning its 18th year, and in neighboring Iraq, where the U.S. says it will maintain its presence with 5,200 troops stationed in the country. President Trump should continue to stand up to the neocons and the military-industrial complex that profit from endless war by bringing these troops home as well."

Martin agreed.

"As long as Trump is rethinking the U.S. role in Syria, he should also move to withdraw U.S. forces from the 17-year-old war in Afghanistan, and from the catastrophic Saudi-led war in Yemen," Martin said.

"The U.S. has been waging endless war for a generation, wasting trillions of dollars and costing countless lives, and we're no better off for it," he concluded. "We need a security strategy rooted in peace and cooperation rather than death and destruction. In the coming year, the new Congress should move to reclaim its long-lost authority on war so that these critical decisions are vetted by the people's representatives instead of left in the hands of one person."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

Trump Blunders into Doing the Right Thing

by John Lawrence, December 22, 2018

Getting the US out of Syria is the right thing to do. Ditto for that money pit - Afghanistan. Let us not forget that the purpose of going into Syria was regime change. The US wanted to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad. However, Assad with Russia's and Iran's help won the civil war so then the dialog has been all about ISIS. A little history is in order perhaps. Assad practices a flavor of Islam which is close to the Shiites. Assad is an ally of Iran which is majority Shiite. But the people of Syria are majority Sunni. It is just the opposite situation that existed in Iraq before the US invasion. There a majority Shiite population was governed by a Sunni government. By overthrowing Saddam and instituting a "democracy", Iraq became a country governed by Shiites allied with Iran. The Saudis, who are the largest Sunni nation in the Middle East and a US ally were saying the Arabic equivalent of "What the fuck?"

So Obama and Hillary in all their zest and zeal for "democratic values" were of the opinion that the US should institute "regime change" in Syria so that the majority Sunnis could be in power there. That would be lovely as far as the Saudis were concerned. However, please don't forget that ISIS is Sunni. ISIS was spawned by Saudi Arabia in their virulent Wahhabist schools which preach "Death to the West." Lest we forget, Usama bin Laden came from a wealthy Saudi family and 15 0f the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. So getting back to Syria, if the US had been successful in unseating Assad, it is likely that a Sunni caliphate aka ISIS would have taken over. In fact the US and ISIS were fighting for the same objective - a Syrian government dominated by Sunnis and allied with Saudi Arabia.

So getting out of Syria is the right thing to do. Hurrah for Donald Trump! Lindsay Graham needn't worry about ISIS taking over now. Assad, Russia and Hezbollah (Iran's proxy) will make short work of ISIS in Syria. The Kurds which had hopes of establishing an independent state in northern Syria - Kurdistan - will have to retreat into Turkey where they and the majority Turks are Sunnis. So the status quo ante will have been reestablished and the fighting will have ceased thanks to Trump's decision to declare victory and get the hell out of the way. (Actually, it was a US defeat, but what the hell.)

So to sum up, Syria will remain governed by Assad aligned with Iran and Iraq had a regime change which aligned it with Iran. US meddling in the Middle East has caused nothing but death and destruction and cost a trillion dollars which could have been spent more wisely at home rebuilding US infrastructure. Instead, we destroyed civilian infrastructure in the Middle East. The US is left with its human rights violating ally, Saudi Arabia minus an ally in Iraq, the legacy of being friends with the murderer of Kashoggi and a money pit in Afghanistan. Might we venture to say that US foreign policy is a shambles? A shambles that makes a mockery of human rights and allies itself with the worst actors? Oh what tangled webs we weave.

Off the Top of My Head

How America Is Treating Hundreds of Thousands of Civilians Whose Homes and Businesses It Destroyed in the Middle East: BENIGN NEGLECT!

by John Lawrence, December 12, 2018

Nick McDonell's latest book, "The Bodies in Person: An Account of Civilian Casualties in American Wars" details the destruction of civilian lives, homes and businesses that America has brought to the Middle East and the lack of compassion or compensation following in that wake. America knows how to destroy a country; it doesn't know or doesn't care to know how to rebuild it. Is it any wonder when America spends a trillion dollars a year on its machinery of destruction, the US military, and only $410 million on its Peace Corps, which if funded at the same level as the military might be able to rebuild what the military has destroyed?

McDonell writes in Time magazine:

It is fall in Mosul, the season’s first cool breezes blow off the Tigris, and I am walking around a 12th century castle with my friend Safwan. We have spent the morning scouting on behalf of an NGO dedicated to direct cash assistance. The surrounding blocks are destroyed, but several families are trying to move back anyway, clearing the wrecked Ottoman courtyards, stone by stone. They are excellent candidates for support, but Safwan, a soft-spoken 29-year-old engineer, remains frustrated. “There is no progress with the mass of destruction,” he says. “It needs effort from foreign countries and serious work from the government. Until now, we haven’t seen that.”

Safwan’s frustration is common in Mosul. Though the city was liberated from ISIS in 2017, millions of tons of rubble are yet to be cleared; 40% of old Mosul remains disconnected from any water network; electricity is erratic; in certain neighborhoods, corpses and IEDs remain on the roadside. Sixty-five percent of the city’s housing stock was damaged or destroyed; in the less damaged quarters, spiking rents drive families into debt, while a lack of jobs leaves young men idle in tea shops. The surviving hospitals and schools cannot support the population of 1.5 million; in the street, children orphaned in the battle beg for change, then curse those who refuse them.

This is how America leaves the cities it has "liberated." What's the old saying: "We had to destroy the village in order to liberate it."? Students for Liberty write on their website:

During the Vietnam War, a U.S. major justified bombing and shelling civilian areas in Bến Tre by saying “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” This statement evolved into the famous phrase “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” This quote explains a litany of state actions. Government officials and their supporters embrace a mindset of humanitarian imperialism and justify violence against innocent people, claiming that it is necessary to save those they brutalize.

This mindset is most obvious during wars of aggression euphemistically termed “humanitarian interventions.” For example, the U.S. government fired depleted uranium at Iraqi civilian areas in the name of “Iraqi Freedom.” This process of “liberating” Iraq also involved thousands of civilian casualties, as well as torture of detainees.

In order to fulfill their “responsibility to protect” Libyan civilians from Muammar al-Qaddafi’s violence, Western governments bombed civilians. This “responsibility to protect” also apparently entailed supporting forces that engaged in mass executions of political enemies and arbitrarily arrested and abused black Africans based on their race.

Others are saying it far better than I can. The US destroys countries - in the case of Iraq, the invasion was based on a lie - and then honors the President - in this case George W Bush - who lied America into war just because he wanted to be a war time President and surround himself with glory. Then America takes no responsibility for the lives it has destroyed. Instead, under Trump, it wants to keep the less fortunate out of the country club as only the more fit of humankind are deserving of the benefits thereof, certainly not any peons from "shithole" countries.

Off the Top of My Head

The World's Biggest Hypocrite

by John Lawrence, November 24, 2018

The CIA has traced the murder of Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, directly to the door steps of one Mohammed bin Salman the Crown Prince of the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. Some call it a "kingdom," but that is a total euphemism. They even have a tape of Khashoggi being tortured and murdered which Trump refuses to listen to. Why? Because it might ruin his appetite? He doesn't want to hear the cries and screams? He doesn't want to hear those of the children of Yemen either as he continues to support the Saudis' war there which is creating a humanitarian crisis.

So while there is a direct link to Mohammed bin Salman in Khashoggi's murder, there is no evidence whatsoever that Vladimir Putin is responsible for the attempted murder of the Skripals in the UK. Yet the US establishment has pinned the blame squarely on Putin. The US is always accusing other countries and leaders of human rights violations like we're so pure. We'll slap sanctions on them without an iota of proof. Yet when an ally does it, why there is not a peep out of Trump. There are others to be fair that have stood up and said that Saudi Arabia committed a human rights violation. People like Lindsay Graham, bless his heart. There are still a few honest, unconflicted people in Washington, thank God. But the President of the United States is not one of them.

Trump brazenly says that his non condemnation of Saudi Arabia and Salman in particular is all about money. Yes, if there is money involved, it even justifies murder. It even justifies human rights violations. We wouldn't want to take jobs away from the weapons manufacturers. Killing innocents is their job, and it is very lucrative. Thank God, there are at least some decent people in Washington who want to stop the US supported war in Yemen. Isn't it enough that we have slaughtered over a million people throughout the Middle East?

With Statement Equal Parts 'Dangerous' and 'Imbecilic,' Trump Smears Khashoggi and Vows to Back Murderous Saudis

Published on Tuesday, November 20, 2018 by Common Dreams

"This Donald Trump statement—simultaneously pledging never-ending support for Saudi Arabia and blaming Iran for every Middle East problem—reads like a 6th grader's school report."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

67 Comments

President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media prior to his departure from the White House November 20, 2018 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

In a bizarre, exclamation point-riddled statement on Tuesday that one critic said reads more "like a 6th grader's school report" than an official White House press release, President Donald Trump shrugged at the CIA's conclusion that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) ordered the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi—"maybe he did and maybe he didn't!"—and declared that the U.S. will continue to back Saudi Arabia because it is one of the world's largest oil producers, a major purchaser of American arms, and an ally in the "fight against Iran."

"This is, without a doubt, the most uninformed, imbecilic, toady, poorly-written, categorically untrue statement I have ever seen from a president of the United States."
—Joe Cirincione, Ploughshares Fund

Speaking to reporters on the White House lawn just hours after his statement went public, Trump said Khashoggi's murder "is a very complex situation, it's a shame, but it is what it is."

"It's all about America first. We're not going to give up hundreds of billions of dollars in [weapons] orders and let Russia, China, and everybody else have them," the president added. "Saudi Arabia, if we broke with them, I think your oil prices would go through the roof. I've kept them down, they've helped me keep them down."

 

 

Off the Top of My Head

Why is George W Bush Being Honored?

by John Lawrence, November 20, 2018

Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which have killed over a million people and now Joe Biden of all people presented him with the Liberty Medal on the hundredth anniversary of the end of World War I? Bush should have paid for his criminal acts, and instead he's being rewarded. He blatantly lied to the American people because he wanted to be a "war time President." Even the war in Afghanistan was ill conceived because Osama bin Laden was a Saudi living in Pakistan. What did Afghanistan have to do with it? Obama was duped too, by the way, into thinking that Afghanistan was responsible for 9/11. He continued that fruitless war.

If anyone other than bin Laden himself was responsible, it was our ally, Saudi Arabia, who contributed 15 of the 19 hijackers. But Trump wants to be friends with the Saudis even now after their leader has committed one of the most egregious human rights violations in human history by offing Jamal Khashoggi. Trump's rationale: they buy our weapons to kill Yemeni women and children and thereby create American jobs producing those weapons. Trump is all about creating American jobs even if they kill people.

Common Dreams put it this way:

We do know this: To make their splendid little war happen, Bush and his minions lied again and again — about "ticking time bombs" that had been unplugged years earlier, about weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, and about ties between Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda that never were. The Iraq war has destabilized the Middle East to this day and paved the way for the rise of a new anti-American group called ISIS that remains a murderous scourge. And it made the world safe for oil, right at the moment when the planet's survival depends on moving away from fossil fuels.

Has this guy no shame? Has this country no shame? Bush represented a new low in American politics until Trump came along who is even lower. Trump wants to stay friends with a murderer because he buys lots of weapons from the US, and Trump thinks he's protecting the jobs of the weapons makers. The US has sunk to a new moral low point when its economy depends on selling weapons to murderers.

So now even the Democrats want to rehabilitate George W Bush. He's one of us former Presidents - welcome to the club, by the way - so we can't let his reputation fall too low. He spends his time helping veterans and painting pictures. What's not to like? It turns out a lot. The destabilization of the Middle East. The destruction of billions of dollars worth of real estate. The killing of a million people. And that's just for starters. A fit tribute to George W Bush would be to send him to Guantanamo and let him linger there for the rest of his life being waterboarded from time to time.

Coalition Ignores Famine Warnings and Continues Assault on Yemen as Critics Question US Complicity

Published on Saturday, June 16, 2018 by Common Dreams

While senators demand answers from the Pentagon, anti-war advocates are calling the attack on Hodeida a failure by the U.S. to stop it and demanding an end to American military support for the coalition

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 

12 Comments

Women and girls line up to receive food aid on June 10, 2018 in Sana'a, the rebel-held captial of Yemen. About 70 percent of humanitarian assistance reaches Yemenis through Hodeida, a port city currently under seige by Saudi-led coalition forces. (Photo: Mohammed Hamoud/Getty Images)

Ignoring international aid groups' warnings that an attack on the Yemeni city of Hodeida, which is held by Houthi rebels, could exacerbate hunger in an impoverished and war-torn nation already on the brink of famine, Saudi-led U.S.-backed coalition forces continued a sweeping assault on the Red Sea port city Saturday, reportedly seizing control of an airport.

"The lack of humanitarian assistance, following suspension of aid programs and with limited NGO staff on the ground while a military offensive is ongoing, will have severe consequences on a region already facing restrictions on the import and internal transportation of vital supplies, including medicines, food, and fuel."
—Frederic Pelat, Médecins Sans Frontières

"The lack of humanitarian assistance, following suspension of aid programs and with limited NGO staff on the ground while a military offensive is ongoing, will have severe consequences on a region already facing restrictions on the import and internal transportation of vital supplies, including medicines, food, and fuel."
—Frederic Pelat, Médecins Sans Frontières 

Since the fighting started earlier this week, thousands of Hodeida's 600,000 civilians have evacuated and hundreds of people have been killed. The port city is the main conduit through which about 70 percent of international aid reaches Yemenis, many of whom are battling starvation and outbreaks of infectious diseases such as cholera.

The Norwegian Refugee Council's office in Yemen told Reuters that "humanitarian agencies cannot currently access areas south of the city where people are most likely to have been injured, affected, and displaced, leaving us without a clear picture of needs."

"The lack of humanitarian assistance, following suspension of aid programs and with limited NGO staff on the ground while a military offensive is ongoing, will have severe consequences on a region already facing restrictions on the import and internal transportation of vital supplies, including medicines, food, and fuel," Frederic Pelat, head of Médecins Sans Frontières' mission in Yemen, warned Thursday. "Yemenis living in the northern parts of the country depend on vital supplies that pass through Hodeida's port."

The port of #Hodeida is an essential lifeline for the country: more than 70% of all food, essential medicines and healthcare supplies are brought in through this port. #Yemen@DrTedros pic.twitter.com/lv1HENfWmf

— WHO Yemen (@WHOYemen) June 16, 2018

Martin Griffiths, the U.N. special envoy to Yemen, arrived in the Houthi-held capital Sana'a on Saturday after the U.S. and U.K. blocked a U.N. Security Council resolution that would have called on coalition forces—which are being led by the United Arab Emirates in Hodeida—to immediately implement a ceasefire due to mounting fears that if the coalition takes control of Hodeida, the majority of Yemenis will be cut off from humanitarian assistance.

In an article published by The Intercept on Saturday, former White House and State Department officials, humanitarian leaders, and Yemen experts characterized the coalition's operation in Hodeida "as a major failure by the U.S. to restrain its coalition partners, who are largely dependent on American weapons, intelligence, and logistical support," and suggested "the attack was a sign that the U.S. is allowing allies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE to drive American policy decisions in Yemen."

Kate Kizer, policy director at the D.C. advocacy group Win Without War, noted that "rather than preventing the offensive, which the U.S. has done twice before, [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo [released] a weak statement giving the UAE the green light to potentially kill hundreds of thousands of people with no political strategy or end goal."

"The UAE's assault on Hodeida is just another example of the Trump administration outsourcing U.S. policy in Yemen—and really the region writ large—to the Gulf states," Kizer concluded. "Believing that this offensive will bring the Houthis to the negotiating table is living in a fantasyland."

On Friday, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) sent a letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis that acknowledged reports that the U.S. denied the UAE's request for "intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance" support for the Hodeida operation but still demanded answers about the U.S. military's ongoing assistance to the Saudi-led coalition.

.@SenMikeLee and I call on Sec. Mattis to immediately disclose the full extent of the U.S. military role in the Saudi-led war against Yemen’s Houthis and issue a public declaration opposing the impending assault on Hodeida. https://t.co/jZx5G2Je7i

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) June 15, 2018

The senators wrote,

We call on you to immediately disclose the full extent of the U.S. military role in the Saudi-led war against Yemen's Houthis, including the use of special operations forces; disclose any role that the Pentagon is currently performing, has been asked to perform, or is considering performing regarding an attack on the port of Hodeida; and issue a public declaration opposing this impending assault and restating the administration's position that Saudi Arabia and other parties to the conflict should accept an immediate ceasefire and move toward a political settlement to resolve the conflict.

Their letter on Friday followed a similar memo sent last month, which went unanswered, as well as a War Powers Resolution that the pair of senators, along with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), introduced earlier this year. While dozens of lawmakers were lauded by peace groups for backing that measure, which would have withdrawn U.S. forces from the war in Yemen, it was ultimately voted down by a majority of the Senate in late March.

In spite of that setback, anti-war advocates continue to push for congressional action to stop U.S. support for the war in Yemen:

Yemen. Can't. Wait.

Send a message to your Representative to act now to stop it from getting even worse: https://t.co/D9xKU0PwWt https://t.co/gRbdGg5OLA

— CODEPINK (@codepink) June 16, 2018

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

And What About Syrian Refugees?

by John Lawrence, April 14, 2018

Trump cares so much about the Syrian people that he unleashed a bomb attack on them, but what is he doing about the refugees that all this bombing and war making is creating? Is he resettling the victims of the horrific chemical attack? Where even are they, the ones that survived I mean? And what about the rising tide of refugees flooding Europe? How many has the US taken in?

Common Dreams reports:

"Under Trump, the number of Syrian refugees who have been granted asylum and resettled by the U.S. has plummeted, dropping from more than 12,000 in 2016 to half that number last year. Less than 100 of the war-torn nation's 5.5 million refugees are expected to be allowed into the U.S. by the end of the current fiscal year in September."

I see. We will get all morally outraged and bomb Syria, but when it comes to taking in refugees from that shithole country, forget it. Or maybe by seeming to be a tough President who doesn't let those who are morally inferior get away with anything, he is seeking to detract Americans from his seemingly endless litany of scandals. All the payoffs by his lawyers to porn stars. Of course all his "Christian" base loves all the titillation. It's nice to have one of their National Enquirer stars in the White House. Well, after all , all the scandals have been in the past, right? Trump hasn't fucked a porn star since landing in the White House, has he? He must then have been rededemed, washed in the blood or some such shit as that. Not like that Clinton who had an aid give him a blow job right there the the Oval Office!

No wonder Paul Ryan resigned. He was an upstanding Christian whose only goal was to screw poor people and aid and abet the rich, Ayn Rand style. When it came to sex, he was a tried and true family man. Maybe a whole lot more Republicans will up and resign because they can't stand their own hypocrisy and support for an irrational nincompoop who has sullied the reputation of the US.

This tweet hit it on the nose:

So far this year Donald Trump's America has accepted just 11 Syrian refugees and Britain isn't much better. So it's galling to hear Theresa May talk about the urgent need to bomb Syria to save the lives of innocents. #NotInMyNameTheresaMay

— Harry Leslie Smith (@Harryslaststand) April 14, 2018

Showing They 'Learned Nothing' From Iraq, Corporate Media Help Beat War Drums for Trump Attack on Syria

Published on Wednesday, April 11, 2018 by Common Dreams

"Pundits and the media are making John Bolton’s wildest dreams come true: in his first week on the job, everyone is calling for a new war."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

89 Comments

MSNBC anchor Ali Velshi contemplates President Donald Trump's best military options during a news segment on Wednesday. The options presented ranged from a "small strike" to "more damaging strikes" to "strikes on Russian and Iranian bases" inside Syria, but never considered this option for his viewers: no strikes at all. (Photo: MSNBC/Screenshot)

With America's major corporate cable outlets—particularly so-called liberal networks like MSNBC—continuing to uncritically provide generals and lawmakers a massive platform to beat the drums of war as President Donald Trump inches closer to launching a military attack on Syria, critics have concluded that the U.S. media has clearly learned nothing from the crucial role it played in cheerleading for the Bush administration's catastrophic invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"It's incredible how readily the cable news channels have politicians on pushing for war in Syria with almost no questions asked about how disastrous it might be or the so-called evidence."
—Cenk Uyger, The Young Turks

"The push for escalation on TV is overwhelming," Cenk Uyger, host of The Young Turks, observed in a tweet on Wednesday, reacting to the numerous instances this week of television hosts opining on Trump's "military options" with the likes of Iraq War supporter and retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey while refusing to question the underlying rationale for or legality of unilateral military action.

"It's incredible how readily the cable news channels have politicians on pushing for war in Syria with almost no questions asked about how disastrous it might be or the so-called evidence," Uyger added. "They pretended to learn lessons from Iraq but have actually learned nothing."

As media critic Simon Maloy lamented in a column at Media Matters, the behavior of much of the corporate media "indicates how alarmingly comfortable much of the mainstream press is with the idea that the president can just up and decide to initiate military hostilities whenever, wherever, and for whatever reason—even when there is no actual reason at all."

Almost entirely absent from the prevailing discussion of Syria on America's cable networks in recent days—which one journalist described as "a parade of one war hawk after another"—has been any mention of the alternatives to military action.

Exemplifying this total exclusion of peaceful options was a segment on Wednesday by MSNBC's Ali Velshi, who provided his viewers with a quick rundown of the possible actions the president could take in Syria—from "small strike" to "more damaging strikes" to "strikes on Russian and Iranian bases"—without ever mentioning one major choice: no airstrikes at all.

Watch:

After telling Russia to "get ready" for missile strikes in Syria, @AliVelshi takes a look at President Trump's military options. pic.twitter.com/RxtLYzLcvt

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) April 11, 2018

 

 

 

 

 

Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, argued on Twitter that the corporate media's relentless elevation of pro-war voices since the Assad regime was accused of carrying out a chemical attack on Sunday is "making John Bolton's wildest dreams come true."

As Common Dreams reported, Bolton officially took over as Trump's national security adviser on Monday as the White House weighed whether to strike Syria militarily.

"In his first week on the job, everyone is calling for a new war," Timm noted.

Pundits and the media are making John Bolton’s wildest dreams come true: in his first week on the job, everyone is calling for a new war.

— Trevor Timm (@trevortimm) April 11, 2018

With outlets like CNN and MSNBC leaving a massive vacuum by refusing to raise even the most basic questions about the Trump administration's push for military action in Syria, Tucker Carlson of Fox News has been one of the few cable hosts to criticize the rationale for war and offer a platform to an anti-war voice.

In an appearance on Carlson's primetime show Tuesday night, The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald argued that it is the "standard tactic" of the corporate media to smear opponents of U.S. wars in an effort to shut down legitimate questions about the rush toward military action.

"This climate arises that you're just supposed to cheer when it comes time to drop bombs on other countries, not ask whether there's evidence to justify it, not ask whether it will do any good, not ask whether it will kill any civilians," Greenwald said. "And if you do ask one of those questions it means you're on the side of America's enemies. It's an incredibly authoritarian tactic that gets used to suppress debate."

Watch:

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

How to Start World War III in a Box

by John Lawrence, April 13, 2018

Start bombing Russians in some Shithole Country with No Strategic Value for the US after Said Russians Have Just Won Proxy War for Some Tinhorn Dictator

The US, who likes to preach to the world about human rights and moral ethics, having just supported Saudi Arabia in killing Houthi children in Yemen, is outraged about a chemical attack in Syria which it alleges was carried out by said tinhorn dictator. So nutcase dictator Trump says, "We'll see what we shall see." Having lost the war in Syria, the US is preparing to restart it again. Only this time Syria is loaded with Russian military men and equipment. What could go wrong here?

The US has no moral superiority, chemical attack or no chemical attack. It has ravaged the whole Middle East in a process by which the outcome was determined to be that the US' enemy, Iran, was handed the reins in the Middle East. Funny, you fight a war the outcome of which is that some third party, namely your enemy, comes out the winner. Smart strategic thinking here. Then thinking that it's not too late to restart a war you've already lost, you return to the fray led by a nutcase President and a shithole-destroying Secretary of Defense.

Since Obama did not cross the red line he projected with his laser pointer, Trump wants to have a go at it. His turn to get embroiled in the Middle East, this time fighting Russians as well. Makes sense. The US lost the war once. Maybe this time will be different. The first time you had a rational man as President; this time you have a looney tunes. But Lockheed Martin needs the business. Might as well crank up the war expenditures especially after you've given the US billionaires a helluva tax break which is in the process of running up the US budget deficit by a trillion dollars a year. Question is: who is going to buy all that US debt? Or maybe the question is who is going to dump US Treasuries creating a real financial crisis?

The US has lost whatever moral stature it had in the world under President Obama and whatever residual moral stature it had after WW II. Now it is just seen as the world's bully, a hypocrite on human rights which supports Saudi Arabia , a country with one of the worst human rights records in the world. If the US public was smart, they'd get rid of the joker in the White House and all his Republican friends, and increase their moral stature by apologizing for the debacle they wrought in the Middle East.

Off the Top of My Head

What Does the US Bombing Syria Accomplish?

by John Lawrence, April 11, 2018

Now Trump wants to send a missile strike to bomb Syria because Assad unleashed a chemical attack that killed innocent civilians. Modern warfare is war against civilians. Any attack against civilians chemical or otherwise is deplorable, but that is what war in the 21st century consists of. And that goes for the million civilians killed by the US in the Middle East too. Trump sending a missile strike to Syria will only kill more civilians, and what would it accomplish? The fate of Syria has already been decided. Assad, Russia and Iran won. The US lost. The purported chemical attack was a mopping up operation against a small pocket of resistance to Assad's regime. What strategic goal will the US accomplish by sending a missile strike and killing more civilians? Answer: nothing.

So the US, although irrelevant as a player in Syria and increasingly the whole Middle East, is just throwing its weight around there just because we can do it with no goal in mind. A slap on the wrist to Assad? Assad has already won. Is it we're just showing our moral superiority by reacting to something so horrible Assad and Russia and Iran have done? We'll show them. We'll kill more civilians the conventional way - with conventional bombs, not chemicals. So we'll send a couple million dollars' worth of missiles over there which will accomplish nothing except Lockheed Martin will probably get another contract for replacement missiles and bombs. After all we can't let our stock get too low.

Politico reports:

Experts have suggested that plans for Trump's promised strike against Syria in response to the latest chemical attack are complicated by an apparent lack of an overall strategy to address the ongoing conflict there. Because the first strike failed to deter the use of chemical weapons, a second strike would likely be more severe, potentially including the use of American warplanes, a riskier step because of the threat one could be shot down, as opposed to the cruise missiles the Trump administration launched last year.

The Syrian government has denied responsibility for the chemical weapons attack and Russia, its close ally, blocked a United Nations Security Council resolution Tuesday that called for an independent investigation to establish whether or not the Assad regime had deployed such weapons against a civilian population. ...

Trump’s Wednesday morning warning to Russia seemed a response to remarks from Alexander Zasypkin, the Kremlin’s ambassador to Lebanon, who said Tuesday, according to Reuters, that “if there is a strike by the Americans, then...the missiles will be downed and even the sources from which the missiles were fired.” Zasypkin said his comments about a U.S. missile strike echoed remarks from Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian military chief of staff.

So the only strategic goal that the US might achieve is to get into a war with Russia over an attack that killed 40 people? Nice going, Trump. A fitting culmination to the mind boggling insanity and monumental bungling starting with George W Bush's lying us into war in Iraq which only resulted in Iran taking over Iraq. Then came the incompetent bumbling of the whole Middle East strategy resulting in practically the whole Middle East being controlled by Iran and now the slaughter of innocents in Yemen by our ally Saudi Arabia carried out with US bombs and weapons.

Wouldn't it have been better to give peace a chance? Do Americans even care about this latest travesty?

Off the Top of My Head

US Complicit in Saudi Slaughter of Yemeni Children

by John Lawrence, March 11, 2018

The Saudis are ruthlessly and relentlessly slaughtering the Yemeni people, and they're doing it with American weapons. As if the US hasn't done enough damage in the Middle East, it continues its perfidious behavior by selling weapons to its ally, Saudi Arabia. The export of American weapons fuels the fighting and the tragedy in the world. Is the US directly responsible for what's going on in Yemen? No. Is it indirectly responsible? Yes.

This is from the Washington Post:

The Nov. 9 editorial “The crisis in Yemen” called attention to the effect of Saudi Arabia’s blockade on famine in Yemen. It mentioned the lack of media attention to the Yemeni tragedy, which includes “the fastest-growing cholera epidemic ever recorded” and “the world’s biggest food emergency.” It said that Saudi Arabia bears heavy responsibility for the crisis for its “ruthless but unwinnable war.” But it did not mention direct U.S. military complicity in this long and pointless campaign.

In addition to selling a vast arsenal of weapons to Saudi Arabia, our government’s military gave logistical guidance in the Saudi military headquarters in Riyadh and continues to provide intelligence to Saudi defense officials and aerial refueling during bombing runs. The Saudi-led coalition could not have conducted the two and a half years of bombing without the support of our military. In recent years, our military has carried out innumerable raids on the terrorist group al-Qaeda in Yemen, but al-Qaeda and the Islamic State have taken advantage of the Saudi-led campaign to seize territory and expand their activities in the Arabian Peninsula. There is a move afoot in the House and the Senate to end U.S. involvement in this tragic war. It is time to pass legislation to end it.

The US has been the world's biggest war monger in the Middle East ever since George W Bush's invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It has not been a steady hand on the tiller stabilizing the world or creating peace in the world. Its war industry makes its blood money off of defense contracts and weapons sales. Internally it's a war of all against all as the NRA insists on arming everyone - even teachers, for God's sake. There is no attempt to put any money or energy into peacemaking activities either here or abroad.

In addition the US has allied itself with the devil in allying itself with the Saudis. The Saudis are the main sponsor of ISIS which is the terrorist group the US is trying to eliminate. Helping the Saudis only encourages ISIS. It's time to ditch the alliance with Saudi Arabia. We don't need their oil any more anyway. It's only killing the planet.

Off the Top of My Head

US Influence in Middle East is Waning Despite Tons of Money Spent There

by John Lawrence, March 8, 2018

The Middle East is a region where two countries - Iran and Saudi Arabia - are vying to be the dominant players there. Iran is Shia Muslims and Saudi Arabia is Sunnis. The US failed to see what was really going on there and the fact that the Shia-Sunni split is the chief factor in determining whose side anyone was on. Iraq was a majority Shiite country with a Sunni governing elite including Saddam Hussein. When the US eliminated him, they delivered Iraq into Iran's sphere of influence, not the outcome the US, allied with Saudi Arabia and the enemy of Iran, wanted.

Saudi Arabia is a much more regressive country than Iran, but a deal was made to ally with them because of oil. Their religion Wahhabism teaches a particularly vile form of terrorism and has resulted in the major terrorist organizations being developed including ISIS and al Qaeda. Usama bin Laden was a Saudi Sunni. 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. The truth about 9/11 and the links to Saudi Arabia were covered up. The US is not being honest about the fact that it delivered Iraq to the chief enemy of its ally.

In Syria al Asad is a member of a religious sect related to Shia Islam. That's why Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, is fighting to keep al Asad in power. The US placed a red line there and then, when it was crossed, did nothing about it. The Middle East is becoming dominated more and more by Iran and less and less by Saudi Arabia. The US is on the wrong side of history. It made a huge mistake removing the democratically elected prime minister Mossadeq and installing the Shah in 1953. It did this at the behest of Britain because Mossadeq nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The Islamic revolution of 1979 overthrew the Shah.

9/11 can be seen as an event that came about because the US did not repudiate the religious sect of its ally, Saudi Arabia, which preached overthrow of the West. Because of oil the US alienated Iran and allied itself with a country that would spawn the worst terrorist attack on the US mainland in history. And now because of oil, the whole world is under assault due to global warming. Oh, what tangled webs we weave!

Damning New Study Helps Explain Why Pentagon Will No Longer Release Afghan War Updates

Published on Wednesday, January 31, 2018 by Common Dreams

It's the longest war in U.S. history, but it appears the military no longer wants the world to see how badly it's going

by Julia Conley, staff writer

 

25 Comments

The United States' indefinite occupation of Afghanistan has now left the Taliban in control of more territory than in 2014.  (Photo: QOR Museum/Flickr/cc)

As the Pentagon is rebuked for withholding from the public information about the U.S. military's activities in Afghanistan, new reporting reveals that—more 16 years after the U.S. began its occupation—the Taliban has open and active presence in about 70 percent of the country, and ISIS has gained more territory than ever before.

On Tuesday, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) criticized the Department of Defense for refusing to release data on several Afghan districts, after the Pentagon determined it was "not releasable to the public":

The number of districts controlled or influenced by the Afghan government had been one of the last remaining publicly available indicators for members of Congress...and for the American public of how the 16-year-long U.S. effort to secure Afghanistan is faring. Historically, the number of districts controlled or influenced by the government has been falling since SIGAR began reporting on it, while the number controlled or influenced by the insurgents has been rising—a fact that should cause even more concern about its disappearance from public disclosure and discussion.

While the Afghan government asserts that it controls most of the country, the BBC reported Wednesday, "Months of research across the country shows that the Taliban now control or threaten much more territory than when foreign combat troops left in 2014."

According to SIGAR's last report, released in October, the Taliban only controlled about 40 percent of Afghan districts just last July.

About 15 million Afghans, or half of the country, now live in areas controlled by the Taliban or at risk of Taliban control. In parts of the country where the group is most open and active, attacks now take place about twice a week.

More than 31,000 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan since American troops arrived in October 2001, with more than 8,500 injured or killed in 2017. Twenty-four hundred American troops and hundreds of foreign soldiers have also been killed since the war began.

The BBC report also follows several recent attacks claimed by Taliban fighters and ISIS, the most recent being a bombing carried out by an ambulance that was driven into the center of Kabul last Saturday. At least 122 civilians have been killed in attacks over the past several weeks.

Last August, President Donald Trump announced that U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan indefinitely, and on Monday, contradicting his previous claims, he rejected peace talks with the Taliban.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

The US Should Get Out of Afghanistan

by John Lawrence, February 2, 2018

For me personally Trumps' SOTU speech represented a congeries of agitprop which rankled the cockles of my mind. That said, why is the US engaged in a never ending money and life pit in Afgfhanistan when the Taliban are not international terrorists? They are insurgents only interested in taking over Afghanistan, not exporting terrorism elsewhere. Of course the US role in fighting them there has not endeared them to the US, but continuing to fight there is a huge waste of American money and lives. It was Obama's "logical" answer to George W Bush's war in Iraq. Logical because the 9/11 hijackers supposedly were from Afghanistan.

But were they? Fifteen of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, and the others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt, and Lebanon. What none from Afghanistan? Sorry, Obama, your mistake just as it was George W Bush's mistake to invade Iraq based on a lie about weapons of mass destruction. So why didn't you invade Saudi Arabia instead since most of the hijackers were from there. No matter, the military-industrial complex doesn't object to an injection of money regardless of the pretext. And after all Saudi Arabia is our ally. We couldn't invade them.

So don't give me this shit about how bad the Taliban is in its application of Sharia law. Trump was going to put America first. If pulling out of Afghanistan means the Afghanis have to suffer, so be it. It is none of our business. The Taliban can attack at will regardless of the American presence there. 17 years after the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban can still do a terrorist attack in the heart of Kabul killing over 100 people and wounding over 200. The US presence there is futile. America First means cutting our losses. But that's just a slogan. Trump is totally on board with the Republican agenda of ever increasing and constant war.

The US will never admit a mistake. All the blood and treasure flushed down the drain in the Middle East means that we have to continue doing it or admit defeat. Well, we admitted defeat in Vietnam and just got out. It's time we did that in Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East. Putting America First mean not fighting futile wars where we have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

The US thinks it can fight wars AND cut taxes. There's just no money for a decent health care system or for social security and Medicare. The rich and powerful have their priorities, and the hoi polloi can be swayed by agitprop.

Complicit: America’s ‘Non-War’ Crimes in Yemen

From Truthdig, November 24, 2017

by Major Danny Sjursen

Yemeni children present documents in order to receive food rations from a local charity in Sanaa, Yemen, in April. (Hani Mohammed / AP)

The “Four Famines”: That’s what aid workers call the swell of man-made humanitarian catastrophes replete with disease, hunger and civil conflict—forgotten countries few Americans could locate on a map, across an equatorial band stretching west to east through Nigeria, South Sudan, Somalia and Yemen.

Inhabited by brown people, Muslims mostly, none of the four receive much attention in the United States’ 24-hour news cycle. Perhaps they should; after all, in at least one case—Yemen—there’s blood on Americans’ collective hands. Only don’t expect the public to lose much sleep over the potential for millions of Yemeni deaths. There are Trumpian tweets to dissect and reality TV dramas unfolding for all to see at the helm of the crumbling republic.

For two full years now, Saudi Arabia—a petro-state of strict, Islamist, Wahhabi extremists—has dropped American-made precision guided munitions on Yemeni “rebels” and civilians alike. Saudi fighter-bombers commute daily to the slaughter zone, courtesy of in-flight refueling missions flown by the U.S. Air Force. How nice.

Almost no one knows the backstory, understands the incessant suffering or contemplates the consequences, both moral and strategic. Why should the American public care? There’s no military draft, no new taxes, no food or fuel rationing on the homefront. Besides, unless one subscribes to the BBC, there’s almost no media coverage of the shadow war in Yemen.

Predictions are always tricky, but here’s one: Americans will come to regret their government’s role in Yemen as millions perish and al-Qaida/Islamic State rise ever more powerfully, like a mythical phoenix. The late Chalmers Johnson and the CIA call it “blowback”: The empire’s proverbial chickens come home to roost.

Off the Top of My Head

The Real Reasons Hillary Should Have Lost

by John Lawrence

The Republicans and their associates, the anger mongers, conjured up a whole host of fake news and fake allegations about Hillary Clinton, and that evidently was enough to make her lose the 2016 Presidential election. But there were real and valid reasons why Hillary should have lost, and these were rarely mentioned except by Bernie Sanders.

#1: Hillary was too cozy with Wall Street. She followed the Obama administration in this regard. No banker was jailed after Wall Street fraud collapsed the economy in 2008. The Democratic party has relied on Wall Street as its funding source and so is essentially allied with them. No harm could come to Wall Street if a Democrat was elected. Wall Street feted Hillary by paying her $250,000. for a speech. This is a ridiculous amount of money to sit on Lloyd Blankfein's or Jamie Diamond's lap and deliver a speech. It was just another investment by Wall Street which thought like everybody else that Hillary would win.

#2: Hillary, like Obama before her, had a major role in destabilizing the Middle East. Of course the major destabilizer here was George W Bush who lied the American people and the world into believing he had a valid reason for invading Iraq. Bush's invasion was not only brutal in the sense that many innocent people died and had their real estate destroyed, but that eliminating Saddam gave rise to ISIS and also in the fact that Iraq is not under Shiite control but is allied with our supposed enemy Iran which is also Shiite. Before the invasion Iraq was under Sunni control and was allied with Saudi Arabia, which is also Sunni, and our supposed ally. So Bush was the major culprit here in a geopolitical sense. Make sense?

Nevertheless, Obama and Hillary thought they could bring "democracy" and "freedom" to the Middle East by getting rid of dictators like Mubarek, Gaddafi and al-Assad, and let the young people take over, the so-called Arab spring. Naive! It didn't work; it just led to further encroachments by terrorist rogue groups. So Hillary along with Obama is responsible for that error in judgment and should have had to pay a price for that. Instead she paid a price for all the fake news and allegations the Republicans and the hate mongers ginned up.

If the Democrats want to be relevant in the ongoing political doings, they need to disassociate themselves from their funding source, Wall Street, and issue a mea culpa about their destabilizing undertakings in the Middle East. Bernie Sanders demonstrated that on both counts it could be done. The US needs to disassociate itself from Saudi Arabia which is a major human rights violator which spawned al Qaeda and ISIS. By any account Iran is far more democratic than Saudi Arabia which is a dictatorship controlled by the House of Saud. Religions other than Islam are not only tolerated but constitutionally protected in Iran. Not so in Saudi Arabia. Women have far more rights in Iran than in Saudi Arabia and constitute the majority of college students there. Iran has a written constitution and tolerates debate about politics. Saudi Arabia labels anyone speaking out against the House of Saud a terrorist.

I hate to say it, but the USA is on the wrong side of history. It has allied itself with Saudi Arabia because they agreed to sell oil only for dollars and not any other currency. But the days of fossil fuels like oil dominating the world economy are nearly over as the use of renewable energy continues to grow while fossil fuels diminish in the world economy. I hope there is a party that can point out the preset day realities about oil and the Middle East and admit the mistakes the US has made there. I don't know if the Democratic party is capable of doing that.

Unlike Most Western Leaders, Corbyn Demands End to US-UK Complicity in Yemen's Suffering

Published on Tuesday, November 21, 2017 by Common Dreams

In letter to Prime Minister Theresa May, British Labour leader slams the West's role in arming Saudi Arabia and perpetuating world's worst humanitarian catastrophe

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

8 Comments

Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn addresses delegates on the final day of the Labour Party conference on September 26, 2017 in Brighton, England. (Photo: Leon Neal/Getty Images)

While most political leaders and U.S. media outlets continue to perpetuate the "power-serving" notion that the West has played little to no role in causing and worsening Yemen's humanitarian crisis, U.K. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn penned a letter to Prime Minister Theresa May on Monday slamming American and British forces for fueling the Saudi-led bombing campaign and demanding an independent war crimes investigation.

"Whilst the immediate priority should be humanitarian assistance to Yemen, it is time the government takes immediate steps to play its part in ending the suffering of the Yemeni people."At least 10,000 people have been killed since the conflict started in 2014 and 7 million people are in extreme hunger. Food shortages and the cholera outbreak are a direct result of the continuing blockade of Yemen by the U.S.- and U.K.-backed Saudi-led coalition," Corbyn wrote. "Whilst the immediate priority should be humanitarian assistance to Yemen, it is time the government takes immediate steps to play its part in ending the suffering of the Yemeni people."

The "devastation and destruction in Yemen" Corbyn highlights has been ongoing for years while garnering relatively little attention, but in recent days the crisis has increasingly been spotlighted by American media outlets—albeit with one "glaring" omission.

As journalist Adam Johnson notes in a piece for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), U.S. coverage in particular has peddled a "reductionist narrative" that accurately singles out Saudi Arabia for criticism but conveniently leaves out the fact that the Saudis rely heavily on the U.S., the U.K., and Canada for weaponry, ongoing military intelligence, and political support.

In contrast to the dominant media narrative, Corbyn's letter places the American and British role in arming Saudi Arabia front-and-center.

"Note how Corbyn doesn't just flamboyantly lament the destruction of Yemen as if it's a natural disaster, nor does he lay blame on other countries," observes The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald. "He explicitly notes his own government's key role in it. U.S . media could learn from that."

.@jeremycorbyn demands Government acts to end suffering of the Yemeni people https://t.co/bOL6AX3qzh

— Labour Press Team (@labourpress) November 20, 2017

Corbyn's demand that the U.K. and U.S. take responsibility for their role in sustaining what has been deemed the worst humanitarian crisis in the world comes as the U.N. is calling on Saudi Arabia to end a blockade that is preventing food and medicine from entering Yemen. According to the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, thousands more Yemenis could die per day if the country's ports remain closed.

After Trump Calls Gulf Nation "High Level" Funder of Terrorism, US Sells Qatar $12 Billion in Fighter Jets

Published on

Thursday, June 15, 2017

 

by Common Dreams

"Ah yes. Take that, Qatar! Feel the wrath of the Trump..."

 

by Common Dreams staff

 

 

5 Comments

 

A U.S. Air Force F-15 fighter jet does a low-level flyby over Forward Operating Base Bostick in eastern Afghanistan January 1, 2009. REUTERS/Bob Strong/File photo

Just days after President Donald Trump publicly scolded Qatar for being a "high level" exporter of regional terrorism in the Middle East, its government announced Wednesday the signing of a deal to buy $12 billion worth of F-15 fighter jets from U.S. weapons makers.

The Pentagon justified the massive sale by saying the jets—reportedly 39 of them—would increase "security cooperation" between the two countries.

Pointing towards the glaring hypocrisy, journalist Jeremy Scahill quipped, "Ah yes. Take that, Qatar! Feel the wrath of the Trump..."

Last Friday, Trump told reporters at a White House press conference that "Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level." The president then said he had decided to take a harder line with the country.

Oil-rich Qatar is home to a major U.S. airbase in the region and a longtime ally, but the latest weapons sale comes amid boiling tensions in the region centered around ongoing wars in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen as a well as a diplomatic crisis between members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

And NBC News notes:

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates cut diplomatic and transport ties with Qatar last week and accused it of supporting terrorism and regional unrest.

Despite these allegations, Qatar is a crucial ally to Washington in the Middle East. It is home to 10,000 American troops and a major American military base that acts as the center of U.S. operations in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like Scahill, historian and Middle East expert Vijay Prashad, said the weapons sale in this context, if not surprising, is telling:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License