Category Archives: Foreign Policy

What If We Applied The NRA Philosophy Internationally?

Posted on by

Since the latest mass shooting in the United States comes at a time when Teapublicans are denouncing the Iran Nuclear Agreement, it makes me wonder: “What if we treated all armaments the same way as the National Rifle Association and its Teapublican supporters want us to treat guns?” If their answer to mass shootings is to place guns in the hands of more and more people, why not treat nuclear arms the same way?

According to NRA and Teapublican logic, that should make us all feel safer.

There are nine countries confirmed to have nuclear weapons and delivery systems. If we follow the NRA’s logic, shouldn’t we encourage all nations to obtain them? Do you feel safer knowing that Pakistan has nuclear weapons? North Korea? I suspect not. Then why should Americans feel safer knowing that crazy Uncle Larry has an AR-15 assault rifle? Why should the recently divorced woman feel safer knowing that her ex is armed with a semi-automatic handgun? Why should we feel safer in the knowledge that, without universal background checks, virtually any sociopath can obtain such firepower? Why should we feel safer knowing that domestic terrorists, such as the racist young man in Charleston, the young man in Chattanooga and the angry anti-government “patriot” in Lafayette have easy access to guns?

Of course, we shouldn’t feel safe. Because, thanks to the NRA and our insane gun laws, any American can choose from a wide array of weaponry of ever-increasing lethality.

Teapublicans say that Iran should be denied nuclear weapons at all costs. They say the Obama administration shouldn’t have negotiated any deal with Iran; that we should have increased economic sanctions until Iran buckled; or, following Netanyahu’s advice, we should just attack Iran’s nuclear installations. Yet that stance is completely counter to the Teapublicans’ stance on the ever-increasing proliferation of semi-automatic handguns and assault weapons in the US.

Why the difference?

If we want to make this a safer world, we should not allow Iran and other far less stable nations to obtain nuclear weapons. The new international agreement is the best possible way to ensure that. Likewise, we should not allow the continued proliferation of increasingly lethal guns in the US. A law requiring universal background checks and a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic weapons to civilians will reduce the number of mass shootings.

Far From A Cancer On The Conservative Movement, Trump Represents It.

Posted on by

Contrary to Rick Perry’s assessment of Donald Trump, The Donald embodies everything that’s wrong with today’s Republican Party. He’s loud, arrogant, abusive, mean-spirited, greedy, narcissistic and an unapologetic bully. He’s a friend of soulless multinational corporations and an enemy of the environment. He’s opposed to immigration, yet he happily hires immigrants for menial, low-paying jobs.

Trump is the ultimate representative of the GOP’s “I’ve got mine, you can’t have yours” mentality.

He places corporate interests above those of consumers. He despises regulations – anything that may stand in the way of his insatiable greed. He demands a strong military, yet he refused to serve, receiving 5 student deferments and a medical disability (he had a bone spur in one of his feet – he can’t remember which). Of course, that bone spur never stopped him from participating in college athletics.

Despite his claims of having earned everything he owns, Trump was born on third base and brags that he hit a triple. He inherited most of his wealth, yet accuses anyone who is impoverished of not working hard enough. He complains of high tax rates and complicated tax codes, yet he pays none.

The only reason the other GOP candidates are upset with Trump is not because they disagree with his politics. It’s that he’s willing to say what they all believe.

Moreover, Trump’s popularity with Republicans has exposed the fallacy that the mainstream media are liberal. The faux journalists are fawning all over him. I’m not just referring to the loudmouths who fill airtime on the Faux News Channel. I’m talking about those who call themselves journalists at every level – from national and international networks all the way down to local TV stations and newspapers.

And why wouldn’t a “reporter” more interested in personal advancement than real journalism cover Trump? Trump is good for ratings. He’s good for the infotainment masquerading as news.

So get used to seeing and hearing about Trump 24/7. He’ll be the focus of the Republican presidential race until real reporters (if any still exist) ask him to articulate real solutions for the nation’s problems. And until people begin to picture a clown in the White House and the impacts of his antics on the nation and the world.

So Netanyahu Doesn’t Like The Agreement. So What?

Posted on by

Whether or not Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu likes our nuclear agreement with Iran shouldn’t matter. He wasn’t in the room while the deal was being made. And if he had been, we’d likely be at war right now. You see, it’s clear by now that Netanyahu doesn’t want peace in the Middle East. It appears that he won’t be happy until Israel has annexed all of the Palestinian territory and blasted its neighbors back to the stone age.

Not even world opinion has swayed him from his expansionist goals. Not the world outrage at Israel’s disproportionate response to Palestinian rockets. Not the international outrage at the increasing number of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Not the Obama administration’s outrage at the break in protocol when Netanyahu accepted the Republican invitation to speak to the US Congress.

For certain, Israel has the right to exist and a right to live in peace. But, just as certainly, Israel’s leader does not have the right to dictate foreign policy to the US or any other nation. Neither should he have any say in the just announced agreement between the US, Iran and other world powers. Of course, that hasn’t stopped him from trying to derail the deal. From the very beginning of the talks, Netanyahu has appealed to the Republican chicken hawks in Congress to use force to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Never mind that the use of force would almost certainly backfire (quite literally). A military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations, would incense Iran and much of the rest of the world. Worse, it would give Iran even more incentive to complete a nuclear weapon.

After all, military powers, even superpowers, tend not to attack countries that possess nuclear weapons. For good reason. The consequences are simply too dire. And a nuclear-armed Iran that has been previously attacked would likely feel justified in supporting more terrorism and pursuing retribution against its attackers. Moreover, the sanctions against Iran…even the proposed increased sanctions…were not hindering Iran’s progress toward a nuclear bomb. The sanctions were only hurting innocent Iranian civilians and entrenching Iran’s antagonism with the West.

The fact is, the nuclear agreement was by far the best of all of the available options. At minimum it delays Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It provides a framework for inspections. And it opens the door to more negotiations and more cooperation.

Make no mistake, the new agreement is not a one-sided concession to Iran. The agreement calls for Iran to submit to inspections and to dispose of nuclear fuel in exchange for the lifting of the current sanctions by international community. That is not only fair. It is a positive for everyone involved. Indeed, history has shown that such agreements are far more productive than the alternatives. For example, as a result of our engagement with China, it has gone from a Cold War enemy to our largest trading partner in just 3 decades. In contrast, our get-tough expansion of NATO and deployment of missiles on Russia’s doorstep has led to increased tensions and armed incursions by Russian troops into Ukraine. And we all know what has happened as the result of our ill-conceived invasion of Iraq. Not only has it destabilized Iraq and much of the Middle East, it has led to the creation of a much more dangerous enemy – ISIS.

So Netanyahu thinks the nuclear agreement with Iran is a historic mistake? So what? Let’s not let him derail the agreement and lead us, along with the Republican warmongers, down the path to yet another war. He can continue to bluster and act the spoiled brat. It really shouldn’t matter. And, if Netanyahu threatens to do more than whine, we should ignore him.

Check that…we should make it clear that any attempt to derail the agreement will be met with a suspension of US support and an embargo on weapons.

Iran Deal Is The Best Of Three Options.

Posted on by

Whatever you think of the framework to prevent Iran’s nuclear arms ambitions, it could be worse. Anyway you look at it, western nations have three possible options: 1 – Negotiate the best deal possible with Iran. 2 – Continue to allow Iran to develop its nuclear capabilities despite our sanctions. 3 – Declare war.

There are no others.

That said, let’s look at the options individually. A new war in the Middle East would result in a complete and utter disaster. It would not only spread the conflict between the Sunnis and Shiites. It would make the US the enemy of both for the foreseeable future. International terrorism would expand. And the cost to the US in blood and treasure would dwarf that of the Iraq and Afghan wars combined.

If we abandon the framework and impose new, stricter sanctions on Iran, it is a virtual certainty that Iran will have nuclear weapons within a few years and the sanctions will have hardened Iran’s attitudes against the West. The result will be a nuclear-armed nation that is stridently anti-American.

By contrast, the negotiated framework allows international inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities and, at worst, will delay the creation of a nuclear bomb for at least ten years. In the meantime, the easing of sanctions will likely soften anti-American sentiment by the Iranian populace – many of whom want closer relations with the US. Moreover, we’ll have opened dialogue with the Iranian government and people showing that we can work in cooperation despite our differences.

Given the possible options, the US and Iran have only one real choice: Give peace a chance. Don’t let the same war-mongering politicians who led us into Iraq on false pretenses convince you otherwise.

Is It Time To Break The “Unbreakable Bond?”

Posted on by

Following the results of the Israeli elections in which the Likud party led by Benjamin Netanyahu won the most seats in the Knesset, it’s time for the United States to make some difficult decisions. In order to push his party over the top, Netanyahu made a last minute statement that he would never agree to a Palestinian state or a divided Jerusalem. In addition, he created fear among Israeli Jews by saying that the opposition party was busing Israeli Arabs to the polls in droves.

That may have worked for Netanyahu in the short term. But it has most certainly created a long-term problem for all of the Middle East, including Israel, and, by extension, the United States. By dismissing the possibility of a Palestinian state, Netanyahu has dashed the hopes of self-determination for millions of Palestinian people – most of whom are refugees pushed off of their land in Israel. Further, Netanyahu has widened the rift between Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews by pitting them against each other in the election.

What does all of this mean?

It means that Palestinians no longer have a reason to negotiate peace with Israel. It means that Palestine’s only peaceful option is to pursue state recognition from the world community through the United Nations. It means that the United States will be placed in the awkward position of either continuing its unwavering support of Israel by using its power as a member of the UN Security Council to deny Palestinian statehood or standing up for one of its core beliefs – the right to self-determination. It means that Netanyahu has, in all likelihood, inflamed tensions with Israel’s neighbors, especially Iran. It means that Netanyahu will continue to lead Israel and the United States to the brink of a widespread regional war.

The only apparent way out of Netanyahu’s path toward war is for the US to finally break our so-called “Unbreakable Bond” with Israel.

The voters of Israel have clearly shown that they have prioritized greed and hatred over peace. They have shown that they would rather continue to bully their neighbors and, if possible, the United States (How else could you describe Netanyahu’s speech before Congress?) than give back the land they stole from Palestinians. And they seem to expect the US to back their hard line positions with American treasure and blood.

It’s time for US taxpayers to ask some difficult questions. We should start by asking, what do we get for our approximately $20 billion per year in foreign aid to Israel? We should ask, who is driving US policy in the Middle East? The US government? Or Israelis?

Based on recent decisions by the GOP-led Congress, it’s difficult to tell.

A Step Way Too Far!

Posted on by

The letter sent by GOP senators to the leaders of Iran is certainly not the first attempt by the GOP to undermine our president. But it is, most certainly, the most egregious and the most dangerous.

Since President Obama defeated John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, the Republicans in Congress have done everything in their power to demean him and diminish his power. Indeed, the day of the inauguration they plotted to block his proposals in order to make him a one-term president. (Though it’s not unusual for the opposition party to want to defeat a president in the next election. It is unusual for that planning to take place the day the president is sworn into office.)

Despite an overwhelming margin of victory, Republicans have considered Obama unqualified to hold office. They haven’t merely questioned the president’s policies. They have questioned his birthplace, his religion, his patriotism and his authority. In the Senate, they blocked, or attempted to block, virtually every one of his appointments. They invoked the filibuster at every opportunity, with such a frequency that Congress was brought to a virtual standstill.

They have attempted to repeal his Affordable Care Act more than 50 times. They refused to consider legislation to deal with the nation’s most pressing problems. Then, when the president was forced to take action through executive orders, they have accused him of being king. They have fabricated phony “scandals” to undermine his administration. They circumvented long-standing protocol to invite the leader of Israel to speak to a joint session of Congress in order to embarrass the president and to undermine negotiations with Iran.

They have waged a propaganda war against the president on the all too willing corporate media outlets. They have used every dirty trick in the book and a few never seen before. All of this is entirely without precedent.

Yet all of that pales in comparison to the letter signed by 47 Teapublican senators sent to the government of Iran…a letter that literally tells the Iranian government to ignore any deal the administration offers in its attempts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. “The president will only be in power until 2017,” they wrote. “Congress will not ratify any agreement and the next president could wipe away any agreement with the stroke of a pen,” they continued.

Such congressional meddling in negotiations with another nation is not only a breach of protocol. It is a violation of the Logan Act, a felony punishable by up to 3 years in prison. It is also a breach of constitutional powers. And it may lead to yet another ill-advised war. Indeed, it is an act of sabotage that makes these 47 senators and their party unequaled in American history. Except for, perhaps, Benedict Arnold.

NetanyaWho?

Posted on by

As has been widely reported, the Prime Minister of Israel spoke to a joint session of Congress for the third time. Only Winston Churchill has matched that number. However, as you know, this is the first time a leader of another nation has requested and received an invitation to appear before Congress without first going through the diplomatic channels of the State Department and the White House.

His appearance was an obvious insult to the Office of the President by both Israel and our Republican leadership.

We know why the Prime Minister requested the opportunity to speak: He and his handlers believed it would help his re-election campaign. And we know why Republicans extended the invitation: It was another opportunity to provoke and demean President Obama.

What I don’t know is why we pay attention to Netanyahu at all. His predictions of doom by a nuclear-armed Iran have seemed unnecessarily alarmist for many years. Indeed, they seem little more than a scare tactic to assure his re-election. Further, since US taxpayers provide Israel with more than $3 billion per year in direct foreign aid and an estimated $12-17 billion more in indirect aid, his offering counsel and advice to US leaders seems like the tail wagging the dog. And, if Israel is frightened at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, imagine how Iran feels about Israel’s nuclear bombs. Imagine how Iran feels about the threat of US nuclear arms and our so-called “special relationship,” especially when one of our senior (both in tenure and age) senators jokes about “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran?”

It’s time to end this charade. It’s time to negotiate our own deal with Iran and other Middle Eastern nations. It’s time to stop listening to Netanyahu and to stop sending foreign aid to Israel. It’s time to stop looking the other way as Israel steals more and more of Palestinian land. It’s long past time for the US to stop giving military hardware to Israel. It’s time to demand that Israel end the civil rights abuses of Palestinians and negotiate a true settlement. It’s time for Palestinians to stop sending rocks and rockets across the border. It’s time to demand an end to Israel’s disproportionate military response to Palestinian terrorism. It’s time to end our UN Security Council veto of the recognition of Palestine as a separate state.

In short, it’s time the US grabbed both of these nation states by the scruff of the collar and demand that they start acting like adults in the 21st century. The 1967 war is over! It’s time to make peace…a real and lasting peace.

In addition, there should be a political penalty for Netanyahu’s arrogance. Any semblance of a “special relationship” between the US and Israel should now be over…ended by the politics of destruction practiced by people like Netanyahu, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Unless the people of Israel vote Netanyahu out of office and relegate him to history alongside their other mistakes, and unless Israel sends a formal and very public apology to the White House, we should provide Israel no more support than we provide other allies, such as France, Germany and Sweden.

Further, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry should all but ignore Netanyahu’s bombastic bluster while negotiating a treaty with Iran…a treaty that does more than benefit our ill-mannered little brother.

Pillorying Hillary.

Posted on by

The media is trying to turn the fact that Hillary Clinton used a personal email account as Secretary of State into another scandal. Of course, the right wing wants us to believe that it is part of the Benghazi conspiracy – a conspiracy that has been debunked by 6 separate commissions. Indeed, the so-called “Select Committee” on Benghazi has long known that Clinton eschewed a government email account like Colin Powell and several other of her predecessors. As long as she is willing to provide access to the account, who really cares? And, given the fact that, at the very beginning of her term in the office, the State Department’s website was hacked revealing thousands of embarrassing emails that strained relationships between the US and other nations, it may have been better for our country that she used a private account. It was likely more secure!

None of the scandal-mongering should come as any real surprise to those of us who were conscious during the early nineties. Remember Whitewater, the “conspiracy” that consisted of the Clintons losing their investment in a failed development? Remember the “Billary” health care proposal, the health care system we should have? Remember “Travelgate?” Remember the outlandish right wing accusations that Hillary had ordered the murder of Vince Foster?

Like the Obama administration, the Clinton administration was hounded by right wingers who claimed to see a conspiracy under every rug and around every corner. Yet, after years of accusations, dozens of taxpayer-funded investigations, a special prosecutor, and a right wing-led witch hunt costing more than $60 million, the closest thing to illicit activity found was a sexual indiscretion in which the former president received a consensual blowjob – something less than the sexual trysts of previous presidents that, according to historians, make Bill Clinton seem like a faithful husband.

That the corporate propagandists, otherwise known as the mainstream media, would begin assaulting Hillary’s reputation more than a year before her presumed campaign for president is predictable. The right wing hopes that, in doing so, they can derail her candidacy even before the campaign begins, leaving the Democratic Party with no clear front-runner. At the same time, she is being attacked by the left as the progressive members of the Democratic Party hope to push her to the left.

They should be careful what they wish for.

Though I am disgusted at the notion of political dynasties (if Hillary wins, 2 members of the Bush family and 2 Clintons will have held the office of president for at least 24 years), Hillary is by far the better choice over a third, more corrupt, Bush or any of the nut jobs now aspiring for the Teapublican nomination.

How Much Is Enough?

Posted on by

In 2014, the US spent $612.5 billion on defense. Although numerous sources have reported that this number exceeds the military budgets of the next 12 biggest spenders combined, I find that most people still have trouble getting their minds around the number and even more difficulty putting it into perspective.

So let’s look at it another way. In 2014, the US and its closest known allies spent an astonishing $1.15 trillion on defense.

Meanwhile our known “enemy” nation states of North Korea and Iran spent a total of $13.8 billion. If we add Pakistan, which is home to many extreme jihadists, and our one-time enemies who are now close trading partners (China and Russia), our potential adversaries (at least theoretically) spent a grand total of $223.4 billion on defense. Combined, that is little more than one-third of the US defense budget alone, and roughly one-fifth of the combined military budgets of the US and its close allies.

The US and its allies not only spend more money than the so-called rogue nations and the former communist bloc. They have more weapons of every kind; more sophisticated weaponry; and the financial means to build ever newer and better weapons. This is, of course, great comfort to our military-industrial complex consisting of Boeing, Halliburton, General Dynamics, General Electric, Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon and more.

It is, however, small comfort to US taxpayers who are expected to pay for this ever-growing budget item, especially since the only real threats to our homeland appear to come from relatively small groups of terrorists whose weaponry consists of handguns, AK47s, IEDs and captured weaponry that we previously sold to corrupt or failed governments.

Take into account that the costs of the Afghan War, the Iraq War, the war against ISIS, military aid to other countries, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and veterans’ benefits are paid for out of budget line items separate from our defense budget, and you quickly discover that the vast majority of our taxes now go to defense. Yet the Department of Defense is asking for significant increases for 2015 and 2016, and it’s almost certain to get them.

One can only conclude that we are the most gullible, most paranoid people on Earth.

Some Context On The Terrorism In France.

Posted on by

For the last few days, US media have been fixated on the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo. Without question, murdering satirists and innocents over ideology is a horrible, despicable act. But would the story have so dominated the news media if the terrorists were not Muslim? The treatment of similar stories by news media suggests otherwise.

For example, 12 people were killed in the initial attack on Charlie Hebdo. That is only marginally more than the average number of innocent children in the United States killed by guns every day. Where are the sensational stories about that? Since 9/11, there have been at least 8 attacks in the US by right wing terrorists. Most of these garnered no media attention. And what about news of the terrorist bombing attempt of the NAACP office in Colorado Springs? Where are the stories about that? Have you seen any news stories about the FBI manhunt for the individual responsible?

Moreover, right wing media pundits continue to call for Muslim leaders to denounce Islamic terrorism and Muslim extremists. Did you know that leading Muslim organizations in the US and Europe immediately made statements publically condemning the Paris attacks? They did. But have you seen any headlines to that effect? Have you heard any broadcast news anchors read the statements? Have you seen any interviews with those Muslim leaders?

No, such stories do not further the conservative narrative of our corporate-owned media. They do not instill fear in our public. They do not pander to our still mostly white Christian population. They do not serve to help divide us by religion and race. They do not make it easier to dehumanize those who are different. They do not serve the agenda of those in Washington (I’m thinking of you, Lindsay Graham and John McCain) who want to send more of our troops into battle in Iraq, Syria and, ultimately, Iran.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo wasn’t merely the outgrowth of religious differences. It was the outgrowth of an extreme ideology created, in part, by extremist textbooks given to Pakistani schools with the intent of rallying young Muslims to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It was the outgrowth of extremist teachings and the funding for terrorist organizations from Saudi Arabia, our supposed ally. It was the outgrowth of the Bush administration’s unwarranted invasion of Iraq. It was the outgrowth of the Bush administration’s torture program.

All of this is not to excuse the Parisian terrorist attacks. But if we’re ever going to be successful in preventing such attacks, we must understand the events and attitudes that lead to them. We must understand that the devout followers of any ideology can commit terrorist acts. Peace begins with understanding. That is why the context is necessary. It’s long past time for our media to provide that context to their sensational news; to tell the whole story; to give us the truth…not just the facts.