Trump and Kim Jong Un

UN Representative Nikki Haley while speaking about the ongoing problems with North Korea and what it would take for Trump to order some kind of military action against the "Hermit Kingdom", she said the following; " What we're dealing with is a leader who is flailing right now, and he's trying to show his citizens he has muscle".  Was she talking about Kim or Trump?  She made her comment on "CBS This Morning".

(Source:  "Haley warns N. Korea about testing ICBM" by the AP.  The Record 4/25/17)

Personal Note: I am now stating my opinions about the news and current issues on one of three blog;

journal griffin.blogspot.com

griffinhistorynotes.blogspot.com

griffopinionnotes.blogspot.com

This is  my first entry on this blog under this new plan.  I hope the NSA/CIA can follow along now that I am not using Facebook for these comments.

July 31,2016 Thoughts

We were told by the US Supreme Court that corporations are akin to people and have to be afforded the same rights as people; the Citizens United case.  I recently read in The Nation (March 7, 2016)-ok I am behind on my readings-that corporations can deduct on their income taxes "customized company-sponsored pension plans" paid to their CEO's.  Being done by half of the 383 Fortune 500 companies that provided info.  The plans cover the CEO's for the "rest of their lives", while the same companies  have done away with "guaranteed monthly compensation" for the average employee.

Now if corporations are people, then people must also be corporations and allowed the same rights.  Thus I will pay my wife-as the CEO of our family-a monthly pension check and then deduct that cost from my income taxes.  Seems only fair. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I am one to be more concerned about domestic policy, but foreign policy developments are setting us up for some major disaster. 

First, we have been building up or modernizing our military forces and arsenals at a considerable rate.  The new F-35 plane will cost us billions, the Navy wants a new class of submarines with nuclear capability, the Air Force says we need to replace the B-52 long range bomber and build another ICBM missile to replace the Minuteman III.  

Second, we have allowed NATO (and the US) to take on the defense of former Soviet republics in the Baltic region.  We now have Russia completely surrounded by our military might.

Third, we are about to elect as President (Hillary Clinton) who is clearly a "hawk" on foreign policy, meaning she is want to flaunt our military power in the name of national interest.

(I hate to note this here, but Donald Trump says we should not pledge ourselves to the defense of countries that do not pay their share of the expenses of NATO; specially Baltic nations.)

Fourth, it should also be remembered that when nations are in the midst of domestic turmoil and bordering on civil war-racial or economic-their develops and atmosphere that is ripe for governments to use warfare to take their citizens minds off their differences and unite to defend the homeland.  A case could be made that the domestic issues in this country are at that point.

Iran and Israel

I am reminded of a bit of history while reading about the issue of Iran and its nuclear power program, or as Israel claims, it's nuclear weapons program.  Prior to 1914 German and Austria-Hungry were in the same place.  The German government gave Austria-Hungry a "blank-check" to deal with their problem with the nation of Serbia.  History tells us that a Serbian nationalist assassinated an heir to the throne of Austria and the Austrian government wanted to use the issue to force Serbia to give in to its demands.  They were, by the way, not that concerned about the Archduke and his wife-the victims-as they were not well liked by his family or the country.  But the incident provided Austria with a opportunity to gain back some land lost in the Balkans to new countries in the region.  So, in the popular vernacular, Germany told Austria "we got your back" and the Austrians used it to make unreasonable demands on Serbia.  Even after these demands were met the Austrians declared war on the smaller nation.  Now the you-know-what hits the fan and German was stuck with a situation that soon developed into a world war; the "great war" as historians note, and the world or at least Europe was never the same.  We should recall that the generals in 1914 are like the military-industrial complex today; just itching for a chance to use their war plans and weapons.

We are in that place now with our willingness to back Israel is whatever they want in regard to Iran and their nuclear power/weapons program.  If we make the same mistake of granting a "blank check" to an ally without making every effort to restrict their military actions, we very likely could be drawn into a war in a region that is already a powder keg ready to explode.  If that happens a lot of innocent people will be killed or made homeless.  As the Indian proverb goes, "When the elephants fight, only the ants get stomped".

Iraq War

Iraq War question should be did you oppose the war from the get go, not this bullshit about "knowing what we know now, would you have opposed it".  I said from day one that the war was the worst mistake we could have made in over 50 years of foreign policy.  I believe that has proven to be correct.  If a candidate for president didn't know what I did they should not be in the running to lead this country.

The Dogs of War are gathering

In the Virginian Pilot today, in a small article inside the main section of the paper-in a spot that could be easily overlooked, it is reported that the US and Poland seem to have agreed to send "US ground forces to Poland as part of an expansion of NATO's presence in Central and Eastern Europe".  This action has been triggered by the events in the Ukraine.  It is noted that this is a "political decision" with the military planners coming up with details.  And I voted for Obama because I believed he would be less likely to expand the nation's wars.  I guess I was wrong.  How do we figure the Russians will respond when a former "ally" and border state is now willing to accept US forces?  Maybe we wouldn't mind if the Russians sent troops to Cuba or Venezuela or some other country on our border?

SNAFU

"Plan to reduce military prompts resistance from Democrats, GOP".  "Members of both parties say cuts will hurt the country".  This from The Virginian Pilot this am and it doesn't say much for the difference between the two major parties on the issue of defense spending.  

Obama's plan to "dramatically overhaul the nations military" will be resisted by both parties.  Sec't of Defense Chuck Hagel wants to reduce the Army to the size it was in 1941; 440,000 to 450,000 active duty personnel, down from 520,000.  Congress has agreed to keep military budget under $ 500 billion (BO wants $ 495 bill) for next week (ops) year.  Tea Party wants more cuts in defense.  In Dec. Congress approved a 1 % cut in Veterans benefits; this month they voted to cancel that cut-the vote was 99 to 0. Dems Kaine, Levin, and Blumenthal are all opposed to military cuts.  (Note: Hagel "announced the Army would be downsized". Can he do that w/o Congressional support?)

Obama wants a "security pact" with Afghanistan by the end of the year or he will withdraw all US troops (he told us in 2008 he would end the middle east wars, now he will only if Karzai refuses to sign an agreement to keep troops there.  I remember in 1968 Nixon said he would end the Vietnam War and after I got out of the service in 1970 the war continued two more years.  Obama told me he would end our present wars and here we are many, many years later the the wars go on.  When will I learn not to trust anyone running for high office?)

Its clear now that Obama wants to keep 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014 while Karzai wants them out.  Karzai, our ally and the one we put in office, has been making anti American speeches and taking anti American actions recently; We put him in office costing us thousands of US lives and God-knows how much money.  Something is rotten here.

US War mentality

Isn't it interesting that every recent President of this country has his own little war.  Reagan had Libya and Nicaragua.  Bush I had Iraq and Kuwait.  Clinton the Balkans and what was once Yugoslavia.  Bush II had Iraq again.  Now Obama is heading toward Syria.

When I was in high school it was the issue of Cuba, two islands of the coast of China-Quamo and Matsu.  It seems that during every presidency since there has been some international crisis to hold our attention and of course give reason to the massive amount of money we have poured in the military-industrial complex.

Can our society survive at peace?  It does not seen so.

Reasons for War

So we are going to go to war now over stories of dead children gassed by the Syrians.  If you study history you may recall stories of Belgium children brutally murdered and women raped by the German army prior to our involvement in World War I.  You might also have heard of the USS Maine sunk in Havana harbor by the Spanish in 1898 that sparked our war with Spain.  Both of those stories turned out to be propaganda and not based on truth.  Many of my generation clearly remember the North Vietnam patrol boats that attacked two US navy destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.  That story was also a lie.  And we went to war based on it and 58,000 Americans died as a result.  Not that many years ago Colin Powell told the United Nations that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction-chemical and biological-and was prepared to unleash them on the Middle East and Israel.  We went to war on that lie to.  When will be learn.  Governments ready to take us to war never tell us the truth.  Its the "first casualty" of any war.

Congressional Spending

From The Record's "North Jersey Tally" in regard to votes taken in Congress on 8/4/13 I found these two votes of interest.  First, senators failed to agree on appropriating $ 54 billion for transportation and housing program or releasing $ 53 billion for road projects.

Second, the Senate overwhelmingly agreed not to conceal the $ 1.5 billion yearly aid to Egypt even thou US law forbids aid to a government established by military takeover of an elected government.

Something wrong with our priorities here.

Defense v Domestic spending.

Thinking about my last post about the military equipment we will destroy rather than ship home from Afghanistan, I considered the difference what our dollars could be spent on.  Defense spending like the 2000 fortified Humvee vehicles-at a cost of $ 1 million each-that will be destroyed.  That spending was done no more than 10 years ago and already the equipment is "in excess" with very little use left.  Compare that to spending of a billion dollars on public school classrooms and the fact that those classrooms would still be in use and could be for decades.  The two elementary schools I attended in Cresskill were there prior to 1948 and are still being used today.  The middle school I attended in Tenafly is now a housing complex.  It seems to be a much better use of our money to spend on domestic needs rather than defense needs to fight a war we should not be fighting.  Of course, if we are talking about a case of legitimate national defense then the cost of military equipment has to be borne but so many of the foreign conflicts on my lifetime have been needless.

Come Home America

A letter writer in The Record of Bergen County, NJ noted that with all the problems we are facing and the growing cost in manpower and money in our involvement in foreign countries it is time for us as a nation to heed the advise of George McGovern who in 1972 urged America to "come home".  The last part of his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention was his plea for us to "come home America".  I have thought of this campaign and its message a number of times recently and wished I had written the letter.  I called the writer in question and thanked him for writing it.