Most See Trump As A Force For Bad And Untrustworthy

 

These charts are from a YouGov Poll -- done between July 1st and 17th of adults in the U.K. (2340), Australia (2003), Canada (2057), France (2109), Germany (2079), Poland (2098), and the U.S. (2039).

U.S., U.K., France & Germany Public Want Economic Reform

The charts above are from the Pew Research Center. They come from a survey done in November and December of 2020 of about 1,000 adults in each of these countries -- United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany. The margin of error is around 3.7 points.

French-German-U.K. Opinion Of U.S. Rises Sharply With Biden

 

The charts above are from the Pew Research Center. They did a survey in the last months of 2020 among the people of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. It shows that the public opinion of U.S. leadership, which had dropped sharply while Trump was in office, has rebounded to the levels it was when Obama was in office. A huge portion of the public in those countries expect things to be much better under President Biden. 

The British Government Knows Trump Is Incompetent

The French and German governments have made no secret of their disdain for Donald Trump and his administration. They consider him to be an incompetent boob, who doesn't understand (or care) about international economics or politics, and is someone who can';t be trusted.

The British government has been a little more circumspect. They are already in a lot of trouble with their leaving the European Union, and they can't afford to antagonize the United States right now. But that doesn't mean they can't see the same truth that the French and Germans have seen.

The British know that Trump and his entire administration are incompetent. And they also know that it's not going to get any better -- Trump is not going to grow into the job, as other presidents have done.

An excellent assessment of what the British really think is to be found in this article in The Daily Mail. It worth a read.

Burning Of Notre Dame Is A French (And World) Tragedy

(These pictures of the Notre Dame fire are from CNN.com.)

The burning of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris is not just a tragedy for catholics. It is a tragedy for the people of France, and for people all around the world.

The cathedral was nearly 1,000 years old -- having been started in 1160 and completed about 1260. It was beautiful, but even more important, it was a part of the world's history. No one has to be catholic, or even religious, to be affected by this tragedy.

It seems that part of the cathedral has been saved (the towers at the front), and President Macron has said the cathedral will be rebuilt. I hope so. But the loss from this fire is immense.

Trump Treating G-6 Members As Enemies Strengthens Them

Donald Trump seems to have declared war on our best allies. While embracing dictators such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Erdogan, and Kim Jong-Un, he has tried to bully and threaten allies like France, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and Italy. He has put a tariff on their steel and aluminum, and threatened to apply other tariffs if they retaliate. And his bullying tactics at the recent G-7 meeting has just driven them further away -- and made them question whether the U.S. can be trusted with Trump as president.

The chart above shows what the people of those six nations thought of U.S. leadership before the G-7 meeting. Note that all of those nations had a very high opinion of Barack Obama as president. But their opinion of Trump is very low. The percentage saying they have at least some confidence in U.S. leadership under Trump is only 25% or lower in all six countries -- France (14%), Canada (22%), United Kingdom (22%), Germany (11%), Japan (24%), and Italy (25%).

Those are terrible numbers, and Trump's atrocious performance at the G-7 meeting is not going to improve them. I expect it will have the opposite effect -- making these leaders (who stood up to Trump) stronger among their own citizens, and giving them the support they need to fight Trump's ridiculous trade war.

The G-7 meeting just proved once again that Trump's foreign policy moves have been a disaster -- and have seriously damaged the reputation of the United States.

The chart above is from the Pew Research Center.

Trump Is Attacking Our Allies And Helping Our Enemies

(Cartoon image is by Bob Englehart at cagle.com.)

France, Canada, and Great Britain are the oldest allies the United States had. And following World War II, Germany, Japan, and Italy joined the other three in being reliable and important allies of the United States. These six countries, along with the United States, make up the members of the G-7 economic group, and in the past, their unified goals have helped to stabilize the world economy and help all countries to flourish.

But then Donald Trump was elected. He seems to have no respect for our six best allies. They have all tried to reason with Trump, and failing that, they have tried to flatter him in an attempt to maintain their alliance. Trump has snubbed all their efforts. Against their wishes, he has pulled out of the Paris Accords (endangering the climate of the whole world), denigrated NATO (even suggesting the U.S. might pull out), and violated the Iran Agreement and re-instated sections against that country (sanctions that would seriously affect our allies). Now he has gone further. He has placed tariffs on Canada and the European Union, and threatened tariffs against Japan (cars).

Trump seems not to value having allies. He thinks the United States can go it alone in the world -- and threaten all other nations to fallen line with U.S. wishes through our military and economic power. He is wrong, and he's fixing to find that out. The other 6 nations of the G-7 are tired of Trump's behavior and attacks on their economies, and they are ready to fight back. They are ready to impose their own tariffs on U.S. products -- tariffs that will hurt American farmers, industries, and consumers. And they will have the support of their people in this retaliation against Trump (who is very unpopular around the world).

I worry about what is going to happen in the future -- when we need those allies and find they are no longer willing to come to our aid.

But it's worse than just attacking our allies. Trump seems determined to help our enemies. He will be leaving the G-7 summit early to fly to Singapore to meet with North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-Un. Trump is bragging about the meeting like it was some kind of accomplishment. It isn't!

Any past U.S. president (Clinton, Bush, Obama) could have easily had such a meeting. They didn't because they knew it would accomplish nothing except a public relations victory for the North Korean dictator -- making it seem like they were on an equal footing with the United States (one of the world's most powerful nations). Sadly, Trump has given them that PR victory without receiving anything in return.

Trump thinks he can talk Kim Jong-Un into giving up his nuclear weapons, even though he did no preparation before the meeting with North Korea. Trump is a fool, and he's being played by North Korea. They are NOT going to give up their nuclear weapons. Trump has threatened "massive sanctions" if they don't give up those weapons.

He think they only have two choices -- give up the nuclear weapons or starve. That is not true. They have a third option if they get desperate enough -- attack South Korea to get what they need. China and Russia are not going to let that happen. They don't want a war threatening their part of the world, and they will see that North Korea gets just enough to stave off that kind of desperation.

Trump will return from Singapore either empty-handed, or with a really bad deal (that doesn't involve North Korean denuclearization).

North Korea is not the only enemy Trump wants to help. He has done his best to help Russia. Shortly after being sworn in, Trump tried to remove sanctions against Russia, and was stopped by Congress. When Congress passed new sanctions against Russia, Trump refused to impose them. Trump also supported the Russian annexation of the Crimea, and has basically allowed Russia to take control in Syria. Just yesterday, he announced that Russia should be re-admitted to the G-7 (which used to be the G-8 until Russia was kicked out for invading the Ukraine and annexing the Crimea). What has he gotten from Russia for all this help? NOTHING!

Russia is also the nation that benefits from Trump's attacks on our traditional allies. Putin has to be thrilled that the Western nations are no longer a solid bloc.

Why is Trump attacking our allies and helping our enemies? Is it just stupidity and incompetence, or is it something more nefarious? Is it payback for Russia helping him win the 2016 election? Do the Russians have some nasty secret on Trump they are using to control him?

UK-France-Germany Joint Statement On Trump's Iran Idiocy

(This photo of Merkel, May, and Macron from cnbc.com is by Dan Kitwood / Getty Images.)

Trump did it. He announced last Tuesday that he would violate the Iran Agreement by refusing to abide by its terms, and would reimpose strict economic sanctions of Iran. Fortunately, other Western leaders are not as stupid as Trump. Here is the joint statement issued by Theresa May of the United Kingdom, Emmanuel Macron of France, and Angela Merkel of Germany:

It is with regret and concern that we, the Leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom take note of President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States of America from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Together, we emphasise our continuing commitment to the JCPoA. This agreement remains important for our shared security. We recall that the JCPoA was unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council in resolution 2231. This resolution remains the binding international legal framework for the resolution of the dispute about the Iranian nuclear programme. We urge all sides to remain committed to its full implementation and to act in a spirit of responsibility.

According to the IAEA, Iran continues to abide by the restrictions set out by the JCPoA, in line with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The world is a safer place as a result. Therefore we, the E3, will remain parties to the JCPoA. Our governments remain committed to ensuring the agreement is upheld, and will work with all the remaining parties to the deal to ensure this remains the case including through ensuring the continuing economic benefits to the Iranian people that are linked to the agreement.

We urge the US to ensure that the structures of the JCPoA can remain intact, and to avoid taking action which obstructs its full implementation by all other parties to the deal. After engaging with the US Administration in a thorough manner over the past months, we call on the US to do everything possible to preserve the gains for nuclear non-proliferation brought about by the JCPoA, by allowing for a continued enforcement of its main elements.

We encourage Iran to show restraint in response to the decision by the US; Iran must continue to meet its own obligations under the deal, cooperating fully and in a timely manner with IAEA inspection requirements. The IAEA must be able to continue to carry out its long-term verification and monitoring programme without restriction or hindrance. In turn, Iran should continue to receive the sanctions relief it is entitled to whilst it remains in compliance with the terms of the deal.

There must be no doubt: Iran’s nuclear program must always remain peaceful and civilian. While taking the JCPOA as a base, we also agree that other major issues of concern need to be addressed. A long-term framework for Iran’s nuclear programme after some of the provisions of the JCPOA expire, after 2025, will have to be defined. Because our commitment to the security of our allies and partners in the region is unwavering, we must also address in a meaningful way shared concerns about Iran’s ballistic missile programme and its destabilising regional activities, especially in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. We have already started constructive and mutually beneficial discussions on these issues, and the E3 is committed to continuing them with key partners and concerned states across the region.

We and our Foreign Ministers will reach out to all parties to the JCPoA to seek a positive way forward.

Mission Accomplished? Who Were The Real Winners?

That was Trump's tweet after 105 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired at Syria -- 76 fired at a research facility, 22 fired at a storage facility, and 7 fired at a chemical weapons bunker. The U.S. is claiming it has destroyed Syria's ability to make and use chemical weapons. That's doubtful. While some buildings were destroyed, the Russians and Syrians had several days to prepare for the strike. It looks a lot like the previous missile strike against Syria -- when they were warned it would happen and moved their planes out of the way, and only a few buildings were damaged.

If anything was accomplished, it was only a public relations effort. The U.S., Great Britain, and  France were able to make a statement against the use of chemical weapons. And Donald Trump got to feed his narcissism and pose as a strongman willing to use military power.

There were some winners after the missile strike, but it wasn't the United States, Great Britain, or France. It was Syria, Russia, and Iran. They were winners because the strike did nothing to degrade their military power in Syria.

Syria can continue its war against its own people, which they are winning. Soon, Assad will be able to once again impose his brutal regime on all Syrians.

Russia can continue to aid Assad. They will be rewarded with a client state in the Middle East that is friendly to them -- and a warm water port on the Mediterranean.

Iran, who once stood alone in that area of the world, will have a friend now (and likely another in Iraq, since they are also helping their with troops on the ground).

And there is one more winner -- an American corporation (Raytheon). They will now get to replace those 105 cruise missiles at a cost of about $1.87 million each.

France Chooses Moderate Change - Rejects Bigotry

 Last November, the American people had a choice between a person who offered moderate and sensible change, and a person who who promised a radical and bigoted change. They chose the bigot.

The French had a similar option in their election. It was obvious that the French were unhappy with their current government. In the first round of their presidential election, they rejected both of the established political parties -- leaving them with the choice of a moderate independent (Emmanuel Macron) and a radical bigot (Marine Le Pen) in the final electoral round.

They opted for the moderate independent, Emmanuel Macron. They wanted change, but they wanted moderate and sensible change -- and they showed that overwhelmingly. Macron defeated Le Pen by a 30 point margin (with final results predicted to be about 65% to 35%).

This brings to my mind a question -- Are the French voters smarter than American voters, or does the French media do a better job of explaining what the candidates stand for than the American media does?

Thoughts On Fighting Terrorism

Another tragedy has struck the world --this time in Nice, France. As celebrants were leaving a Bastille Day fireworks display, a maniac drove a large truck through the crowd, killing at least 84 people and injuring hundreds more.

While this was a terrorist act, it is not yet known if it had a political/religious origin -- but that is likely, whether directed or inspired by extremists. I think there are a few things the public, in this country and others, need to keep in mind.

1. This was NOT an attack by muslims on the non-muslim world. It was an attack by an extremist on civilization. We must remember that by far, most of the victims of the jihadi extremists are muslims, and more of these attacks happen in the muslim world than outside it. To react against muslims in general would be a serious mistake.

2. The defeat and extermination of the ISIS caliphate will not stop this kind of terrorism. That caliphate needs to be defeated (and that should be done by the countries most at risk from it -- the country in the Middle East), but the extremists were committing terrorist attacks before the caliphate existed and they will continue those attacks after the caliphate is eliminated.

3. Terrorism cannot be defeated through the use of military force. The military (and we have the best in the world) are very effective against other military forces, but they are not built to fight terrorism. Terrorism can be defeated, but it must be done by a combination of effective diplomacy, shared intelligence, and a vigorous law enforcement effort.

4. The long-term solution to terrorism is to create societies that offer all citizens equal rights, and economies that allow all citizens to make a decent living a provides equal opportunities for advancement. Terrorism is strongest among individuals with no rights and no future.

For now, we must stand with the nation of France and the victims in Nice -- and hope that our leaders (and other world leaders) are smart enough to fight terrorism in the appropriate way.

The GOP Has Turned The U.S. Into A Nation Of Cowards

Ever since Paris was attacked by muslim radical jihadists, the Republicans in this country have steadily beaten the drums about how dangerous refugees are. Republican governors are saying they don't want any Syrian refugees in their states, and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has passed an onerous bill that would, in effect, make it impossible for this country to accept those refugees.

It doesn't seem to matter to them that all refugees are screened in a two-year process (and any refugee can be banned by the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, or the FBI). It doesn't matter to them that the United States has never had any problems with the refugees they accepted (including the 750,000 refugees we have taken in since the 9/11 attacks). It doesn't matter to them that Americans have a much better chance of being hit by lightening than being hurt by a terrorist (and have a much better chance of being hurt by a home-grown, right-wing terrorist than by a muslim jihadist).

Facts don't matter to them -- including the fact that we are a nation made up of immigrants and refugees, and their descendants. They are playing a political game. They are fear mongering in the hope they can scare Americans into voting for them in the next election. They are trying to pose as the party that will keep this country safe -- even though it was a Republican administration (Bush/Cheney) that laid the groundwork for the problems we now have.

And it looks like their fear mongering is working. Note in the chart above 51% of the public says we should not take any Syrian refugees. And even worse, 54% say we have no obligation to take refugees from anywhere (see chart below).

We might as well dismantle the Statue of Liberty, and remove the plaque from it. We are no longer a nation of brave defenders of liberty, who holds out hope for the world. The Republicans have made us a nation of cowards who want to close our borders, and deny freedom and opportunity to the downtrodden of the world.

Making our shame even worse, France is willing to accept at least 35,000 Syrian refugees -- and they were the nation actually attacked. Meanwhile, residents of the United States, one of the safest nations on Earth, cringes in fear.

These charts show the results of a new YouGov Poll -- done between November 17th and 19th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, and has a margin of error of 4.1 points.

Religious Terror Strikes Paris

Unless you live in a cave somewhere, then you know about the terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday night. At least 129 people were killed and over 350 wounded -- and the French government expects the death toll to climb higher.

Some in this country are already doing what they normally do -- blaming muslims for the attacks. While it is true that these particular terrorists were most likely muslim extremists, we need to remember that it's not just muslims that do terrorism. All religions do it -- including christianity (remember Oklahoma City).

As long as religion has existed, there have been extremists in those religions who commit atrocities (from human sacrifices to the Inquisition & crusades to bombings and shootings). It is just a continuing aspect of religion in general that atrocities will be committed by some followers -- and as long as religion exists, the violence will continue (whether you call it terrorism or not). Terrorism will not stop until religion ceases to exist.

We must also be careful to not blame all muslims (or all religious people). These attacks, like other religious violence, was committed by that religion's extremists. All religions have extremists (and always will), but the majority in every religion are not extremists -- and shouldn't be blamed for their religion's shortcomings (the production of extremists).

The talk now is about going after ISIS more ruthlessly. I have no desire to defend ISIS (or any other terrorists), but if anyone thinks defeating ISIS in the Middle East will eliminate terrorism, then they are just fooling themselves. Terrorists have never needed a country of their own to carry out their nefarious deeds -- and they won't need one in the future.

As long as religious extremists (of any religion) exist, terrorism will exist -- and the extremists will exist as long as religion exists.

Heroes (And Ambassadors Of Good Will To The World)

 (Spencer Stone)

(Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos, Chris Norman)

The pictures above are from NBC News. They show the newest heroes in France (and much of the rest of the world, including the United States) -- Airman First Class Spencer Stone, college senior Anthony Sadler, Oregon National Guardsman Alek Skarlatos, and British citizen Chris Norman. These four men prevented a massacre on a French train by a terrorist carrying an AK-47, a handgun, and a boxcutter.

Upon seeing the gunman, these four men showed extraordinary courage. Stone was the first to rush the gunman, quickly followed by Sadler, Skarlatos, and Norman. They took him down and tied him up with a necktie, and then held him down until French authorities could take him away. Stone was injured by being cut with the boxcutter.

The men are now heroes in France (and elsewhere), and are justifiably being treated like the heroes that they are. French crowds are applauding them everywhere they go, and they have been invited to meet the French president and other high government officials. They also received a call from President Obama praising them for their heroism.

The Bush administration damaged the reputation of the United States in other countries, including France, and President Obama has only been able to partially fix that damage. Personally, I think these three Americans have probably done more to rehabilitate America's image abroad than all of the U.S. politicians combined.

NOTE -- It should be mentioned that a French citizen was the first to notice the gunman, and try to stop him. The gunman fought him off, and was able to wound at least one passenger before the three Americans and one Brit were able to subdue him. That means this story actually has five heroes (but I was unable to find a picture of the French hero).

Thoughts On The Killing Of Journalists/Police In Paris

Unless you are living in a cave and completely cut off from civilization, then I assume you have heard about the heinous killings in Paris. Extremist muslim fundamentalists broke into the offices of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo (a magazine known for its satire on religious and right-wing extremism), and killed 12 people (including two French policemen in their getaway effort) and wounding 11. Although the gunmen were quickly identified by French authorities, as of this writing, they have not yet been apprehended.  Here are a few thoughts I have about this:

* Je Suis Charlie. Translated that means "I am Charlie", and it is the cry of thousands of French citizens in response to the attack. I believe it should be the cry today of all freedom-loving people across the world. This was not just an attack on a French magazine. It was an attack on free speech throughout the world -- an attempt to suppress free speech by violence. And no democracy can exist without the guarantee of free speech (which necessarily includes offensive speech).

* I commend the French authorities for their quick identification of these criminals (and that's exactly what they are). And when they are apprehended, as they surely will be, I hope a French court makes sure these criminals can never walk the streets freely among decent people ever again -- anywhere in the world. They deserve to spend the rest of their lives in a cage (i.e., a prison).

* I sincerely hope there will be no backlash of violence committed against innocent muslims, either in France or anywhere else. This was committed by religious extremists, and is not the view shared by most muslims -- as indicated by the many imams and other muslim leaders who have condemned the action. Many muslims also joined in tens of thousands of French who gathered in the streets to protest the despicable killings by displaying pens and holding "Je Suis Charlie" signs. Remember, there are violent extremists in almost (maybe all) religions. And for those of you who doubt that, I provide this link to the violent extremism of some christians.

* This is a perfect example of my belief that terrorism (which is just criminal behavior) is not a problem that can be solved by the military. It is a criminal justice problem that can only be solved by apprehending and convicting the criminals who engage in it.

* The killing of any human to promote or defend your religious views is always wrong. And it demonstrates either a weakness in that religion or in your belief in that religion. If there is a god, he/she would certainly not need or want humans to kill on their behalf -- and if he/she did, then that would not be a religion worth believing in.

And finally, in my own small show of solidarity with the free speech heroes of Charlie Hebdo, I present the following images which appeared in their magazine.

France And The United States

These two gentlemen are French -- but they are also American heroes, because they helped the Continental Army to fight the British during The American Revolutionary War. The gentleman on the left is the Marquis De La Fayette, and the gentleman on the right is General Rochambeau.

They were not the only French assistance to the American colonies during that war. The French also supplied money, helped the U.S. form a navy, and went to war with the British (diverting British attention away from the American rebellion). In fact, a very good case could be made that without French help the American Revolution might well have failed.

For their part, the Americans have also helped the French in their time of need. This was especially true during the two World Wars. My point in recounting this history between the two nations is that France and the United States have always had close ties, and the people of the two nations have always had respect for each other. But while the people of both nations are friends (and undoubtably will remain so), that does not mean those peoples always like the actions of the other's government.

Americans did not like it when the French government refused to allow a flyover to bomb Libya, or when they refused to support the illegal American invasion of Iraq. And the French don't care for the illegal wars conducted by the American government or the bullying it does to weaker nations.

That's why I found the charts below (from the Gallup Poll) so interesting. They graph the popularity of each government with the citizens of the other nation.

There's No Limit To United States Spying

The newest information to come to light out of the files released by Edward Snowden is that the United States was spying on our German friends -- including listening in on the phone line of German Chancellor Angela Merkel (pictured above). Merkel is mad as hell about it, and didn't believe President Obama when he called her to deny it.

This should not surprise anyone. We already knew the U.S. had spied on the French, and some are already saying we have done it to the British also. And a new newspaper report from The Guardian says the Italians are now accusing the U.S. of spying on them too. It would not surprise me at all if all of these reports are true. The United States has been spying on everyone -- both friend and foe. After all, if a government will spy on its own citizens (and we know that happened, and is probably still happening), what would stop them from doing it to everyone else?

The reason this was done is because of a flaw shared by all governments (of every kind), and that is that any government will do whatever it has the capability to do (and simple ethics and morality will not prevent that -- nor will the fact that it may not even make sense). And the American government has the awesome capability to spy on the entire world (or at least anyone in the world they want to spy on), so they do it -- and it does not make any difference which party is in the White House.

But why spy on our friends, instead of just our enemies? Simply because we have the capability to do it, but don't have the will-power to rein in that power. Now we will probably have to pay a price for that ridiculous spying on our friends. German officials are already questioning whether they want to enter into an economic trade agreement with the U.S. because of the spying. This will undoubtably affect our relationship with many nations in many ways.

The Patriot Act and our seemingly endless capabilities to eavesdrop of anyone anywhere should not be taken to have given our government an unlimited license to spy. The government should not be spying on its own citizens, and it should not be spying on friendly nations (because the negative effects will far outweigh any imagined benefit).

One of the most reasonable comments I have heard so far come from Senator Bernie Sanders, in a letter he wrote to President Obama about the spying. Bernie said:

“The strained relations with our allies as a result of wholesale NSA eavesdropping have impacted our ability to work with these countries in combating terrorism and advancing common economic goals. Clearly, in the complex and difficult world we now find ourselves, it is imperative that we try to improve our relations with friendly countries, not exacerbate them.”

“I hope you will work with me and other members of Congress in support of legislation that ends the current reckless activities of the NSA, and to develop policies which protect civil liberties and privacy rights while keeping our nation safe.”

If there is any good to come out of this mess, it is that maybe now these nations we consider friends will hesitate to back any future military invasions the U.S. wants to engage in on nations that pose no security risk to us (but are invaded just because we don't like their government, or their form of government). And maybe their hesitation will cause our own leaders to have second thoughts.

Little Support For An Attack On Syria

(The image above is from the Facebook page of The American Progressive.)

It is certainly no secret that the Obama administration is preparing to launch a military attack on Syria. They have spent days now trying to justify such an attack, even going so far as to claim that the security of the United States is at stake. The American people are not buying that argument, and several polls have shown that most Americans are against launching an attack on Syria -- even if the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the rebels.

Now it looks like international support for such an act is dwindling. There will be no United Nations resolution authorizing such an attack, since both Russia and China have made it clear that they would block any such resolution. Instead, the Obama administration had hoped to have the support of NATO (or at least most of the strongest NATO nations) and participation by NATO in an attack. Unfortunately for the administration, it looks like that probably won't happen.

The German government says it has not been asked, and is not considering, any military action against Syria. And the British Parliament voted to deny their Prime Minister the right to engage the British military in an attack on Syria. In fact, there is only one NATO nation that is willing to help the U.S. attack Syria, and that is France (which is trying to save face after recognizing the rebels as the official government of Syria).

Even most of the nations in the Middle East are against the attack. Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq have all come out against such an attack. The only nations there that might support the United States in an attack are Turkey (early supporters of the rebel uprising) and Saudi Arabia (which has been providing money and arms to the rebels). Israel has hinted they would like to see an attack, but they could not participate (since that would cause more problems in the region as a whole).

So it boils down to the United States, France, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia against everyone else -- including a majority of the American public. An attack on Syria at this time is just a bad idea. Hopefully, the Obama administration will come to its senses before deciding to make this reckless attack a reality.

Voters Give Hollande A Socialist Majority

A few weeks ago, the French people kicked out their conservative president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and replaced him with socialist Francois Hollande (pictured above). It looked like the French people were tired of the "austerity" program that Sarkozy and Germany's Angela Merkel had imposed on the European Union -- a failed program that had driven many European nations deeper into recession. The only question at that time was, would the French follow through and give Hollande a socialist parliament?

Well, they have done that. After the second round of parliamentary voting, the Socialist Party has wound up with a majority of seats in the French parliament. They have won at least 312 seats in the 577 member National Assembly, and probably more. That means Hollande and his Socialist Party won't have to rely on any other party to form a government, and it also signals the death knell for "austerity" in France, and probably in the European Union as a whole. The conservative parties will have between 212 and 234 seats in the National Assembly.

The two biggest economies in the European Union are Germany and France. When both had conservative leaders, they could strong-arm the other countries of the union into accepting "austerity" -- regardless of what that austerity did to their separate economies. But now that France has elected a socialist government (a government that has repudiated austerity), it is unlikely that Germany's conservative government can force austerity on the other nation's any longer. Germany needed the backing of France to enforce austerity, and it no longer has that backing.

The French voters may have just saved the European Union from a much longer and deeper recession -- and that will help economies around the world, including our own. Now if we can just defeat enough Republicans in November to end our own version of "austerity", maybe we can get back on the road to a real recovery.

France Will Withdraw From Afghanistan

It didn't take New French president Hollande long to change some important French policies. On the night of his election, he made sure that everyone knew that France would no longer go along with Germany in enforcing the failed economic policy of "austerity". Now only a week later, he has changed another French policy -- this time regarding Afghanistan.

The French president has just informed President Obama that France will withdraw all of its troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year. His predecessor, Sarkozy, had promised to keep the French troops in Afghanistan until the end of 2014 (when Obama says American troops will be withdrawn).

France is not as heavily invested in the occupation of Afghanistan as the United States is. They only have about 3,300 troops in that country. But the French withdrawal is significant nonetheless. The U.S. will have to take over the duties currently being performed by the French, and with another ally gone, it will make it more politically difficult for the United States to stay in Afghanistan for another two years (especially since a majority of Americans are now opposed to the war and want a sooner withdrawal).

U.S. sources are saying that the French president was just referring to combat troops, and might leave some "trainers" in the country. I'm not so sure he would do that -- or even could if he wanted to. In his campaign for the presidency, Hollande promised the French people to withdraw all of the troops.  Hollande told the president that France would "continue to support Afghanistan in a different way".

France is doing the right thing. Nothing more can be accomplished by the continued occupation of Afghanistan. It is time for the American government to realize that and end the whole mess by bringing ALL troops back home.