A Plurality Opposes Iran Bombing - A Majority Opposes Trump Foreign Policy

 

The charts above reflect the results of the Reuters / Ipsos Poll -- done between June 21st and 23rd of a nationwide sample of 1,139 adults, with a 3 point margin of error.

Biden Is Right To Stop Shipping Massive Bombs To Israel

President Biden has been asking Netanyahu to avoid attacking Rafah in Gaza. But Netanyahu has ignored him, and is currently starting the attack there. 

In retaliation, President Biden has stopped the shipment to Israel of massive 2,000 pound bombs (and also 500 pound bombs). 

A 2,000 pound bomb is not a precision weapon. It destroys whole city blocks. In a densely populated area like Gaza, it guarantees "collateral damage" (the killing of innocent civilians). And that is exactly what has happened. Nearly 35,000 Palestinians have been killed (14,000 of them children) and over 78,000 have been injured - most of them by the indiscriminate use of 2,000 and 500 pound bombs.

Republicans are whining about Biden's cessation of the bomb shipments. They claim Biden is refusing to help defend Israel in its time of need. That is not true. Biden is continuing to ship defensive weapons (such as those used to destroy incoming missiles). 

But a 2,000 pound bomb is not a defensive weapon. It is an offensive weapon used to destroy structures and create a large number of casualties. 

The U.S. cannot keep Netanyahu from attacking Rafah, but it can (and must) not supply the weapons guaranteed to case massive civilian casualties.

Israel has the right to seek and destroy Hamas terrorists, but the use of 2,000 pound bombs in a densely populated area is not the best way to do that. This massive killing of civilians is likely to create more terrorists than it kills.

President Biden was right to stop shipping these bombs to Israel, and he should continue the ban until a ceasefire is reached.

Republican Extremists Now Want To Bomb Mexico

The following is part of an op-ed in The Washington Post by Greg Sargent:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has declared that he’s prepared to authorize drone strikes against drug cartels in Mexico. Bedecked in military-looking garb at the border, he recently vowed to blockade Mexican ports. DeSantis is not alone: Many MAGA-fied Republicans are demanding stepped-up military action against the flow of fentanyl — including inside Mexico, without that country’s assent.

This talk isn’t just insanely reckless. It also exposes a profound absurdity embedded in the MAGA worldview, one that treats migration to the United States as a security problem to be “solved” with maximal force, not a hemispheric challenge that requires international cooperation and diplomacy. . . .

True, Republicans sometimes say they’ll seek Mexico’s permission to wage war on its soil. The idea of more U.S.-Mexico law enforcement cooperation against drug cartels is not inherently problematic. But other times, Republicans tout the threat of waging military action without Mexico’s consent as a badge of their own toughness.

Last week, for instance, DeSantis answered “yes” when an Iowa voter asked whether he’d use drones to “take out” cartels in Mexico. If Mexico won’t help, DeSantis continued, the United States will “do what we have to do.” And his suggestion of naval blockades to prevent precursor chemicals from entering Mexican ports comes with a hint that the action would be unilateral if Mexico “drags its feet.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) has proposed sending in Special Operations forces and said if Mexico doesn’t want to help, “so be it.” Fox News’s Greg Gutfeld wants the United States to “bomb Mexico,” meaning the cartels, even “if Mexico won’t agree.”

As David Frum writes for the Atlantic, such talk addresses a political problem for Republicans. Huge numbers of the opioid epidemic’s victims are rural and White, and a broader domestic crackdown might demonize or criminalize many GOP constituents; threatening Mexico instead spins a tale of “virtuous middle-Americans beset by alien villains.”

But that tale runs into a problem. DeSantis recently said he would reinstate “Remain in Mexico” as the primary way of disincentivizing migrants from seeking asylum in the United States. . . .

It might be argued that “bomb Mexico” talk could exert more pressure on Mexico to restart the policy if the next U.S. president demands it. But, with Mexico’s leftist president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador,regularly lambasting DeSantis’s anti-immigrant policies, GOP war fever will make it politically harder for Mexico to acquiesce, said Bárcena, who was ambassador during “Remain in Mexico” under Trump.

“All cooperation will be less likely if the Republican candidates continue with the threat of use of force,” Bárcena said, as Mexicans will criticize Obrador for “yielding to the U.S.”. . .

But to DeSantis and MAGA, all that matters is whether we are “tough” enough. If we are, migrants will give up. DeSantis’s immigration blueprint says nothing meaningful about root causes of migration or how to address them through multilateral action, dismissing migration as an “invasion” and not a complex phenomenon with profound human rights implications.

Similarly, the fentanyl crisis has myriad complicated causes. As Ryan Cooper writes for the American Prospect, we’d do better to redouble treatment at home and beef up technology at ports of entry — where most fentanyl enters — rather than launch new military adventures south of the border.

But as long as the war-whooping thrills the MAGA masses, that alone counts as mission accomplished.

A Bombing In Nashville Desecrates The Holiday

 As if 2020 hadn't been bad enough, we have a terrorist act to cap it off. Someone intentionally set off a bomb in Nashville. Fortunately, no one was killed. But there were people injured and substantial damage. I have to wonder if this is a result of Trump's refusal to accept the outcome of the election, and his approval of some of his right-wing supporters. Is this the opening salvo in the civil war Trump is trying hard to start?

Here is initial coverage from AP News:

An explosion shook the largely deserted streets of downtown Nashville early Christmas morning, shattering windows, damaging buildings and wounding three people. Authorities said they believed the blast was intentional. The FBI is leading the investigation.

Metro Nashville Police Department spokesman Don Aaron said police responded to a call of shots fired just before 6 a.m. but found no immediate signs of a shooting, although officers noticed a suspicious vehicle and called for a hazardous unit. While they waited, the vehicle exploded.

Aaron said three people were taken to area hospitals for treatment, although none were in critical condition. He said some people were taken to the department’s central precinct for questioning but declined to give more details.

The FBI will be taking the lead in the investigation, said spokesman Joel Siskovic. Federal investigators from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were also on the scene. The FBI is the primary law enforcement agency responsible for investigating federal crimes, such as explosives violations and acts of terrorism. 

Black smoke and flames were seen early Friday billowing from the area, which is packed with bars, restaurants and other retail establishments and is known as the heart of downtown Nashville’s tourist scene.

Trump's Threat Is A Violation Of Law And Common Decency

Before he was elected, Donald Trump claimed to be a great negotiator. He lied. He has only one negotiating tactic -- threats. And he still hasn't learned that threats don't always work. In fact, they seldom work -- and Iran has shown that they don't bend to threats.

After killing one of Iran's top generals, Trump has threatened to retaliate against Iran if they retaliate for that assassination. He says he has 52 sites targeted, if there is any retaliation. The problem is that not all those sites are strategic military sites. Some are cultural (historic), and bombing them would very likely include civilian deaths.

Bombing cultural / historic sites, even without civilian deaths, is a violation of international law -- and common decency. Unfortunately, Trump has shown he cares nothing about law, morality, or decency. After Secretary of State Pompeo tried to walk back Trump's threat to bomb cultural sites, only one day later Trump made the threat again. And he doesn't seem to care that even our allies would not support such a move.

Here is an excellent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times by Sara C. Bronin about Trump's intentions:

President Trump threatened to destroy 52 Iranian sites — “some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture” — on Twitter on Saturday. This may seem like a small issue in the midst of an international crisis, but, as others have noted, his tweet amounts to an announcement of an intention to commit war crimes.

A part of the Hague Convention of 1907, signed over a century ago, says that “all necessary steps must be taken” to spare “buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected.” Similarly, the Geneva Convention Protocol I, signed in 1949 and amended in 1977, renders unlawful “any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples.”

Federal law in the United States says that violating these international conventions would constitute a war crime. Anyone who violates them could be imprisoned or, if death results from their actions, be sentenced to death. Members of the Trump administration should be on notice that they can be held liable under these provisions.

Trump’s threatened actions would be morally reprehensible even outside the law, because they would destroy centuries-old places of profound importance not just to Iranians, but to all of human civilization.

Measuring the significance of sites is always a delicate exercise. In the United States, we conduct a formal evaluation before we place a site on a list such as the National Register of Historic Places.

The worldwide list is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) List of World Heritage Sites. The United States has 24 places on UNESCO’s list, including Independence Hall, widely recognized as the birthplace of modern democracy and a symbol of hope for people around the world. The San Antonio Missions, Statue of Liberty and Mesa Verde National Park are also listed. It’s worth noting that many sites that we might think of as important to our national identity are not included on this international list. Not even Mount Vernon has made it, though President Washington’s home is one of 19 places nominated by the United States for consideration.

Iran, just one-sixth the size of the United States, also has 24 UNESCO designationsand has nominated 56 more for consideration.

That country, recognized as a cradle of civilization, is home to World Heritage Sites like the Shustar hydraulic system, initiated in the fifth century B.C. and hailed by UNESCO as a “masterpiece of creative genius.” Also included as a group are eight Persian gardens whose distinct design influenced the Alhambra in Spain and the Taj Mahal in India and countless modern landscapes today.

But perhaps the most significant place on the UNESCO list is Persepolis, reportedly the most-visited historic site in Iran. It was a ceremonial capital of the Persian Empire, completed by Darius I and given a place of prominence in architectural history courses across the world. Some believe that Persepolis was the place where the clay Cyrus Cylinder (today housed at the British Museum) was inscribed in cuneiform. Recognizing the diversity of the Persian Empire, the cylinder sets forth a vision of governing a pluralistic society and is considered by some Iranians to be the world’s first charter of human rights.

A nation that willfully destroys another country’s heritage would be no better than the criminals who have destroyed irreplaceable sites in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in recent years.

Protecting civilian lives is paramount, but saving cultural sites is consistent with that mission, too. Destroying mosques, museums and libraries will certainly result in civilian casualties.

If President Trump’s rhetoric is a calculated attempt to pressure Iranian citizens to topple their regime, it seems likely to backfire. Imagine how Americans would respond if a foreign power threatened to fire missiles at the Statue of Liberty. If he follows through on his threat, he will violate international law and the United States will risk further damage to its increasingly fragile global reputation.

Bomber Arrested (& As Expected Was A Trump Supporter)

 (The photos in this post are from NBC News. The top image shows the decals on the bomber's van. At left is a prior booking photo of the bomber (56 year-old Cesar Sayoc, Jr.)

The MAGA-bomber has been arrested. It turns out to be Cesar Sayoc, Jr. of Florida. He has a prior criminal record, but that is not why he sent the bombs. He did that because he was a Trump supporter (note the decals on his van), and evidently, was trying to please his favorite demagogue -- Donald Trump. He is a registered Republican.

In the last couple of days, right-wingers have floated conspiracy theories saying the bombs were sent by Democrats (or leftists) to defame Trump. That has now been exposed as a ridiculous lie.

Trump himself spoke after the arrest. He said the bomber would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (even though he has nothing to do with how the bomber will be charged or prosecuted). He also called for unity among U.S. citizens -- completely ignoring his own efforts to divide the nation.

I wish I could say this is over, and Trump's critics are now safe -- but that is probably not the case. As long as Trump continues to demonize his political opponents, they will be in danger. Too many right-wing terrorists exist in this country -- people like Sayoc, who may try to please Trump with violent acts. And the next one may be more competent that this bomber was.

Trump has poisoned the politics in this country, and he has made the country a much more dangerous place.

(This graphic is from CNN.)

NOTE -- A 13th package has been found in Sacramento -- addressed to Senator Kamala Harris.

Pipe Bombs Sent To Obama, Clinton, CNN, And Soros

(This photo of one of the intercepted pipe bombs is from NBC News.)

Donald Trump and his Republican cohorts want Americans to believe that the biggest danger from terrorism comes from foreign-born muslims. That is not true. The biggest threat to American citizens comes from home-grown right-wing terrorists. The GOP doesn't want to admit that because these terrorists love Trump and support the Republican Party (who they believe shares their bigotry and hate).

The following is from the Los Angeles Times. I seriously doubt these bombs were sent by any muslim (or left-winger). It has all the earmarks of a right-winger who is taking Trump's lie and violent rhetoric to heart.

A series of suspicious packages containing potential explosives set off a wave of panic Wednesday after the Secret Service reported intercepting devices addressed to Hillary Clinton and President Obama, and CNN reported an apparent third sent to its Manhattan building, prompting an evacuation.

A law enforcement official familiar with the investigation said authorities suspect at least two of the devices were made and sent by the same person or persons. The officials described an aggressive “full court press” to identify and capture the suspects.

Authorities have stepped up screening of other people who could be targets, the official added.

The motive was not immediately clear. CNN anchors, speaking live from cellphones outside their bureau at the Time Warner Center, described the evacuation of a New York landmark that disrupted traffic and drew the New York Police Department’s bomb squad.

Clinton and Obama have been the subject of frequent attacks by President Trump, who has blamed his predecessor for mishandling foreign policy and the economy. Trump has led chants of “lock her up” at political rallies long after he defeated Clinton, the former first lady and secretary of State. It was unclear whether the third device was targeted at CNN or another tenant in the building. . . .

On Monday, a similar explosive device was found at the suburban New York home of George Soros, the billionaire supporter of liberal causes. Soros' home in Katonah, N.Y., is a short drive from the home that the Clintons own in Chappaqua. Soros has also been a frequent target of conservative political figures and media.

UPDATE -- It now looks like bombs were also sent to former Attorney General Eric Holder, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters.

In an obvious effort to shift blame for these acts of terrorism, the bomb packages all had a return address of the office of Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The package addressed to Mr. Holder had an address problem and was sent "back" to the office of Wasserman Schultz.

Trump Adm. Killing 450% More Civilians Than Obama Adm.

(The image above is from Waking Times.)

During the Obama administration, an average of 80 innocent civilians were killed each month by U.S. bombing. That's a terrible average, but compared to the Trump administration it seems small. The Trump administration is killing an average of 360 innocent civilians each month -- about 4.5 times the number killed during the term of President Obama.

Trump promised to bomb the s**t out of ISIS and he seems to be keeping that promises (one of the few promises he has kept), but that bombing is indiscriminate (and kills many more innocent civilians). He doesn't seem to realize that the bombing of civilians creates more terrorists than it kills.

ISIS is going to lose the territory it currently holds in Iraq and Syria. It was losing that territory under Obama, and Trump has continued that. But don't be fooled into thinking that will be the end of terrorist acts committed by ISIS, al-Queda, and others. Terrorists have never needed to hold territory to commit their atrocious acts. That will continue -- and the increased bombing of civilians just insures there will be more terrorists to carry out those acts.

Americans Cautiously Support Syrian Bombing

It looks like Trump has fooled a majority of Americans with his missile strike against Syria. About 57% say they approve of Trump's action. But that is a cautious approval, and not a desire for more action in Syria.

A whopping 69% of the public say Trump needs to get congressional approval before taking further military action against Syria -- and only a tiny 18% would support sending ground troops to Syria (which Trump has already done secretly).Americans don't want a bigger war in the Middle East.

These charts are from a new CBS News Poll -- done between April 7th and 9th of a random national sample of 1,006 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

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

The Gallup Poll (done on April 7th and 8th of a random national sample of 1,015 adults, with a 4 point margin of error) puts support for the strike a little lower -- at about 50%. They compared support for the Syrian strike with military actions by other presidents (see chart below) -- and Trump's attack on Syria had less public support than almost all of the others (with the single exception of the March 2011 action against Libya).

As I said above, the support for the attack on Syria is cautious and tenuous -- and should not be viewed as permission to broaden the Iraq/Syria war.

Press Should Be More Skeptical Of The Syrian Bombing

(Cartoon image is by Darrin Bell at darrinbell.com.)

Dan Rather thinks the mainstream media was too quick to support Trump's cruise missile attack on a Syrian air base. He writes:

The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief. It is an awesome responsibility. Committing the use of force and American men and women in uniform is about as serious as it gets. But the truly great presidents understand that knowing when NOT to act is as important as knowing when to act. 

It is a whole lot easier starting wars than finishing them. And there are many historical examples of where a promise of limited engagement quickly metastasized into something much bigger. 

There is a tendency to rally around the flag, and a President who takes on a war footing can see a boost of support. It is often transitory. There are arguments to be made that President Assad in Syria has crossed a line that demands U.S. military interference. Whether this should have been a unilateral action is something we all must consider. Whether President Trump has a plan for what comes next must be debated. Whether there is a coherence to this missile strike fitting into a larger foreign policy strategy is a question that should give us all pause. 

The role of the press is to ask hard questions. There is ample evidence that this Administration needs to face deep scrutiny. The lies we have heard, the chaos in governance, and the looming questions about ties with Russia - itself a major player in Syria - demand that the press treat this latest action with healthy skepticism. Perhaps it was the right thing to do. Perhaps a strong and wise policy will emerge. But that judgement is still definitely hanging in the balance. 

The number of members of the press who have lauded the actions last night as "presidential" is concerning. War must never be considered a public relations operation. It is not a way for an Administration to gain a narrative. It is a step into a dangerous unknown and its full impact is impossible to predict, especially in the immediate wake of the first strike.

Bombing Of Syria Was Just A Trump Publicity Stunt

(Cartoon image is by Paul Zanetti at cagle.com.)

The Trump administration is trying to pass off its bombing of a Syrian air base as a humanitarian action to prevent Syria from gassing the rebels that oppose them. The more I think about the bombing, the more convinced I am that this is simply not true. The bombing was just a publicity stunt by the Trump administration.

Why do I say that? Consider how the bombing (by cruise missiles) was done. The Trump administration warned the Russians in advance of the bombing, knowing full well that Russia would warn its ally Syria. And that's exactly what happened. Both Russia and Syria used the warning to send both personnel and planes to a safe location. The only planes damaged in the bombing were six that were being repaired (and could not be removed).

The runway for the base was not bombed at all -- and according to observers, was back in operation the next day. How can you take an air base out of commission without bombing and destroying its runways? You can't. This tells me that Trump never intended to destroy the air base (or he would have targeted the runways with at least a few of the 59 missiles fired). It was all just an exercise in political theater (i.e., a publicity stunt). A few buildings were destroyed, but the base is still operational (and Syria has the same military capability it had before the bombing).

Why would Trump waste 59 cruise missiles on a publicity stunt? Because his job approval rating has been falling like a rock -- and currently rests in the mid-thirties (lower than any modern president in his first months in office) -- and that is unacceptable for a narcissist like Trump.

He could straighten out his chaotic White House, or alter his policies to more closely align with the wishes of the general population, but those would take time -- and he would have to admit that he's the architect of his own dismal approval ratings (something he seems incapable of doing).

The far easier way was to take military action against a supposed enemy (even though Syria has done nothing to endanger the United States). By sending Haley to the United Nations to claim the U.S. was acting out of a humanitarian concern, and then firing some missiles at Syria, Trump is able to pose as a warrior president -- a leader who worries about the Syrian people (the same people he is denying entry into the United States as refugees).

When presidents take military action, the country tends to unify behind them -- at least for a while. That was true when Bush I attacked Iraq, when Bush II attacked Afghanistan, and when Obama sent Navy Seals to take out Osama bin Laden. Trump is hoping that his publicity stunt will have the same effect, and that he can get his job approval up (without doing anything to justify it).

None of this should surprise us. Trump has always been more about show than substance (or as we say in Texas -- all hat and no cattle). Trump is a poser, and now he's posing as a military leader. I hope most Americans are smart enough to see through it.

Are We Winning The "War On Terror" ?

The chart above shows the public perception in the United States on who is winning the "war on terror" -- the United States and its allies or the terrorists. The polling is done by the Rasmussen Poll, and for each date 1,000 likely voters were questioned, with a margin of error of 3 points.

For the last couple of years, the public believed the terrorists were winning. That has now changed, and a plurality believes the U.S. and its allies are winning. Why the change? Is the public buoyed by the tough talk of our new president? Are we that easily fooled?

The only thing that has changed since Trump took office is that we are doing more bombing -- and that increase in bombing is killing significantly more innocent civilians. In just the last two weeks, at least 279 innocent civilians have been killed by U.S. bombing.

Is that really the path to victory over terrorism? Or is it just creating more terrorists? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the latter is more likely.

Clinton's Statement On The Istanbul Airport Bombings

(Photo of Istanbul Airport bombing is from cnn.com.)

This is the statement released by Hillary Clinton in reaction to the bombings in Istanbul:

The Horrors Of War Continue

(This photo of the Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) Hospital is from ibtimes.co.uk.)

The following message is from the group called United for Peace & Justice. I agree with it.

The horror continues in Afghanistan with the deadly bombing of the Doctors Without Bordershospital in Kunduz killing 22 people - 12 staff members and 10 patients, some of them children, with dozens more wounded.

Bombing a hospital is a violation of International Humanitarian Law and a War Crime.

Afghanistan is our country’s longest war – entering its 15th year today, October 7th. President Obama can’t claim he ended combat operations in 2014 when we continue to bomb the country. Bombing is war!

The President and military leaders have repeatedly told us there is no military solution in Afghanistan. Why are the same failed policies that began under the George W. Bush administration still in effect?

Since the 2009 “surge”, things in Afghanistan have only gotten worse. The Taliban have launched more attacks every year. Rather than being diminished they have grown in size and capacity. For the 5th consecutive year Afghan civilian casualties have hit record highs. Some Afghan people, fueled by anger at foreign occupation and a corrupt government, have turned to the Taliban.

The government of Afghanistan is one of the most corrupt in the world – hundreds of millions of our dollars go into the hands of crooked officials, warlords, drug lords and the Taliban. 

The U.S. has spent $65 billion to build the Afghan Army and Police Forces. Despite the infusion of $110 billion in foreign assistance since 2001, Afghanistan’s only real economy is the poppy drug trade which has rapidly increased in recent years under U.S. occupation. America has supported a corrupt Afghanistan government at the expense of Afghan people American service members.

Now, President Obama has ordered a slowdown in U.S. troop withdrawal and we fear he may extend troop deployments beyond 2016.

U.S. military intervention is a proven failure. We invested in drones, bombs, soldiers, and night raids but did not invest in solutions. These failed military tactics have led to more enemies, more extremists and futile, endless war, while increasing suffering for the people of Afghanistan (2.5 million refugees and 700,000 displaced per UNHCR). 

How do we respond to those who say if the U.S. leaves there will be a bloodbath? Unfortunately a bloodbath has been underway for 14 years and the U.S. must take responsibility for its part in it. U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and the Middle East is seen as a crusade against Islam and used by Al-Qaeda, ISIS and other extremist groups to attract recruits. There are no easy answers or fast solutions. But if we change course, take diplomatic methods seriously, backed by intelligence, money and our full, determined effort, we can achieve a political solution leading to stability instead of endless war.

The Afghanistan war is an abysmal failure. We must ask President Obama, our Congressional representatives, and the military two basic questions:

• Why should U.S. forces stay one more day in Afghanistan? 
• What is preventing a full, focused effort on diplomacy – in Afghanistan as well as in the Middle East?

Send a message to your Congressional Representatives calling on them to end military operations, bring our troops home, and demand focused diplomatic efforts to reach a political solution to the crisis in Afghanistan.

We need to end military intervention and support a diplomatic process leading to a political solution. As long as there are U.S. forces in Afghanistan there will be no peace. As President Obama himself has said, a lasting solution will depend on Afghans and their neighbors reaching a political settlement.

Please share this message with others who want to end the war.

Does A Nuclear Iran Really Pose A Danger To U.S. ?

There has been a lot in the media about Iran recently -- since the U.S. reached a tentative agreement that would probably keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Most Democrats support the agreement, while most Republicans oppose it. But both sides seem to agree on one thing -- that a nuclear Iran would pose a danger to the United States. But is that really true?

I'm not at all convinced that it is. I think a lot of politicians on both sides are simply using this to drum up fear, and get the public to vote for them. There are already a whole list of countries with a nuclear bomb, including at least one outlaw islamic state -- Pakistan, India, South Africa, Israel, France, United Kingdom, Russia, China, the United States, and possibly North Korea. Those are the nuclear states that we know about. Would Iran having the nuclear bomb really change things much?

The politicians are saying Iran would be a danger to this country if they had the bomb. That is ridiculous. For one thing, they don't have the capability to deliver a nuclear strike on this country. For another, even though their rhetoric is silly (much like ours), they are not suicidal. They know that any attempt to attack the United States with a nuclear bomb would insure their own complete annihilation. Remember, we have already shown that we are willing to use nuclear power against another country (and that country didn't even have a nuclear bomb).

We are also the only country refusing to sign a treaty saying we won't be the first to use nuclear arms in the future, and the only one unwilling to sign a treaty to keep nuclear arms out of space. The Iranians (and everyone else) should be a lot more afraid of us than we should be of them.

Others will say that even though Iran couldn't make a nuclear strike on the U.S., they could use it on our ally (Israel). That is almost as ridiculous as the idea they would use it against us. Israel has long had the bomb and they have a lot of our delivery technology -- and they have shown they won't hesitate to use their military power. The Israelis could annihilate Iran almost as quickly and completely as we could. And once again, the Iranians are not suicidal. And the same argument could be made about the European powers.

Don't get me wrong. I don't particularly like the idea of another nation having the nuclear bomb -- but then, I don't like the idea of any nation having a nuclear strike capability, including the United States. In a sane world, all nations would destroy their nuclear weapons. But Iran getting the bomb won't change things much. It will just be one more nation with the ability to claim "detente". And they would be no more likely to use a nuclear bomb than any of the other nuclear powers.

This is a false issue. The real issue that the world should be discussing is the disarmament of ALL nations. War is stupid, and a nuclear war would be completely insane -- for anyone, including Iran.

Americans Still Say NO To Ground Troops In Iraq/Syria

The charts above reflect the numbers contained in a new Rasmussen Poll -- done on December 7th and 8th of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a margin of error of 3 points.

President Obama has authorized bombing in Iraq and Syria to stymie the efforts of ISIS to take over those countries, and turn them into theocratic dictatorships -- and about 65% of all Americans support that action by the president. But that is not all the president has done. After saying he would not put American troops "boots on the ground" in those countries, he has broken his own promise by sending more than 3,000 soldiers to Iraq. And that is a move Americans are loathe to support.

As these charts show, only 22% of the American public thinks the president should put ground troops in Iraq or Syria with congressional approval -- and only 36% would be in favor of Congress declaring war on ISIS (as suggested by Senator Rand Paul). Declaring war would authorize the president to send as many troops as he wants, but that is not what the people want. They want our involvement to be a limited one -- limited only to the bombing campaign, and involving no American ground troops.

U.S. Bombing Of Syria Has Begun - Is It A Good Idea?

We learned yesterday that the United States has begun bombing ISIS targets in Syria -- using both cruise missiles and bombs from planes. And politicians from both parties have jumped on the bandwagon to support the bombings -- along with the mainstream media, who beat the war drums all day long. I'm not so sure this is an event to be celebrated, or even approved.

Don't get me wrong. I don't feel sorry for ISIS. They are a brutal and frightening group, and if they all died today I would shed no tears for them. But I do have some questions about this new war effort.

I am a little comforted by the fact that a few Arab nations (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Bahrain) took part in the bombing, but I question just how committed they are to fighting ISIS. Are they going to continue the bombing, or is this just short-term cover for the United States (which is carrying the bulk of the loan)? Are they willing to put soldiers on the ground to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq? We can wound ISIS and its allies, perhaps seriously, through bombing -- but it will take ground troops to defeat them.

I'm not even sure the four Arab nations who joined in the bombing have the troops necessary to do the job. They are rich nations, but have small populations. I doubt any ground effort can even be conducted without the participation of much larger populated Arab countries like Turkey and Egypt -- and so far, neither has expressed a willingness to participate.

I keep hearing from both politicians and the media about the great danger ISIS poses for the United States. That is silly, and those saying it should be ashamed of themselves. The military arm of ISIS poses no danger at all to the United States. They are not going to invade this country (or any of its possessions). The only threat they pose is a terrorist threat -- and completely wiping out the military arm of ISIS will not eliminate the terrorist threat (which can be posed by a few individuals who hold no territory at all).

I still wonder if we even have a dog in this fight. Even though the government and the media completely ignore it, this is basically a religious war between two factions of muslims (Sunnis and Shiites). If ISIS and its Sunni allies win, they are certainly not going to be an ally of the United States. And if the Shiites win, it means that Assad will control Syria and Iran will largely control Iraq. And neither of those is likely to be a U.S. ally either.

The truth is that we have no real ally in this religious war. And although the United States is a secular nation, most of the muslim world views us as a christian nation. And too many Arabs on the street are going to view this as just one more christian crusade against the muslim world. The only thing we are assured of doing in this conflict is to create more enemies for this country.

And don't think this is going to be a quick war. One Pentagon official, talking about the bombing, said we should be thinking of the timeline in years -- not days or weeks. Our government has just started another endless war -- and one we cannot win.

The American Public Thinks The Iraq War Was A Mistake - But Still Supports Current Bombing Campaign There

As readers of this blog will know, I never liked the Iraq War. I thought it was a mistake for Bush to invade and occupy Iraq -- and I berated Obama for taking three long years to get us out of that religious civil war. And while most Americans were initially fooled into thinking the invasion was necessary (thanks to the lies of Bush and Cheney), they now understand it was a bad mistake.

Note in the charts above, a majority of Americans (53% to 27%) now believe the invasion was a mistake. And when the demographic results are shown, every single group agrees with that -- except for the Republicans (who seem to be making a habit of holding positions in disagreement with the public's opinion).

And the same thing goes when people are asked whether withdrawing from Iraq was a mistake. A majority of the public says it was NOT a mistake to withdraw, and every demographic group (except, of course, the Republicans) agrees with that.

That makes me quite mystified that all of these groups (except Hispanics and young people) now say that the current bombing campaign in Iraq by the United States is not a mistake. I don't understand. How can the first engagement in Iraq be a mistake, but our re-engagement is not a mistake? Isn't this the same religious civil war? Do we have any friends on either side of this conflict? Isn't this new bombing campaign just going to make even more enemies for this countries (as more civilian casualties are created)?

I think a few years from now the public will understand that this re-engagement in Iraq's religious civil war was as big a mistake as our initial invasion (which started the whole thing). It's just sad that they can't see that right now.

These charts were made from a recent Economist / YouGov Poll -- conducted between August 9th and 11th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of about 4 points.

Green Party Gives 9 Reasons To Stop The Bombing In Iraq

I have made it very clear on this blog that I am opposed to the United States re-engaging in Iraq's religious civil war -- either by putting troops back in that country (which President Obama has already done) or by bombing anyone in that country (which the president has now started). I just think this is a serious mistake that has no upside for this country, but has a huge downside (not the least of which is the creation of even more enemies due to the killing).

The Green Party also opposes our re-engagement in Iraq. And on August 13th, Green Party Shadow Cabinet member David Swanson (pictured) gave us 9 reasons to stop the bombing in Iraq. Here is what he has written:

1. It's not a rescue mission.  The U.S. personnel could be evacuated without the 500-pound bombs. The persecuted minorities could be supplied, moved, or their enemy dissuaded, or all three, without the 500-pound bombs or the hundreds of "advisors" (trained and armed to kill, and never instructed in how to give advice -- Have you ever tried taking urgent advice from 430 people?). The boy who cried rescue mission should not be allowed to get away with it after the documented deception in Libya where a fictional threat to civilians was used to launch an all-out aggressive attack that has left that nation in ruins.  Not to mention the false claims about Syrian chemical weapons and the false claim that missiles were the only option left for Syria -- the latter claims being exposed when the former weren't believed, the missiles didn't launch, and less violent but perfectly obvious alternative courses of action were recognized. If the U.S. government were driven by a desire to rescue the innocent, why would it be arming Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain?  The U.S. government destroyed the nation of Iraq between 2003 and 2011, with results including the near elimination of various minority groups.  If preventing genocide were a dominant U.S. interest, it could have halted its participation in and aggravation of that war at any time, a war in which 97% of the dead were on one side, just as in Gaza this month -- the distinction between war and genocide being one of perspective, not proportions.  Or, of course, the U.S. could have left well alone.  Ever since President Carter declared that the U.S. would kill for Iraqi oil, each of his successors has believed that course of action justified, and each has made matters significantly worse.

2. It's going to make things worse, again.  This bombing will aggravate the Sunni-Shia divide, increase support for ISIS, and create a lasting legacy of hostility and violence.  President Obama says there is no military solution, only reconciliation.  But bombs don't reconcile.  They harden hearts and breed murderers.  Numerous top U.S. officials admit that much of what the U.S. military does generates more enemies than it kills.  When you continue down a path that is counterproductive on its own terms, the honesty of those terms has to be doubted.  If this war is not for peace, is it perhaps -- like every other war we've seen the U.S. wage in the area -- for resources, profits, domination, and sadism?  The leader of ISIS learned his hatred in a U.S. prison in Iraq.  U.S. media report that fact as if it is just part of the standard portrait of a new Enemy #1, but the irony is not mere coincidence.  Violence is created. It doesn't arise out of irrational and inscrutable foreignness.  It is planted by those great gardeners in the sky: planes, drones, and helicopters.  A bombing campaign justified as protecting people actually endangers them, and those around them, and many others, including those of us living in the imperial Homeland.

3. Bombs kill.  Big bombs kill a lot of people.  Massive bombing campaigns slaughter huge numbers of people, including those fighting in the hell the U.S. helped to create, and including those not fighting -- men, women, children, grandparents, infants.  Defenders of the bombing know this, but ignore it, and make no effort to calculate whether more people are supposedly being saved than are being killed.  This indifference exposes the humanitarian pretensions of the operation.  If some humans are of no value to you, humanitarianism is not what's driving your decisions.  The U.S. war on Iraq '03-'11 killed a half million to a million-and-a-half Iraqis and 4,000 Americans.  A war that puts fewer Americans on the ground and uses more planes and drones is thought of as involving less death only if our concern is narrowly limited to U.S. deaths.  From the vantage point of the ground, an air war is the deadliest form of war there is. 

4. There are other options.  The choice between bombing and doing nothing is as false now as it was in September.  If you can drop food on some people, why can't you drop food on everyone? It would cost a tiny fraction of dropping bombs on them. It would confuse the hell out of them, too. The United States could talk about other matters with ISIS as well, including a ceasefire, including a unilateral commitment to cease arming the Iraqi government even while trying to organize its ouster, including an offer to provide real humanitarian aid with no nasty strings attached, but with encouragement of civil liberties and democratic decision making. It's amazing how long minority ethnic groups in Iraq survived and thrived prior to the U.S. bringing democracy, and prior to the U.S. existing. The U.S. could do some good but must first do no harm.

5. There are now enough weapons already there to practically justify one of Colin Powell's slides retroactively.  The U.S. accounts for 79% of foreign weapons transfers to Western Asia (the Middle East).  The war on Libya had identical U.S. weapons on both sides.  ISIS almost certainly has weapons supplied by the U.S. in Syria, and certainly has weapons taken from Iraq.  So, what is the U.S. doing?  It's rushing more weapons to Iraq as fast as possible.  Americans like to think of the Middle East as backward and violent, but the tools of the violence trade are manufactured in the United States.  Yes, the United States does still manufacture something, it's just not something that serves any useful purpose or about which most of us can manage to feel very proud.  Weapons making also wastes money rather than creating it, because unaccountable profits are the single biggest product manufactured. 

6. This is going to cost a fortune.  Bombing Iraq is depicted as a measure of great restraint and forbearance.  Meanwhile building schools and hospitals and green energy infrastructure in Iraq would be viewed as madness if anyone dared propose it.  But the latter would cost a lot less money -- a consideration that is usually a top priority in U.S. politics whenever killing large numbers of people is not involved.  The world spend $2 trillion and the U.S. $1 trillion (half the total) on war and war preparations every year.  Three percent of U.S. military spending could end starvation on earth.  The wonders that could be done with a fraction of military money are almost unimaginable and include actual defense against the actual danger of climate change.

7. Bombs are environmental disasters.  If someone photographs a big oil fire, some will give a thought to the environmental damage.  But a bombing campaign is, rather than an environmental accident, an intentional environmental catastrophe.  The poisoned ground and water, and the disease epidemics, will reach the United States primarily through moral regret, depression, and suicide.

8. There go our civil liberties.  Discussions of torture, imprisonment, assassination, surveillance, and denial of fair trials are severely damaged by wartime postures.  After all, war is for "freedom," and who wouldn't be willing to surrender all of their freedoms for that?

9. War is illegal. It doesn't matter if the illegitimate government that you're trying to dump invited you to bomb its country. How can anyone take that seriously, while the U.S. installed that government and has armed it for years, as it has attacked its people? War is illegal under the Kellogg Briand Pact and the United Nations Charter, and pretending otherwise endangers the world.  Domestically, under U.S. law, the president cannot launch a war. While the Senate has been silent, the U.S. House voted two weeks ago to ban any new presidential war on Iraq.  Offering Congress a slap in the face, Obama waited for it to go on break, and then attacked Iraq.

Why Is It ?

This is a very good question. It's considered an act of terror to kill three people with a bomb (and it should be). Why shouldn't it also be an act of terror to kill 26 people (mostly tiny children) with a gun? Why is it considered OK, even manly, to own a military-style assault weapon? Why can't we ban civilian ownership of these weapons (since their only use is to kill a large amount of humans in a short time)? And don't try to answer that with the tired old Second Amendment argument. The Supreme Court has already ruled that banning assault weapons would NOT violate the Second Amendment.