Donald Trump Is NOT "Giving" Any Weapons To Ukraine

The media is full of news about Donald Trump, being frustrated with Putin, being ready to provide more weapons to Ukraine. That is not exactly true. While Trump may be frustrated with Putin (who has been playing him like a fiddle), he's not giving anything to Ukraine.

Instead, Trump will SELL weapons to some European nations. Those nations will then give the weapons to Ukraine.

Trump is a transactional narcissist. The concept of giving anything to anyone is foreign to him. He never does anything without there being something in it for him - not even to save a democracy from an invader.

Remember, this is a man who has been banned from organizing any charities, because the past charities he had benefitted himself more than anyone else. He has never had an altruistic bone in his body.

Even earlier in his term when weapons were provided to Ukraine, they weren't free. Ukraine had to sign over 50% of the mineral rights of that country. Everything received from Trump has a price tag. He will sell anything, but gives nothing.

Thank goodness the nations of Western Europe understand the importance of saving the Ukrainian democracy, and are willing to buy the necessary weapons and donate them. 

Trump held a news conference with the head of NATO to announce the weapons deal. He wants to get the credit for Ukraine getting new weapons. But He does NOT deserve any credit! He's just a shady salesman - not a savior!

U.S. Should NOT Restrict Ukraine's Use Of Provided Weapons

Russia continues to attack Ukraine with every kind of weapon it has, and has recently increased its attacks on Ukraine's civilians. But Ukraine is unable to do the same to Russia. That's because the U.S. (and NATO) has restricted the use of weapons they provide to Ukraine (especially long-range weapons the provided like missiles and F-16's).

In effect, we are forcing Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind their back. That's ridiculous, and it must change. War is a messy and horrible business. But if it must be fought, it should be fought on equal terms.

So far, Ukraine has attacked Russia, but only with their home-made drones. That's not good enough. They, like Russia, should be able to attack with any weapon they have (or can get).

I know that Russia has threatened to declare war on NATO if we allow Ukraine to use the weapons provided to attack Russia. That's just bluster. 

It's become obvious that Russia cannot defeat Ukraine, and is having a lot of trouble just hanging on to the eastern provinces it has taken. Declaring war on NATO would be a serious mistake - and Putin knows it. NATO has the weaponry and strength to quickly push Russia out of all of Ukraine - and easily defend all NATO nations.

The same is true for nuclear weapons. Putin knows he cannot use them without causing Russia to suffer massive destruction!

The U.S. and NATO should provide Ukraine with all the weapons they request, and then let them use those weapons without any restrictions.  Not allowing them to fight on an equal basis with Russia just makes no sense!

What Can Biden Do To Stop Netanyahu?

 The following is just part of a post by Robert Reich:

What’s Biden’s leverage to prevent Netanyahu from crossing Biden’s red line and attacking Rafah? More broadly, what’s Biden’s leverage to get Netanyahu to stop the killings of civilians in Gaza?

Just this. The United States is by far the largest supplier of military aid to Israel. In 2022, the aid amounted to $3.3 billion. Since the war with Hamas began, the Biden administration has pushed Congress to pass $14 billion in additional aid (the funding has been stalled, mainly for reasons unrelated to the war).

Between October and around Dec. 1, 2023, the United States also transferred about 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells to Israel. From Dec. 1 to now, those total transfers have increased by about 15 percent.

Israel has depleted much of its munitions and needs further American shipments. The U.S. government is now working to approve new arms orders and has accelerated orders that were in the pipeline before the war began.

Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, who met yesterday with Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, reportedly pressed for expedited approval of requests for F-15 fighter jets worth billions of dollars and for a large batch of GPS-guided munitions kits. 

Why should the U.S. provide more military aid to Israel, especially if Israel defies Biden and attacks Rafah?

 

Biden issued a memorandum in February laying out standards of compliance for all countries receiving U.S. weapons, including adhering to international humanitarian rules of law. Israel has not adhered to those rules. 

Arguably, Israel is also violating a section of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which bars the United States from providing arms or other aid to a country that “prohibits or otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance.”. . .

Don’t get me wrong. Israel is one of America’s closest allies. Many Americans believe Israel must do everything in its power to eliminate Hamas.

 

Even if you believe this, though, it doesn’t follow that the United States must continue to supply Israel with weapons for maintaining its strategy of death and destruction in Gaza — especially when Israel’s leadership refuses to listen to America and is actively defying our president. This is particularly true if Israel attacks Rafah, thereby crossing Biden’s “red line.”

In supplying more military aid, we are in effect relieving Israel of any strategic or moral responsibility to find an alternative to the horrific course it’s on.

 

Not only does this make us complicit in Israel’s failure to find an alternative. It makes us complicit in the bloodbath itself.

The Hamas/Israeli War Has Exposed GOP MAGA Hypocrisy

 From Ja'han Jones at MSNBC.com:

 I’m beginning to think MAGA GOPers aren’t the pacifists they’ve proclaimed themselves to be ever since Russia invaded Ukraine last year. 

Their response to the explosion of conflict in the Middle East over the weekend is adding to my theory.

In February, several Republicans signed on to a bill, introduced by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., that was aimed at ending U.S. military and financial aid to Ukraine. The “Ukraine Fatigue Resolution” was part of a broader push among Russophilic Republicans to slow or stop such defense aid in the face of Moscow’s deadly invasion.

“America is in a state of managed decline, and it will exacerbate if we continue to hemorrhage taxpayer dollars toward a foreign war,” Gaetz said in a statement at the time. “We must suspend all foreign aid for the War in Ukraine and demand that all combatants in this conflict reach a peace agreement immediately.”

To which I say, in my exaggerated hippie voice: “Yeah, totally, man. Peace, love, and save the whales.”

Of course, the GOP’s foreign aid charade has just been exposed — by Republicans’ reactions to the eruption of war in the Middle East. 

“The reason we have this multibillion-dollar commitment each and every year to Israel is because we want Israel to have a qualitative military edge over everyone” in the region, Gaetz said Sunday on “Meet the Press.” 

Keep in mind here that Gaetz and other Republicans have threatened to shut down the federal government over aid to Ukraine. In other words: MAGA GOPers are willing to grind the government to a halt to stop Ukraine aid, but say aid to Israel should continue no matter what.  

Among other prominent Republicans, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia pushed a conspiracy theory involving Ukraine in her call for the U.S. to provide aid to Israel. 

Appearing on Fox News on Sunday, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio — who has repeatedly tried to end aid to Ukraine — preached about the need for the U.S. to help Israel:

We need to give Israel the time, the space, the resources so that they can win and win decisively and send a message to these evil people who did this to our great friend and great ally, the state of Israel.

It’s hard not to see the issue as indicative of GOP love for Russia, as well as a matter of Republicans choosing whom they want to protect from military might. 

Aiding Ukraine means arming a fight against Russia, which MAGA GOPers evidently don’t want. But aiding Israel, in this case, means arming a fight against Hamas — or, more plainly — arming a fight against Palestinians, a largely Muslim group of people who havefaced derision from conservative leadership in the U.S.

Even with Israel being a U.S. ally, there is reason to be wary of how we help its government, which has been sliding toward autocracy under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership. But MAGA Republicans seem gung-ho on providing Israel’s government everything it needs to quash its enemies.

As for the Ukrainians — that’s another story entirely.

American Public Still Strongly Supports Arming Ukraine

The chart above reflects the results of the Reuters / Ipsos Poll -- done on June 26th and 27th of a nationwide majority of 1,004 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

The Oldest Weapon Of Mass Destruction Is Religion

(This painting, from Wikipedia, is of a battle scene from the First Crusade.)

The following post makes a lot of sense to me. It is by Ned Heiden (Dutch Heretic).

Most likely the first human who invented the first god was some smart tribal guy who saw that it was a very effective way to protect himself from bodily harm by the stronger ones if he made them and the less smart members of his tribe believe he had a very strong friend living across the mountains. A friend so strong that he could make the mountains rumble by stamping his feet on the ground. Others would not dare to attack him fearing the revenge of such a powerful friend and even though no one ever saw this friend it was better to be safe than sorry.

It probably did not take long for this smart guy to discover that his fellow tribesmen were easily led to believe that this thunder ally would make them nearly invincible in battle with rivaling tribes and could even conquer these tribes. The smart guy was well aware that in reality he was not safe at all so he turned to the strongest one around, usually the tribe leader and made him believe that he was favored by the mighty thunder-friend across the mountains.

As history progressed the tribal leaders became the Kings of the later times where the smart guys became the holy men, and priests.

Of course the strong friend story was revised when people could cross the mountain and were likely to find nothing there. As time passed the powerful friend moved to a place where no man could travel, places like in the sky, the deepest sea, or the top of unclimbable mountains.

Religion became the most powerful way of making people compliant and even the Roman Empire saw that its culture of countless god families would not work if they wanted to maintain power over Europe. In the 4th century Emperor Constantine the Great started a change when he decided to go for a new approach that seemed to work in the eastern territories so he threw out the old God families with their immensely complex mythical stories and started simplifying things by adopting the one single god of the Jewish culture combined with folklore about a prophet who claimed to have been the son of this Jewish god; this was a wise decision because in this way he would not cross the Jews, who he saw as a nuisance and wished he could get rid of.

He appointed a group of smart guys, that you will find in any era, and gave them the task of creating this system of a Father, a Son and a Mother who was chosen to bear this son of God, Jesus.

These smart guys of course were the Council of Nicaea that was well aware that creating a whole religion from scratch would cost decades unless they joined together old Chronicles with scriptures mostly taken from the Jewish Talmud and combined that with the new story of the prophet, Jesus son of god, in the one book that would be the guideline of the new roman religion Christianity for the future.

This compromise was created in much shorter time, and there were bound to be errors in the bible because there wasn’t enough time to cross reference the books that were included. Taking the fact that no one could read anyway and the sermons would be given in Latin these errors would not show for another millennium.

To make a big leap forward, Christianity in the form of Roman Catholicity spread across Europe and later the world in a bloody, merciless often genocidal way. Like in prehistoric times, Rulers and Priests joined forces to keep their people compliant; and a perfect example is, as the cardinal said to the king, “if you keep them poor, I will keep them ignorant”.

Even today historians are still arguing about the historicity of this statement but it gives a good image of the religious system of keeping people compliant and not turning against the ruling class. At the same time it shows how well indoctrinated compliant people could be manipulated into fighting their wars, all in the name of God and King.

To the Kings, Emperors yet to come were given the forces of church and religion, a weapon of almost unlimited numbers of subjects ready to fight their wars and to expand their illusion of power that in reality was in the hands of the smart guys behind religion.

Rulers would eventually die and could be replaced while religion kept expanding its power and influence.

All throughout history religion has been used as the most powerful weapon of genocide and destruction known to mankind.

This went perfect until the time of enlightenment when in spite of the efforts of religion to keep them ignorant, people started to think for themselves and discovered that they were being used and started rising up to the power of these Kings and other rulers, but still in the way religion had taught them, now it became “for God and Country”.

In the time of modernization, and especially the 20th century, all religions began to lose their grip on the people when more and more people left the church because they became educated and aware that they were being manipulated. The time without god was born, at least in western Europe where the average person currently identifies themselves as atheist, no longer believing in a god presented by the church.

Don’t think the religious weapon has lost it’s power. Islam has gained more power in the past 5 decades than in centuries before; they know how to use the two pillars of religion, poverty and ignorance to organize people into a formidable strike weapon against its “enemies”; and Christianity only has minimal loss in this.

Same thing happened in the USA.

Because the ruling class were not Kings or Emperors, religion has found other ways to ensure its power by giving aid to the rich who can control politics just with their money.

But religion is encountering a snag, for the first time it is feeling losses in the number of followers it can control, because more and more people are becoming educated and skeptical about this whole religious thing.

One of the pillars of religion, ignorance is rotting away. These past decades the rich and powerful have been very active to enrich themselves and keep the people poor. This is not enough, to keep its power religion also needs that other leg to stand on. To regain this, it is of absolute necessity to return the people back to compliant ignorance and bring a stop to this threat of education. Religion realizes all too well that to reverse it back to illiteracy is no longer possible, so the smart guys are now actively doing what they do best, manipulating circumstances in their favor, and therefore they need to control education to the advantage of their religion.

I think the only proof I need to present that this is all happening is to urge you to look at the rise of creationist dogma in education by getting religious people into key positions in the educational system.

For the religious weapon to survive it needs an increasing number of blind ignorant followers. The religious weapon keeps totalitarian regimes in power, and together they keep the majority of the people in the world poor and ignorant.

But now instead of kings and emperors this power is given to the rich who can use their fortune to buy their way into decision making politics while the “peasants” are going to church every Sunday and send their children to church dominated schools to make sure they receive their daily dose of brainwashing.

It is time for this weapon to be dismantled to stop this madness.

Don’t you agree?

Guns (& Other Weapons) Should Be Banned From Protests

(Photo of armed racists attending the Charlottesville protests is from KBZK.com.)

At the hate-based protests in Charlottesville last weekend, one person was killed and many more wounded. The weapon used by the racist/nazi was a car, but it could easily been another weapon. Members of the racist right showed up armed with guns. What if one of these nuts had become angry and used his assault weapon? Many more could have died or been seriously injured.

We know that these demonstrations and protests inflame the passions of participants -- especially when counter-demonstrators show up. And when passions are inflamed, stupid people can act in a stupid way. That brings me to my question -- Why do we allow protesters to carry weapons? Isn't this just an invitation to disaster?

Right-wing haters will say they need the weapons to defend themselves. That is bullshit. It is not the job of right-wing militias to protect demonstrators -- that is what we pay our police to do. The First Amendment guarantees the right of people to PEACEABLY protest -- not the right to carry weapons and instigate trouble and violence.

They will also tell you they are just exercising their Second Amendment rights. More bullshit. The Second Amendment guarantees to right to own and bear firearms -- but it does not guarantee the right to carry those weapons into every place. The Supreme Court has determined that cities and states can legally and constitutionally restrict the places where a person can carry a gun. And it only makes sense, for the safety of the public, that guns should be restricted from being carried to protests and demonstrations.

I wouldn't stop there. No weapons of any kind should be allowed in protests or demonstrations (including knives, swords, machetes, pipes, baseball bats, clubs, or anything else can can be used to kill or maim people).

No permit for a demonstration should be issued without including a provision banning all weapons. And anyone who shows up with a weapon should be arrested and have his weapon confiscated. And that weapon should not be returned (but destroyed by the police) since by showing up with a weapon he/she has demonstrated they are too stupid to own that weapon.

Allowing guns (and other weapons) at protests and demonstrations is just asking for trouble, and it will result in people losing their lives. Let's put an end to it before that happens.

The Seven Nations Supplying The Most Arms To The World

The Congressional Research Service has released its latest figures on the nations suppling conventional arms to the world (mostly to developing nations). The chart above shows the percentages of those arms each of the seven leading countries is supplying. As has been true for many years now, the nation supplying the biggest percentage of arms (and the most in dollar value) is the United  States.

There is a ton of information in this report, and I urge you to at least peruse the entire report. But the main thing is that the U.S. (while claiming to be freedom and peace-loving) is doing more than any other country to promote war -- and the Western nations (all democracies) together provide much more arms than Russia and China combined.

Does the United States and other Western democracies not believe what they preach -- that their democracies are an example for the rest of the world. Their behavior seems to say that they believe their interests can only be spread through violence and war -- a sad statement indeed.

Or is it just that war is big business, and the capitalist countries realize that most of all?

Green Party Says We Are Being Destroyed By Militarism

The following article was written by Green Party Shadow Cabinet member David Swanson, and I agree with every word of it. The obsession of our politicians with the military has gone far beyond just defending this country. It is endangering the health of everyone, both in this country and the world.

If there is a group of Americans to whom Iraqis struggling with the health effects of depleted uranium, cluster bombs, white phosphorous, and all the various poisons of war can relate, it might be the mostly black and largely poor residents of Gibsland, in northern Louisiana.

Here's how an op-ed in the New York Times from one resident describes their situation:

"For years, one of the largest employers in that area was the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, about four miles from Minden. The Environmental Protection Agency eventually listed the plant as a Superfund site because for more than 40 years 'untreated explosives-laden wastewater from industrial operations was collected in concrete sumps at each of the various load line areas,' and emptied into '16 one-acre pink water lagoons.'"

And now (from Truthout.org):

“After months of bureaucratic disputes between the Army and state and federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) recently announced an emergency plan to burn 15 million pounds of M6 — up to 80,000 pounds a day over the course of a year — on open ‘burn trays’ at Camp Minden, a disposal process that environmental advocates say is outdated and has been outlawed in other countries. The operation would be one of the largest open munitions burn in U.S. history.”

Every once in a while -- around Vieques or Jeju Island or Pagan Island -- environmental organizations find themselves confronting one little corner of the environment's greatest destroyer. While the big environmental groups seem unlikely to confront the institution of war itself until it's too late, we should take these opportunities to encourage them. Because they are taking on the military over this burn. There are plenty of former members of the U.S. military who can tell them about the health impacts of burns abroad, which veterans refer to as "the new Agent Orange." The EPA can fill activists in on who creates the most environmental disasters within the United States. 

A major motivation behind some wars is the desire to control resources that poison the earth, especially oil and gas. That fact, often disguised, should be faced by those of us concerned over the earth's future. The wars are not to protect us but to endanger us, by the generation of animosity and by the destruction of our planet. The production of the world's largest, most wasteful military ever is not a safety measure in case a good war comes along, but exactly what Eisenhower warned it would be, a generator of wars. The $1 trillion the United States dumps into the war machine each year is neededfor urgent environmental protection. And the war preparations spending does not enrich us; it impoverishes us while concentrating wealth away from places like Gibsland. That's a lot of downsides for an institution whose main function is to kill lots of innocent peoplewhile stripping away our civil liberties.

But, back to the environmental downside. And oil. Oil can be leaked or burned off, as in the Gulf War, but primarily it is put to use in all kinds of machines polluting the earth’s atmosphere, placing us all at risk. Some associate the consumption of oil with the supposed glory and heroism of war, so that renewable energies that do not risk global catastrophe are viewed as cowardly and unpatriotic ways to fuel our machines. The interplay of war with oil goes beyond that, however. The wars themselves, whether or not fought for oil, consume huge quantities of it. One of the world’s top consumer of oil, in fact, is the U.S. military.

The U.S. military burns through about 340,000 barrels of oil each day. If the Pentagon were a country, it would rank 38th out of 196 in oil consumption. There's just no other institution that comes remotely close to the military in this or other types of environmental destruction. (But try to discover that fact at an anti-pipeline march.)

The environment as we know it will not survive nuclear war. It also may not survive “conventional” war, understood to mean the sorts of wars now waged. Intense damage has already been done by wars and by the research, testing, and production done in preparation for wars. Wars in recent years have rendered large areas uninhabitable and generated tens of millions of refugees. War “rivals infectious disease as a global cause of morbidity and mortality,” according to Jennifer Leaning of Harvard Medical School.

Perhaps the most deadly weapons left behind by wars are land mines and cluster bombs. Tens of millions of them are estimated to be lying around on the earth, oblivious to any announcements that peace has been declared. Most of their victims are civilians, a large percentage of them children.

42% Of Public Thinks WMDs Were Found In Iraq

These charts were made from information contained in a Fairleigh Dickinson University Survey -- conducted between December 8th and 15th of a random national sample of 964 adults (with a 3 point margin of error).

I personally find the results of this survey rather shocking. It seems that 42% of the American public (more than four out of every ten people) believe that weapons of mass destruction were either definitely or probably found in Iraq (thus justifying Bush's decision to invade that country). How can any rational person believe that today -- more than 11 years after the war was started and over four years after U.S. troops were withdrawn?

Anyone who makes just a cursory examination of the facts should know that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. A few decaying remnants of a past program were discovered -- but no proof of an ongoing program or any usable weapons were found. This shows me that some people believe what they want to believe, and the facts be damned (especially if those people don't want to be embarrassed because they believed the Bush/Cheney lies and supported the invasion).

Republicans and the least educated were the most likely to believe those WMDs were found, but sadly, a portion of all groups still believe that (even Democrats and college grads, who should know better).

But just wanting to believe it isn't the whole story. The media have to accept some blame. Some of them did a poor job of reporting the story, and at least one (Fox News) had no compunction about lying to protect the Bush administration. The chart below shows the percentages of those believing WMDs were found, and where they get their news. Note that Fox News was the only news source that has a majority of viewers believing those weapons were found. The sources with the fewest believers were MSNBC and The Daily Show (a comedy show).

The Weapon Does Matter - Guns Make Killing Easier

One of the favorite sayings of the NRA crowd is that "guns don't kill people - people kill people". The idea is that if someone wants to commit a murder, then they can do so with a wide array of weapons. There is a grain of truth in that, but only a grain.

These people want to put all weapons on the same level, and that is simply not a valid argument. The fact is that some weapons are easier to use to kill someone than others, and if you want to kill more than one person at a time then the obvious weapon of choice is a firearm. It is easy to kill many people in a very short period of time with a gun -- far easier than using a weapon like a knife.

The choice of weapon does matter. That point is brought out in an excellent article for CNN by Professor Philip J. Cook and Assistant Professor Kristin A. Goss (both of the Duke University Sanford School of Public Policy).  Here is part of that article:

It rarely makes sense to draw big conclusions or make public policy on the basis of anecdotes. But the plural of "anecdote" is data, and sometimes one-off events are useful in crystallizing lessons to guide policymakers and inform the public.

So it was with the Pittsburgh-area rampage this week in which a teenager bearing two kitchen knives is accused of injuring 21 high school classmates and a security guard -- but none of them were killed. It's hard to imagine an anecdote that better illustrates what decades of data show: that for purposes of life and death, the weapon matters. . .

The idea that the weapon matters emerges in studies of robberies and assaults. When committed with a gun, these crimes are far more likely to result in the victim's death than are similar violent crimes committed without a gun. For example, the likelihood that a victim will die when robbed by a firearm-wielding attacker is three times as high as when the victim faces an attacker bearing a knife and 10 times as high as when the attacker has another type of weapon. For victims injured in an assault, the likelihood of death is also greater when a gun is involved, especially in cases of domestic violence. . .

Adding more evidence to the case that the weapon matters, Zimring and Gordon Hawkins later demonstratedthat overall crime rates aren't that much higher in American cities than in comparable cities in other developed countries. We just have higher rates of homicide, and that is because our criminals are more likely to be armed with guns and thus their attacks are more likely to end in the victim's death.

The most important and interesting implication of the instrumentality effect is that if public policy could reduce gun use in crime, the murder rate would go down -- even if the overall crime rate did not. As it turns out, about half of American states have enacted policies that add prison time to felons who use a gun when committing their crimes.

These so-called sentencing enhancements, most of which were adopted in the 1970s and 1980s, were intended to reduce the use of guns in violent acts. Scholarly evaluations based on data, not anecdotes, offer some evidence that these policy innovations have been effective.

This week's tragedy can't help but invoke memories of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School some 16 months ago. The difference today is that, because the Murrysville, Pennsylvania, perpetrator chose to use knives, victims' families can look forward to a future with their loved ones -- instead of planning their funerals.

Green Party Calls For A Treaty Banning Space Weapons

Most people in the United States probably don't know it, but back in 2008 both Russia and China called for a treaty banning weapons of any kind in space. That treaty didn't happen because another country killed it -- the United States. That's right. The only country to refuse to sign a treaty saying they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a future war, is also the only nation to refuse to sign a treaty banning space weapons. This is unconscionable for a nation that claims to be the defender of peace and freedom.

The Green Party of the United States disagrees with this position on space weapons. They are calling for all nations, including the United States, that have access to space to negotiate and sign a treaty banning any kind of space weapons. Here is what Alice Slater (Green Party Shadow Cabinet member) wrote just a few days ago:

The  U.S. Now Backs a "Code of Conduct" for Space, Instead of a Legally Binding Treaty to Ban Space Weapons. The  U.S. Now Backs a "Code of Conduct" for Space, Instead of a Legally Binding Treaty to Ban Space Weapons.

“The most important lesson one can acquire about  U.S. foreign policy is the understanding that our leaders do not mean well. They do not have any noble goals of democracy and freedom and all that jazz. They aim to dominate the world by any means necessary. And as long as an American believes that the intentions are noble and honorable, it’s very difficult to penetrate that wall. That wall surrounds the thinking and blocks any attempt to make them realize the harm being done by  U.S. foreign policy.”

- William Blum, former member of the U.S. State Department, author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II

More than 5,000 satellites have been launched into orbit since the space age began. Today, eleven countries have space launch capability, with over sixty countries operating about 1,100 active satellites orbiting the earth providing a constant stream of data and information relied upon for critical civilian communications as well as for military operations by some. As we grow ever more dependent on the ability of these satellites to perform their essential functions without interruption, there are growing concerns that this useful technology is giving rise to a new battleground in space for the purpose of sabotaging or destroying the vital services our space-based communications now provide.

The  U.S. and Russia have been testing anti-satellite technology (ASAT) since the space age began, and have even contemplated using nuclear tipped ballistic missiles to destroy space assets.    In 1967, the  U.S. and Russia realized it would be in their interest to support the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which banned the placement of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in space, although they failed to ban the use of conventional weapons in space. And in 1972 they agreed to sign the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) to slow down the space race and the ability to harm each other’s assets in space. Unfortunately, George Bush walked out of the ABM treaty in 2002, and the race to weaponize space was on once again in full force. China is getting into the act too, having launched, in 2007, a device which destroyed one of its aging weather satellites orbiting in space. The  U.S. followed suit in 2008, destroying a non-functioning satellite, while both nations denied any military mission for their acts, claiming they were merely trying to destroy outdated satellites that no longer functioned.

With the proliferation of military spacecraft such as imaging and communications satellites and ballistic missile and anti- missiles systems which often pass through outer space, there have been numerous efforts in the UN Committee on Disarmament (CD) to outlaw the weaponization of space through a legally binding treaty.    But the United States is having none of it. In the CD, which requires consensus to take action, the  U.S. has been the only nation to block every vote to begin negotiations on such a treaty, with Israel generally abstaining in support. Russia and China actually prepared a draft treaty to ban weapons in space in 2008, but the  U.S. blocked the proposal, voting against it each year thereafter when it was reintroduced for consideration, saying the proposal was “a diplomatic ploy by the two nations to gain a military advantage”.

While continuing to block a legally binding treaty to ban weapons in space, the  U.S. has recently begun to work with a group of nations in a new initiative that began in the European Union in 2008, proposing a “Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities“ which would lay out a non-binding set of rules of the road for a safer and more responsible environment in space. Some of its key objectives are to mitigate damage to satellites that could be caused by space debris orbiting the earth, to avoid the potential of destructive collisions, and to manage the crowding of satellites and the saturation of the radio-frequency spectrum, as well as to address direct threats of hostility to assets in space. At first, the  U.S. rejected any support for the Code, but has now agreed to participate in drafting a new version based on the third iteration from the European Union. Obama’s Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Rose Gottemoeller, acknowledged in 2012 the necessity for a Code to deal with orbital debris and “other irresponsible actions in space”, while at the same time, noting that,

"It is important to clarify several points with respect to the code. It is still under development, we would not subscribe to any code unless it protects and enhances our national security, and the code would not be legally binding."

In addition, the  U.S. is insisting on a provision in this third version of the Code of Conduct that, while making a voluntary promise to “refrain from any action which brings about, directly or indirectly, damage, or destruction, of space objects”, qualifies that directive with the language “unless such action is justified”. One justification given for destructive action is “the Charter of the United Nations including the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense”, thus lending legitimacy and codifying the possibility for warfare in space as part of the Code’s established norm. And while the Charter of the United Nations prohibits aggressive action by any nation without Security Council approval unless a nation acts in self-defense, we know there have been numerous occasions where nations have by-passed the Security Council to take aggressive action, often protesting they were acting in self-defense. Instead of banning ASAT development and warfare, this Code justifies such warfare as long as it’s done, individually and collectively, under the guise of “self-defense”. Thus despite lacking the force of law that would be established with a legally binding treaty, this new  U.S. version of the Code creates, as the norm it is proposing, a possibility for space warfare.

Our world deserves better!

U.S. Moves Closer To War In Syria

(The photograph above of Syrian rebel fighters in from June 13th edition of New York Times.)

The United States government is abandoning their position of supplying only non-combat help to the Syrian rebels. The Obama administration has now decided to supply weapons to the rebels, making it clearer than ever that the United States has chosen a side in that country's civil war.

The reason given by the government for this decision is that the Syrian government, on at least one occasion, has used chemical weapons in that war. But this seems to be just an excuse for taking action many in the government wanted to take, since the United Nations investigators (who have been investigating whether chemical weapons have been used or not) have not confirmed the use of chemical weapons.

This is a dangerous move. Many believe the supplying of small arms to the rebels will not be enough to make a decisive difference in the Syrian conflict, and are still pushing for the use of U.S. military power there (air power, and maybe even ground troops). Personally, I think any kind of military help (supplying arms or using U.S. military power) is a serious mistake, that can only have negative repercussions in the future.

We made this same mistake in Afghanistan. We assumed the Afghan rebels were our friends just because they were fighting the Soviets, so we supplied them with arms. But after winning, they morphed into the Taliban and provided a safe home and training grounds for al-Queda (who then attacked us on 9/11). Now we are still fighting that same Taliban in a seemingly endless war.

What makes us think the same thing won't happen in Syria. The Syrian leader is a brutal dictator, but are the rebels any better. We know they are muslim fundamentalists, and it is very likely that any government they created would be an authoritarian theocracy (much like the Taliban). And it is just as likely they would be anti-American.

The truth is that the United States really doesn't have a dog in this fight -- and it is just wishful thinking to believe that we do. It is the height of folly to even consider taking sides in the Syrian civil war -- in any way.

Why Is GOP Opposing U.N. Arms Treaty ?

The arms treaty recently passed by the United Nations was a hard-fought victory for human rights and world peace. It will keep arms from going to countries that abuse human rights. I can understand why Iran, Syria, and North Korea voted against it, because they are among the worst abusers of human rights. But why are Senate Republicans (and a few blue dog Democrats) opposing it? I know they claim they are just protecting the Second Amendment, but it is written into the treaty that it will not affect the internal laws of any country (i.e., the Second Amendment). President Obama made sure that provision was included. Could it be they are just protecting the rights of arms manufacturers and sellers to keep on selling their weapons of death to be used to violate human rights?

The World's Biggest Arms Dealer

This is an interesting chart, showing that in just the last few years the United States has begun to corner the market on arms sales to the countries of the Near East. Between the years of 2004 and 2007, the United States only supplied about 30% of those arms. But from 2008 through 2011, the United States share of arms sales and shipments jumped sharply to about 79%.

That's a very large increase in arms sales, but it isn't just in that part of the world that the United States is the leading arms dealer. In fact, in 2011 United States corporations made 75% of all the sales in the international arms market -- that's 75% ($66 billion out of a total $85 billion sold worldwide). Russia was the second largest arms dealer worldwide, registering just a measly $4 billion in sales.

It turns out that the United States weapon makers are not just arming Americans to the teeth, they are trying to do the same in the rest of the world. There's just too much profit in supplying the guns so people can kill other people (and don't even try to tell me we are just supplying "hunting" weapons to the world). Wherever there is conflict, U.S. corporations will be there to supply the killing weapons (many times to both sides of the conflict).

Could this have something to do with how vehemently the gun makers and the NRA (which is nothing but a shill for the gun makers) have opposed any kind of sensible restrictions on guns in this country? Could it be that they know it would look bad to be arming the rest of the world while disarming American citizens? Wouldn't that seem to be particularly ghoulish?

It's food for thought. Maybe it's time the United States stopped acting like the world's premier trouble-making death-dealer, and started truly working toward world peace.  

Libya - To Intervene Or Not

Dissent is spreading across the Middle East. After years of living under tyrannical rulers the people are beginning to demand their own rights to democracy, economic justice and human rights. The tyrants in Tunisia and Egypt has already been tossed out by their people and the movements is spreading to other countries. Currently, the battle for freedom is reaching a critical point in at least one country -- Libya.

The dictator in power in Libya, Moammar Kadafi, doesn't seem to be able to read the writing on the wall. He is desperately trying to hold on to power -- even to the point of hiring mercenaries to murder his own people. The country is now divided and may well be slipping into civil war.

That has many in this country, both on the left and the right, who would like to intervene in that country on the side of those opposing Kadafi. One of the most popular ideas for this intervention is to create a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent the dictator from using his airplanes and helicopters to attack those trying to drive him from power.

That sounds like a simpler solution than it actually is. It would require the attacking of Libyan radar and air defense systems to protect the pilots that would be patrolling the no-fly zone. In other words, we would have to attack Libyan territory -- at least on a limited (we hope) basis. I can't believe it would be in the best interest of this country for pictures to be flashed around the world showing America attacking another Arab country -- especially in light of the disastrous invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (which seem to be endless).

America has a history of intervention into the affairs of other countries, and it has usually resulted in undesirable outcomes. For example, we helped to overthrow the democratically-elected president of Iran years ago and installed the Shah in his place -- a dictator with American sympathies. The end result of that was the current anti-American theistic regime in Iran. It would have been better if we had just stayed out of Iranian affairs to begin with.

And that is far from the only example. Interventionism is a policy that is fraught with unseen dangers. What may seem to be a sensible action could easily turn into something horrible, like when we supported the Taliban (then called the mujahadeen) in their struggle against Russia. That one certainly didn't turn out as expected.

My point is that intervention is a mistake. We would not allow another country to intervene in our own internal affairs, and we should extend that same courtesy to all other countries. The Libyan people have the right to decide their own fate without any help or interference from any outside force (including the United States). If they truly want Kadafi out of power, then he will be tossed out (regardless of what brutal actions he may take).

In fact we already intervene in most of these countries in that part of the world too much. Much of the police and military propping up these dictators are trained and supplied by the United States -- with both lethal (guns) and non-lethal (tear gas) weapons. We have profited by selling the tools that have kept the tyrants in power. Some Americans think this is just good business, but it is a dirty business that has helped to keep millions enslaved for many years. It needs to stop.

I have no problem with selling American products to other countries, but those should not be the products to make war or oppress people. It we are to export anything, it should be the belief that all people have the right to dignity, freedom and economic justice.