* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ONE:
RE: Obama says Ukraine has USA's full backing.
Let's stop with the "full backing" talk. That would mean we're willing to use nukes - which we're not.
TWO:
"But if [Putin] does not [back off], I'm very confident that the international community will stand firmly behind the Ukrainian government." So what does this mean - another Coalition of the Willing is being prepared to liberate Crimea?
THREE:
RE: An ethnic Russian woman in eastern Ukraine hoping for Russian intervention:
"...much of her savings vanished when the former superpower [USSR] broke up." How much of her savings ended up in the pockets of the same Russian officials she's hoping will save her now?
FOUR:
Kerry's protestations won't matter in the long run. Israel knows that Obama is a lame duck, and such ducks are always keen about their legacies. Obama would love to go down in history as having been instrumental in establishing the two-state solution. But that won't happen. Rahm Emanuel, as Obama's first chief of staff, made sure Obama would toe the line during those first four years by not lifting a finger to prompt meaningful negotiations. That was Rahm's job, for which he was rewarded as Chicago first "duly" elected Jewish mayor. It's not like Obama had any choice - he was ordered to take on Rahm as Chief of Staff. What? You think Obama had any choice in the matter?
FIVE:
RE: The recent seizure by Israel of a ship in the Red Sea laden with weapons.
From the Guardian (March 5, 2014): “Israeli officials say the weapons were flown from Damascus to Tehran, then shipped from the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas to the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr.... From there, the missiles would have been transferred by land across Sudan, into the Sinai desert and onwards to Gaza, the officials said.”
None of this makes any sense. If the Iranians wanted to ship rockets to Gaza, why upload them in Damascus? Originating from Iran would have been more likely and discovery by outsiders less likely due to the shorter route. How does one transfer such a cargo “by land across Sudan, into the Sinai desert?” They're not contiguous. And surely Bibi isn't suggesting that these missiles would have gone through the entire length of Egypt (allied with Saudi Arabia, an enemy of Iran) in order to get to Sinai. Either “these officials” are lying or they are too sloppy to get their story straight.
And once in Sinai, how would these missiles get to Gaza since Egypt has bombed the smuggling tunnels?
Not to mention: Bibi says all of this is confirmed by US intel. If so, I'd rather hear that from them directly than from him.
I think Bibi fabricated all of this.
SIX:
Wait a minute. Why is La-Sissie making this announcement [about a multi-billion dollar housing project]? He is not the President or Prime Minister - he's the defense chief. Does he think this measure will help the overall Egyptian economy, or will it be more helpful to his cronies in the construction industry? I saw "The Square," in which La-Sissie's armored personnel carriers intentionally ran over protesters. This man has too much blood on his hands to succeed. And I don't care if he's a Muslim, or if he pretends to be...karma is a bitch no matter what one's professed religion happens to be.
SEVEN:
Marc,
La-Sissie was in charge then or at least he was an integral part of the junta. His military was manning those vehicles. Also keep in mind that La-Sissie was an intelligence officer himself. So your comment on intelligence officers “discovering” Brotherhood involvement, which would benefit their guy (La-Sissie), seems far more likely. These guys stick together. Besides, if Brotherhood members in the military were guilty of running people over, the brass would have brought them up on charges. There's ample video footage available to allow the brass to figure out who was driving which particular vehicles. Also, those protesters weren't just Christians.
The majority of Egyptians want La-Sissie to run simply because they're desperate and no one else who could challenge him will be allowed to gain any traction or, even likelier, to even appear on the ballot.
EIGHT:
None of La-Sissie's predecessors were able to eliminate the Muslim Brotherhood. And he will fail to do so as well. After he is elected, watch for Mubarak to go free. These military guys stick together and this is something the average Egyptian citizen knows all too well. La-Sissie will never get the stability he needs to convince foreigners to invest in Egypt. All it takes is a determined minority (say 3% of the population) to throw monkey wrenches in the works and foreigners that could help won't dare risk investing in Egypt. Tourists won't come. People will get desperate and start to blame La-Sissie, whose approach of terrorism against all who oppose him will blow up in his face.
Egypt's biggest problem is that it doesn't have a history of nurturing a diverse group of political parties and institutions. The only group that can fill leadership positions are in the military and they have their own agenda of lining their own pockets. No time to think about the people. They'll wish they had made the effort. By then, it will be too late.
NINE:
It won't matter which criminals La-Sissie allies himself with - Russians or Americans. [They tried the Russians once, remember?] As long as he insists on wielding a heavy hand by violating any sense of political neutrality (the most appropriate role for the military), he will fail. People, whether Muslim or not, have an ingrained sense of what constitutes fair play. And they won't think generals getting rich at their expense so constitutes. Sure, you're right, a lot of Egyptians (at least believe they) want La-Sissie to establish order. But remember: Without Justice, there can be no Law and Order.
I am confident that La-Sissie's overreach, much like Morsi's overreach, will prove to be his undoing.
TEN:
There was a commercial for the TV series "House of Cards" with Kevin Spacey saying, "Democracy is so overrated." His prior comment had to do with the Vice President assuming power without one vote cast in his favor. There was a better line: "The Constitution is so overrated."
ELEVEN:
" the United States has an 'unshakeable' commitment" to Israel's security." No, we don't. The only unshakeable commitments the US has are expressed in its treaties - you know, the kind that require the approval of the Senate. The USA and Israel have no such treaty - so any talk about unshakeable commitments is just that - talk. But I guess it's important to keep AIPAC happy.
TWELVE:
Snowden can continue being effective in Russia, whereas that effectiveness goes to zero if he ends up being incarcerated in the States. Snowden is free to address whatever issues he wants. Freedom of speech also encompasses the right to pick and choose one's topics. Adversaries might wish for Snowden to address the Ukrainian situation. But if he chooses silence on that topic, that is his right. It in no way means he's supporting Putin. Snowden is in Russia because of Putin. So if he starts railing against Russian intervention, Putin would expel him. Which is exactly what Snowden's enemies are hoping for.
As for the Ukrainians? What's happening there is in large measure their own fault. They elected a corrupt and inefficient government and borrowed like there was no tomorrow. Well, guess what? There's a price to pay for that – and sometimes that ends up being sooner rather than later. Also at fault? The EU, for having failed to step up to the plate and become the military power, sans NATO, that its economic might warrants. And the US is at fault for not having weaned EU from dependence on US military.
In spite of how much Obama gets his panties tied up in a knot, there's nothing the US can do to change the outcome in Crimea, except pray the Russians don't try to take all of Ukraine. Even then, there's nothing we could do. Think about that, as you pay over $1T for all of those ineffective F-35s you're about to buy. Fat lot of good they'll end up doing.
THIRTEEN:
I said, “Snowden is free to address whatever issues he wants.” He's also free to commit suicide – it is an option. But I think we can be pretty safe in assuming he won't. Just because one can address any issue one pleases, doesn't mean one will choose to. Besides, there's nothing Snowden can add to the Ukrainian debate, so why should he, as an ill-informed outsider unfamiliar with the issue, speak up? “Massive oppression,” you say? More likely, he's just got his priorities in order – doing and saying what he can in areas in which he'll be most effective.
I don't care what Russia and China are doing. They don't go through the pretense, like we do, of factoring in constitutional privacy concerns. JFK was eager to disband the CIA – a move I fully understand and would concur with today. For the mischief they've caused, some of them should be shot. Snowden should get a medal for having made the public (and Congress) aware of the abuses against our own citizenry being perpetrated by our own intel community. And causing that community to lie to Congress so badly, they had to apologize. Frankly? Our own intel boys kicked themselves to the curb.
The real traitors are those in the USA who swore to uphold the Constitution, but decided they knew better so carved out exceptions for themselves. The real thieves are those who keep ramping up “defense” spending to help us fight enemies that we ourselves have made.
FOURTEEN:
"make a sweep of things by winning back the White House..." Um, to do that, it would help to field a decent candidate. I know! Such a candidate would have to stress social, hot button issues like a strong stand against abortion and reintroducing the Flag Desecration Amendment to the Constitution. I'm not saying the Democrats deserve to win, I'm just saying the Pubbers deserve more to lose.
FIFTEEN:
All Obama has to do is rewrite US diplomatic recognition of Israel as follows: "The US hereby temporarily suspends US recognition of Israel, while temporarily granting it to the as-yet undefined State of Palestine. US position will be reevaluated contingent on the progress of ongoing Israeli/Palestinian negotiations." This Obama can do without Congressional approval. I think we might see a little more urgency from Knittin-Yahoo once such a declaration is made.
SIXTEEN:
One more time: The USA never had a civil war. This was a War of Secession. A civil war, by definition, is one in which two or more parties within a nation's borders are trying to seize power. The Confederates didn't want national power, they wanted out.
SEVENTEEN:
You wrote, “Civil war, a war between citizens of the same country.” Once the South declared independence, southerners were no longer “citizens of the same country.”
EIGHTEEN:
You're overlooking the fact that Article I doesn't grant the Congress the power to prevent secession. And the fact that the Constitution, unlike its predecessor Articles of Confederation, doesn't not speak of a “perpetual union.” Why was “perpetual union” not included in the language of the Constitution? The implication was that the states were recognized as being free to leave the union, as a function of their sovereignty and right to self-determination.
If the rest of the Union wished to engage in violence to keep a seceding state in bondage, then such action is nothing more than naked aggression in violation of the Constitution and of the Declaration of Independence.
It's true that no other nation recognized the CSA – at least not yet. But once an entire body politic (those in the Confederacy) in effect renounced their US citizenship, the USA could not maintain them in bondage. Which is ironic, since freedom was supposed to be one of the motives of the War of Secession. If I were to renounce my citizenship (which, BTW, I have) would the US have the right to say, “Oh no you don't?” Citizenship is a form of contract, which can be broken. People do it all the time, and yet Uncle Sam doesn't send special forces into other countries to specially render wannabe ex-citizens back to US soil.
In like manner, an entire body politic should not have been subjected to such a rendering.
NINETEEN:
“The only people in bondage were the Slaves.” That was Constitutionally-approved bondage, BTW. Actually, once the War of Secession was lost, southern whites were in bondage, not being allowed to rejoin the Union until they ratified the 13th, 14th, & 15th amendments and rewrote their state constitutions to be approved by Congress. That part about not being allowed to rejoin the Union is a hoot, since the Union never recognized the Confederate states as having seceded in the first place. Therefore? The Union wanted it both ways – to claim it was illegal to secede and claim that those who seceded had to reapply to the Union under terms dictated by a victorious North. Our Constitution doesn't address how states that seceded would be allowed to rejoin.
“You can also declare the land your house sits on an independent country; but that doesn't make it a country.” Which is precisely why the Declaration of Independence speaks of a people seeking to sever the political bands that joined them to another people. It didn't say anything about individuals doing so.
TWENTY:
If Kerry's right, then why would the Palestinians object to (once more) declaring Israel to be a Jewish state? Maybe it's because Bibi's people stopped acting like Jews a long time ago. So why should the Palestinians confirm something as true that no longer is? Maybe the Arabs should come out and say, “We recognize Israel as the current home, subject to future reconsiderations, of the Jewish tribes as well as that of their non-Jewish citizens.” Oh, wait, that won't work either. What about members of those tribes who are quite happy to be citizens of their current, non-Israeli countries? There are surely Jews among them who don't consider Israel “home.”
Maybe the Arabs are hung up on the definition of just what is a Jew? Lord knows, there's not exactly consensus within Israel on this subject. The Super Duper Orthodox, for one, won't recognize any Jew who doesn't insist on wearing black in the hot desert sun. It is written: The SDO have more commandments than the Lord in Heaven even dreamed to impose.
TWENTY-ONE:
"The issue of sovereignty over east Jerusalem, home to key religious sites..." The Muslims and the Jews have much in common - including their attachment to the land. Buddhists, on the other hand, seek to transcend the limitations of the physical world and don't attach themselves to such trifles. The only way peace will be achieved in the Middle East will be achieved will be to abandon all of Abraham's teachings and embrace Buddhism instead. Abraham was a very sick man, whose diseased legacy haunts us to this day.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment