You may be interested in this because it involves big money, and it's kind of interesting.
Mark Levinson and David Kaplan have produced a movie concerning the European Union's Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The LHC, which is located near Geneva, Switzerland, is said to be the biggest machine ever built by human beings.
The movie, which is entitled "Particle Fever" opens this month in selected theaters across the US and Canada. It is reviewed by Mitch Jacoby in the March 17 issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
The Hadron Collider cost $6.4 billion to build plus another $2 billion in extras. Operating cost is $26 million per year. For the initial cost, US taxpayers put up $531 million through the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. The UK puts up a little more than the annual operating costs, but most of the initial cost went to the member countries of the EU.
The basic purpose for building the collider was to obtain information which hopefully could be used to develop fusion energy. The operation primarily involves sending various particles around a 17 mile track, where they collide with other particles moving in the opposite direction. The particles are mostly nuclei of atoms and the known sub-particles, such as protons, neutrons, positrons, etc.. The search has been for a theoretical Higgs boson, which presumably would result from the collision of the other larger particles. The team operating the collider announced in July 2012 that they had confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson. It's now your best guess as to how confirmation of the Higgs boson leads to the development of fusion energy.
Perhaps a little discussion of atomic energy would be appropriate to determine the validity of a program of this magnitude.
Most of man's produced energy comes from chemical reactions, which involve only the electron portions of an atom. The central nuclear portion of the item remains unaffected. However, it was discovered that if a large enough quantity of certain atomic nuclei, such as uranium 235 were bombarded with electrons, the nuclei could be made to break into portions with elimination of a huge amount of heat. This is the basis of the atomic bomb and subsequent development of electricity production by use of atomic energy.
The thought was then generated as to whether a fusion of two nuclei to form a third type of nucleus would also liberate a tremendous amount of energy. This thought had some basis by considering the mechanism by which our sun and various other suns operate to continue delivering heat to their various planets. It has been postulated that the sun is composed primarily of hydrogen, which has a single proton as the nucleus. Because of the sun's tremendous size, a huge gravitational pressure develops at the core. The pressure forces the protons of two hydrogen atoms into a nucleus of helium, which consists of two protons. In the process, significant heat is liberated.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could harness that reaction and obtain huge quantities of heat for conversion to electricity? That really was the basis of the Hadron collider. The bad news is that the world is no closer to atomic fusion than it was before the expenditure of about $9 billion. The good news is that even though the US has dumped $531 million into a project from which there have been no results, at least it was smart enough to not go into this project on its own. However, it was close. An even larger collider than the Hadron was proposed near Waxahachie, Texas. Fortunately, Congress in its wisdom, decided not to fund it.
Does this mean it's not possible to develop a controllable atomic fusion process? Not necessarily, but highly improbable to the extent that the spending of billions of dollars on colliders appears unjustified. It is apparent that atomic fusion is a way of life from our sun in our solar system and presumably other suns in other solar systems. However, we also know that all those suns, which are presumably operating on the basis of atomic fusion are huge in size with tremendous gravitational forces. No one has ever seen a small sun operating on atomic fusion.
The development of an controllable atomic fusion process is conceptually feasible. However, it is more in the category of the search for the Holy Grail, which is likely more imaginary than factual.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Russia and the Ukraine
It's really quite simple from the Western European country perspective!
Russia supplies them with their needs for gas and oil. So, it would be inappropriate to make any antagonistic remarks against Russia with respect to its Ukrainian activities.
Western European countries also need have no fear of it being invaded by Russia, because of NATO, with which the US promised to protect them from Russian invasion after World War II and continuing to the present. The Ukraine is not a part of NATO, and it and Russia can do anything it pleases.
The net result is that Western European countries can sit quietly pursuing their socialistic activities, until they become bankrupt, as happens with all socialistic countries.
Russia supplies them with their needs for gas and oil. So, it would be inappropriate to make any antagonistic remarks against Russia with respect to its Ukrainian activities.
Western European countries also need have no fear of it being invaded by Russia, because of NATO, with which the US promised to protect them from Russian invasion after World War II and continuing to the present. The Ukraine is not a part of NATO, and it and Russia can do anything it pleases.
The net result is that Western European countries can sit quietly pursuing their socialistic activities, until they become bankrupt, as happens with all socialistic countries.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Fifth Amendment
The purpose of the Fifth Amendment was to protect private citizens from an abusive government. It's short. Read it yourself. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It says:
1. The government can't hold a private individual on a charge of murder or similar, without that person having first been judged potentially guilty by a grand jury.
2. The government can't accuse a private individual twice for the same offense.
3. The government can't compel an accused individual to be a witness against himself (basis of "taking the fifth").
4. The government cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
5. The government cannot confiscate private property without just compensation.
Now look over the five points with respect to the Issa congressional hearings during which Lois Lerner twice" declared the fifth".
Notice that in the Issa congressional hearings, Lois Lerner was not present as a private citizen, nor was she being accused of a capital crime. She was there as an employee of the IRS, which was originally set up by Congress. The Issa hearing was merely an attempt to learn from Lois Lerner how she was conducting her job. Since this is a question of oversight, which is the responsibility of Congress, it is an obviously logical question. It has nothing to do with her being accused of a capital crime nor asking her to be a witness against herself in any ostensible illegal operation. Her use of the Fifth Amendment in declining to answer the congressional committees questions is completely inappropriate.
The thing that really bothers me is that apparently Chairman Issa doesn't see this.
When employees of the federal government refuse to answer questions of congressional committees, the obvious procedure is to hold them in contempt of Congress. In 1821, the Supreme Court held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."
By use of subpoenas, Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Lois Lerner was issued a subpoena.
Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate. The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.
Is there some good reason why Chairman Issa is not following this procedure?
It says:
1. The government can't hold a private individual on a charge of murder or similar, without that person having first been judged potentially guilty by a grand jury.
2. The government can't accuse a private individual twice for the same offense.
3. The government can't compel an accused individual to be a witness against himself (basis of "taking the fifth").
4. The government cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
5. The government cannot confiscate private property without just compensation.
Now look over the five points with respect to the Issa congressional hearings during which Lois Lerner twice" declared the fifth".
Notice that in the Issa congressional hearings, Lois Lerner was not present as a private citizen, nor was she being accused of a capital crime. She was there as an employee of the IRS, which was originally set up by Congress. The Issa hearing was merely an attempt to learn from Lois Lerner how she was conducting her job. Since this is a question of oversight, which is the responsibility of Congress, it is an obviously logical question. It has nothing to do with her being accused of a capital crime nor asking her to be a witness against herself in any ostensible illegal operation. Her use of the Fifth Amendment in declining to answer the congressional committees questions is completely inappropriate.
The thing that really bothers me is that apparently Chairman Issa doesn't see this.
When employees of the federal government refuse to answer questions of congressional committees, the obvious procedure is to hold them in contempt of Congress. In 1821, the Supreme Court held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."
By use of subpoenas, Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Lois Lerner was issued a subpoena.
Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate. The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.
Is there some good reason why Chairman Issa is not following this procedure?
Saturday, March 22, 2014
NATO Country Complaints against the US
Open Email to:
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
The Washington Times says, "NATO allies criticize U.S. for being caught off guard by Russia’s military buildup."
Before we take up the question of whether that criticism is justified, we probably should take a look at history.
The idea of a Soviet bloc, which means a combination of countries involving Russia leading various other members of the group, originated in the Russian Revolution of 1917. In the 1920s, Joseph Stalin took power, with strong reinforcement of that idea.
With the surrender of Germany in May 1945, Europe was completely devastated. The only existing military force in Europe was the Soviet Union, and it rapidly added Eastern Europe and North Asian countries to its Union.
To limit the Russian aggression, the US established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), soliciting members from as far north as the Baltic through Spain on the south, and as far east as the Russians had not already grabbed. There were a few ancillary countries, such as Turkey, which is primarily Asian, and Canada. The present NATO list consists of 28 countries. The US selling point was that each NATO country would have the responsibility to militarily come to the aid of any other NATO country which was being militarily threatened. This was actually a sham, because none of the NATO countries with the possible exception of Turkey, had any military capability. The essence was that the US, as part of NATO, would have the full responsibility of protecting all NATO countries against occupation by the Soviet bloc. This was the essence of the Cold War.
It is now 49 years since the German surrender and the complete devastation of Europe. During that time, all of the European countries have essentially recovered from the war devastation with the help of the US Marshall plan. During that time each of these countries would have normally had an opportunity to develop its own military might to protect itself against any Soviet invasion, but was not allowed to do so by previous limitations imposed by the US. In effect, the US had two worries; it did not want to allow a resurgence of military might within one country, such as Germany, which would presumably require US participation in another third world war, and it did not want to allow aggression by the Soviet Union. Accordingly, it did nothing by sticking with the NATO program.
The US program was completely effective during the Cold War years of 1947 to 1991, at which time the Soviet Union collapsed. The collapse was brought about by Ronald Reagan through enforced military expenditures, which the Russians could not afford.
It has now been 23 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the basic idea of a country group, with Russia as the leader, has not dissipated. It is now being revised by Putin. In the 23 years wherein Russia was inactive, the only motivating force for the continuation of NATO and use of continued US armies of occupation was the fear of a revitalized military Germany. However with many years of sociological change, that fear seems to be unjustified, and it would have been logical to have the US start withdrawing its armies of occupation at least 10 to 20 years ago and simultaneously begin shutting down NATO, to eliminate the US as the predominant military force. In other words, the US should have previously foreseen it has no responsibility to protect European countries in perpetuity one from the other, nor even protect those countries from Soviet aggression. The NATO countries have the economic wherewithal and the capability for cooperation, so that they could have established their own union to protect against the Soviets and against each other.
So, we can now answer the question of whether the NATO allies are justified in complaining that the US was caught off guard by the Russian military buildup. The first answer is "yes", because the whole objective of NATO was that the US would be responsible for militarily protecting any NATO countries, and a Russian military buildup military is a potential threat to NATO countries, the most obvious of which is Poland. On the other hand, the answer is "no", because while the US has given assurance of protection, it should also be self-evident that each of the NATO countries has an obligation to protect itself from member countries and from outsiders, such as the Soviet Union.
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
The Washington Times says, "NATO allies criticize U.S. for being caught off guard by Russia’s military buildup."
Before we take up the question of whether that criticism is justified, we probably should take a look at history.
The idea of a Soviet bloc, which means a combination of countries involving Russia leading various other members of the group, originated in the Russian Revolution of 1917. In the 1920s, Joseph Stalin took power, with strong reinforcement of that idea.
With the surrender of Germany in May 1945, Europe was completely devastated. The only existing military force in Europe was the Soviet Union, and it rapidly added Eastern Europe and North Asian countries to its Union.
To limit the Russian aggression, the US established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), soliciting members from as far north as the Baltic through Spain on the south, and as far east as the Russians had not already grabbed. There were a few ancillary countries, such as Turkey, which is primarily Asian, and Canada. The present NATO list consists of 28 countries. The US selling point was that each NATO country would have the responsibility to militarily come to the aid of any other NATO country which was being militarily threatened. This was actually a sham, because none of the NATO countries with the possible exception of Turkey, had any military capability. The essence was that the US, as part of NATO, would have the full responsibility of protecting all NATO countries against occupation by the Soviet bloc. This was the essence of the Cold War.
It is now 49 years since the German surrender and the complete devastation of Europe. During that time, all of the European countries have essentially recovered from the war devastation with the help of the US Marshall plan. During that time each of these countries would have normally had an opportunity to develop its own military might to protect itself against any Soviet invasion, but was not allowed to do so by previous limitations imposed by the US. In effect, the US had two worries; it did not want to allow a resurgence of military might within one country, such as Germany, which would presumably require US participation in another third world war, and it did not want to allow aggression by the Soviet Union. Accordingly, it did nothing by sticking with the NATO program.
The US program was completely effective during the Cold War years of 1947 to 1991, at which time the Soviet Union collapsed. The collapse was brought about by Ronald Reagan through enforced military expenditures, which the Russians could not afford.
It has now been 23 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the basic idea of a country group, with Russia as the leader, has not dissipated. It is now being revised by Putin. In the 23 years wherein Russia was inactive, the only motivating force for the continuation of NATO and use of continued US armies of occupation was the fear of a revitalized military Germany. However with many years of sociological change, that fear seems to be unjustified, and it would have been logical to have the US start withdrawing its armies of occupation at least 10 to 20 years ago and simultaneously begin shutting down NATO, to eliminate the US as the predominant military force. In other words, the US should have previously foreseen it has no responsibility to protect European countries in perpetuity one from the other, nor even protect those countries from Soviet aggression. The NATO countries have the economic wherewithal and the capability for cooperation, so that they could have established their own union to protect against the Soviets and against each other.
So, we can now answer the question of whether the NATO allies are justified in complaining that the US was caught off guard by the Russian military buildup. The first answer is "yes", because the whole objective of NATO was that the US would be responsible for militarily protecting any NATO countries, and a Russian military buildup military is a potential threat to NATO countries, the most obvious of which is Poland. On the other hand, the answer is "no", because while the US has given assurance of protection, it should also be self-evident that each of the NATO countries has an obligation to protect itself from member countries and from outsiders, such as the Soviet Union.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
US Foreign Bases
Open Email to:
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
I originally wrote a piece concerning Huckabee's view on releasing prisoners in Afghanistan and associated comments by various retired military personnel.
One of our Political Advisers replied to my writing as follows:
"I have a different take on Afghanistan and for that matter Iraq. I would like the US to have bases in both of these countries, put in the most strategic and defendable locations possible. I don't think we should be shy, I think we should take what we need. These bases would operate much like Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. We would not be there to build schools, roads, infrastructure etc.. The bases should be self sufficient and have whatever is necessary to defend and attack when necessary. The 'Mission" of these bases would be to gather intelligence from the area, disrupt Muslim groups, and project US power.
I don't care what kind of Government they have, but if we get any bad behavior from them our response should be rapid and overwhelming. These bases would have the potential offer many live training classes for our troops."
To which I replied as follows:
"I can go for that, because it fits in with my program that we need surveillance, via satellites, spies, etc..
However I have to be opposed to your suggestion because it can't work that way. By the time Congress, the military and the White House muck it up, it would be a nationbuilding operation, to which I'm strongly opposed.
I think we have to leave surveillance to all mechanisms other than US ground military forces.
If you have some suggestions on how to make it really work as you would like, I would like to hear them. However, in the real world of US politics I really don't see how it could work that way."
His last comment was then as follows:
"An example is currently and has been working for nearly all my life, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. I am very comfortable with our presence there and am glad that the Castros know we are there. I would beef up the bases, declare a 10-15 mile no man zone (ala N-S Korean border) around those bases and anyone penetrating that border is shot first and asked questions later. So a base could cover 160-250 square miles. As far as I am concerned any mineral or surface wealth created on the base belongs to the US. In the case of Iraq, I would acquire the oil fields necessary to fund that base.
Any threatening behavior should be met with overwhelming force quickly. I would neither apologize for or discourage the judicial use of force required to keep those bases safe. These bases will have to be covered with an iron dome missile defense system and any site from which a discharge of firearm or missile occurs will be targeted to complete destruction.
We aren't going to ever be 'friends' with the Muslims, but we can get their respect. Strength is the only thing that will get their respect and with that I would be happy, happy, happy. The citizens of said country can go about their merry way, I really don't care what they do as long as it doesn't threaten the security and interest of America.
Do I think we have the guts or IQ to pulled this off in Washington? No way. So we go around spending for stupid and securing everyone but our citizens, and punks like Putin take of chunks of territory at will. Our foreign policy hasn't been right for a long-long time, and because of it we are going to pay big time. The biggest enemies of freedom and liberty aren't abroad, they are in our midst, they walk the sacred halls of the capitol and the white house. May God help us."
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
I originally wrote a piece concerning Huckabee's view on releasing prisoners in Afghanistan and associated comments by various retired military personnel.
One of our Political Advisers replied to my writing as follows:
"I have a different take on Afghanistan and for that matter Iraq. I would like the US to have bases in both of these countries, put in the most strategic and defendable locations possible. I don't think we should be shy, I think we should take what we need. These bases would operate much like Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. We would not be there to build schools, roads, infrastructure etc.. The bases should be self sufficient and have whatever is necessary to defend and attack when necessary. The 'Mission" of these bases would be to gather intelligence from the area, disrupt Muslim groups, and project US power.
I don't care what kind of Government they have, but if we get any bad behavior from them our response should be rapid and overwhelming. These bases would have the potential offer many live training classes for our troops."
To which I replied as follows:
"I can go for that, because it fits in with my program that we need surveillance, via satellites, spies, etc..
However I have to be opposed to your suggestion because it can't work that way. By the time Congress, the military and the White House muck it up, it would be a nationbuilding operation, to which I'm strongly opposed.
I think we have to leave surveillance to all mechanisms other than US ground military forces.
If you have some suggestions on how to make it really work as you would like, I would like to hear them. However, in the real world of US politics I really don't see how it could work that way."
His last comment was then as follows:
"An example is currently and has been working for nearly all my life, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. I am very comfortable with our presence there and am glad that the Castros know we are there. I would beef up the bases, declare a 10-15 mile no man zone (ala N-S Korean border) around those bases and anyone penetrating that border is shot first and asked questions later. So a base could cover 160-250 square miles. As far as I am concerned any mineral or surface wealth created on the base belongs to the US. In the case of Iraq, I would acquire the oil fields necessary to fund that base.
Any threatening behavior should be met with overwhelming force quickly. I would neither apologize for or discourage the judicial use of force required to keep those bases safe. These bases will have to be covered with an iron dome missile defense system and any site from which a discharge of firearm or missile occurs will be targeted to complete destruction.
We aren't going to ever be 'friends' with the Muslims, but we can get their respect. Strength is the only thing that will get their respect and with that I would be happy, happy, happy. The citizens of said country can go about their merry way, I really don't care what they do as long as it doesn't threaten the security and interest of America.
Do I think we have the guts or IQ to pulled this off in Washington? No way. So we go around spending for stupid and securing everyone but our citizens, and punks like Putin take of chunks of territory at will. Our foreign policy hasn't been right for a long-long time, and because of it we are going to pay big time. The biggest enemies of freedom and liberty aren't abroad, they are in our midst, they walk the sacred halls of the capitol and the white house. May God help us."
Monday, March 17, 2014
Huckabee on Afghanistan
Jean likes Huckabee. I think he's pretty good. But, he occasionally goes off on an illogical tangent.
This past weekend he wanted to talk about Afghanistan.
He had a couple of ex-generals and ex-colonels. May I remind you that generals and colonels study war. They don't study peace. They also promote war, in the same way that football coaches promote football.
The main issue of the discussion was Pres. Karzai's release of about half a dozen prisoners, which had been captured by US forces. It is said that each of the prisoners had explosive residues on their hands, which indicated that they were involved in the production and probably use of improvised explosive devices (IED's), which have killed and maimed many of our US soldiers. Huckabee and the generals thought it was an abomination to release these people from captivity, since the likelihood is that they would continue their work with IED's.
For some unknown reason, no one brought up the fact that as there will no longer be any US forces in Afghanistan, the terrorists will not be able to use their IED's to kill any of them.
In the last part of the Huckabee Afghanistan segment, a major was asked what the effect would be on the removal of all US forces from Afghanistan. He explained in great detail that it would be devastating to the development of a democratic society for the Afghan people. So that's why we were in Afghanistan! We were nationbuilding!
This past weekend he wanted to talk about Afghanistan.
He had a couple of ex-generals and ex-colonels. May I remind you that generals and colonels study war. They don't study peace. They also promote war, in the same way that football coaches promote football.
The main issue of the discussion was Pres. Karzai's release of about half a dozen prisoners, which had been captured by US forces. It is said that each of the prisoners had explosive residues on their hands, which indicated that they were involved in the production and probably use of improvised explosive devices (IED's), which have killed and maimed many of our US soldiers. Huckabee and the generals thought it was an abomination to release these people from captivity, since the likelihood is that they would continue their work with IED's.
For some unknown reason, no one brought up the fact that as there will no longer be any US forces in Afghanistan, the terrorists will not be able to use their IED's to kill any of them.
In the last part of the Huckabee Afghanistan segment, a major was asked what the effect would be on the removal of all US forces from Afghanistan. He explained in great detail that it would be devastating to the development of a democratic society for the Afghan people. So that's why we were in Afghanistan! We were nationbuilding!
Friday, March 14, 2014
Warmongering on the Crimea
Warmonger John McCain is blasting Congress for doing nothing about Russia wanting to annex the Crimea. He also has the support of warmonger Secretary of State Kerry.
The Crimea is presently a part of Ukraine. It is mostly populated by Russians. They have a tendency to side with a Russian alliance, rather than a Western European alliance. The situation presumably will be resolved in a forthcoming plebiscite, where the populace will vote on whether they become part of Russia or maintain their position as part of Ukraine.
McCain and Kerry don't like that. Presumably for reasons of American power, they think the Crimea should remain part of Ukraine, which also should maintain alliance with Western Europe. Sounds kinds of crazy to me. Who is the US to tell the Crimean's who they should have an alliance with? Apparently, the European Union, which is Western Europe, has not taken any particular side on this. Western Europeans are generally socialists and might tend to favor an alliance with Russia, which is also socialist. Are we going to start fighting the whole world to convert them to some form of government equivalent to the US corrupt socialistic system that we have, or should logic and respect for individual freedoms prevail?
It is also said that the reason the Western Europeans are taking a neutral stand is because they obtain a good percentage of their energy in the form of gas and oil from Russia. Well, to me that's a good reason. Why bite the hand that feeds you. The US is had many opportunities to help Western Europe with their needs for oil and have messed it up by concentrating on green energy and penalizing US oil and gas production wherever possible.
The Crimea is presently a part of Ukraine. It is mostly populated by Russians. They have a tendency to side with a Russian alliance, rather than a Western European alliance. The situation presumably will be resolved in a forthcoming plebiscite, where the populace will vote on whether they become part of Russia or maintain their position as part of Ukraine.
McCain and Kerry don't like that. Presumably for reasons of American power, they think the Crimea should remain part of Ukraine, which also should maintain alliance with Western Europe. Sounds kinds of crazy to me. Who is the US to tell the Crimean's who they should have an alliance with? Apparently, the European Union, which is Western Europe, has not taken any particular side on this. Western Europeans are generally socialists and might tend to favor an alliance with Russia, which is also socialist. Are we going to start fighting the whole world to convert them to some form of government equivalent to the US corrupt socialistic system that we have, or should logic and respect for individual freedoms prevail?
It is also said that the reason the Western Europeans are taking a neutral stand is because they obtain a good percentage of their energy in the form of gas and oil from Russia. Well, to me that's a good reason. Why bite the hand that feeds you. The US is had many opportunities to help Western Europe with their needs for oil and have messed it up by concentrating on green energy and penalizing US oil and gas production wherever possible.
Monday, March 10, 2014
Defense of Western Europe
I previously advocated the dissolution of NATO and re-militarization of Germany, so that Western European Nations would know that they have the obligation to protect themselves and that it is not the responsibility of the US.
A political associate replied as follows:
"What would be the cost-effectiveness of your proposed plan, vs status quo.
What would be the cost, to us, of the next WWII (when Iran or Russia or China invades Europe and England), vs maintaining the status quo?"
My response is:
By eliminating our involvement in NATO and our standing army in Germany, we leave the defense of those needing defense to their own efforts, which is another manifestation of self-reliance. In the process, we save money by reducing our military expenses for those present operations.
We should not be involved in the next world war, unless it affects us directly, such as an invasion to our homeland. If Western Europe, including England, do not wish to protect themselves against Russian or Chinese occupation, who are we to say that they should?
Look back at the European portion of World War II. Germany was never a direct threat to US life and liberty. It costs us several million men to protect future life and liberty of Western Europeans, who now move in a socialistic system. Presume for a minute that we had not been involved in the European aspect, and that Germany was able to take over all of Europe including Russia. Would it have been bad that we would then have to do business with a Germanic Union. In order to avoid being motivated by emotional positions unrelated to facts, remember that the sinking of convoys by German submarines was only an effort on their part to reduce European capability of resistance. The Germans were making no direct attempt at jeopardizing America.
Avoiding loss of another several million American soldiers in a third world war operation would be a cost-benefit and from a trade point of view, we might find it much easier to negotiate with a single Russian or Chinese Union.
A political associate replied as follows:
"What would be the cost-effectiveness of your proposed plan, vs status quo.
What would be the cost, to us, of the next WWII (when Iran or Russia or China invades Europe and England), vs maintaining the status quo?"
My response is:
By eliminating our involvement in NATO and our standing army in Germany, we leave the defense of those needing defense to their own efforts, which is another manifestation of self-reliance. In the process, we save money by reducing our military expenses for those present operations.
We should not be involved in the next world war, unless it affects us directly, such as an invasion to our homeland. If Western Europe, including England, do not wish to protect themselves against Russian or Chinese occupation, who are we to say that they should?
Look back at the European portion of World War II. Germany was never a direct threat to US life and liberty. It costs us several million men to protect future life and liberty of Western Europeans, who now move in a socialistic system. Presume for a minute that we had not been involved in the European aspect, and that Germany was able to take over all of Europe including Russia. Would it have been bad that we would then have to do business with a Germanic Union. In order to avoid being motivated by emotional positions unrelated to facts, remember that the sinking of convoys by German submarines was only an effort on their part to reduce European capability of resistance. The Germans were making no direct attempt at jeopardizing America.
Avoiding loss of another several million American soldiers in a third world war operation would be a cost-benefit and from a trade point of view, we might find it much easier to negotiate with a single Russian or Chinese Union.
Rand Paul Versus Ted Cruz on Foreign Policy
Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I am a supporter of yours, but on the matter of foreign policy, I'm tending to lean more toward Rand Paul.
Rand Paul tends to take a less-intervention position on the matter of Russia's apparent aggression toward the Ukraine and the Crimea in particular. You take a more hawkish position, although you tend to limit your hawkishness to sanctions.
The reason I tend to side with Sen. Rand Paul, is a consideration of World War II history.
Prior to World War II, Germany geared up militarily and invaded the Sudeten, which they claimed was basically German. Note that the Russians claim the Crimea as being basically Russian.
From there, Germany invaded one country after another, without any significant resistance by the invaded countries. Germany set up in each country a national administration favorable to the German homeland.
Difficulty to the German aggression came in two forms. They were thwarted in their endeavor to invade and take over Russia and similar failed attempts to take over England. It was then that the US entered the war on the side of England and Russia, which established World War II and ended in the total defeat and annihilation of Germany.
We may be seeing a repeat of that operation mode in Russia's start with the Crimea. However, the likelihood is that World War II was not so far back that some people do not remember the outcome. As I said, Germany was defeated and annihilated in the process. It was only through the largess of the US Marshall Plan that Germany was rebuilt to its present form. In the rebuilding, restrictions were placed on the redevelopment of German military power and those restrictions exist to the present day, with US troops stationed to enforce the restriction.
In addition to the suffering of the German people, there was suffering to the people of Italy, as a German ally. Suffering was not only limited to the obvious losers of the war, but also the people of Poland, England, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland and Western Europe in general.
With the US late entry into the conflict, it lost several million soldiers, which was obviously suffering, but the US homeland was not physically destroyed, while Western European was.
With the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) many years ago, the US effectively said to Western European nations, "You need not maintain a military force to protect yourself from invasion, we, the US, will protect you." That needs to be changed. Western European nations have no basis to expect the US to protect them. They need to establish their own defensive military and be ready to take action, as they should have done prior to World War II.
I am logically on the side of Rand Paul. It is Western Europe's responsibility to protect itself from invasion by Russians, Chinese, or aliens. It is the US responsibility to convince Western European countries that we will not do this for them. We should start to dismantle NATO and eliminate restrictions on Germany to re-militarize, so that they may be able to defend themselves.
Dear Sen. Cruz,
I am a supporter of yours, but on the matter of foreign policy, I'm tending to lean more toward Rand Paul.
Rand Paul tends to take a less-intervention position on the matter of Russia's apparent aggression toward the Ukraine and the Crimea in particular. You take a more hawkish position, although you tend to limit your hawkishness to sanctions.
The reason I tend to side with Sen. Rand Paul, is a consideration of World War II history.
Prior to World War II, Germany geared up militarily and invaded the Sudeten, which they claimed was basically German. Note that the Russians claim the Crimea as being basically Russian.
From there, Germany invaded one country after another, without any significant resistance by the invaded countries. Germany set up in each country a national administration favorable to the German homeland.
Difficulty to the German aggression came in two forms. They were thwarted in their endeavor to invade and take over Russia and similar failed attempts to take over England. It was then that the US entered the war on the side of England and Russia, which established World War II and ended in the total defeat and annihilation of Germany.
We may be seeing a repeat of that operation mode in Russia's start with the Crimea. However, the likelihood is that World War II was not so far back that some people do not remember the outcome. As I said, Germany was defeated and annihilated in the process. It was only through the largess of the US Marshall Plan that Germany was rebuilt to its present form. In the rebuilding, restrictions were placed on the redevelopment of German military power and those restrictions exist to the present day, with US troops stationed to enforce the restriction.
In addition to the suffering of the German people, there was suffering to the people of Italy, as a German ally. Suffering was not only limited to the obvious losers of the war, but also the people of Poland, England, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland and Western Europe in general.
With the US late entry into the conflict, it lost several million soldiers, which was obviously suffering, but the US homeland was not physically destroyed, while Western European was.
With the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) many years ago, the US effectively said to Western European nations, "You need not maintain a military force to protect yourself from invasion, we, the US, will protect you." That needs to be changed. Western European nations have no basis to expect the US to protect them. They need to establish their own defensive military and be ready to take action, as they should have done prior to World War II.
I am logically on the side of Rand Paul. It is Western Europe's responsibility to protect itself from invasion by Russians, Chinese, or aliens. It is the US responsibility to convince Western European countries that we will not do this for them. We should start to dismantle NATO and eliminate restrictions on Germany to re-militarize, so that they may be able to defend themselves.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
No Progress in Reforming the Federal Governmentt
Open Email to Congress and the general Electorate:
Dear Congress and General Electorate,
I recently wrote you indicating my discouragement concerning my efforts to convince you in establishing a more rational federal government for the future of the USA. My discouragement was based upon actual federal government continued developments toward socialism, with disregard for rational spending and the national
One of my Political Associates responded in a way, which I thought might be of interest to you. Her comments are as follows:
"Iefully appreciate your most recent comments on the progress (or lack thereof) of federal government change. Since I have just returned from Texas, I am particularly aware than that Texans are, in general, more kind than the average American. The rest of the country sees Texas as a state where people know how to protect their own families, possessions, and conservative values. The problem with most Americans, including Texans, is that they do not understand the dangers and subsequent horrors of socialism and communism. The average citizen receives education from public school, the primary network (not cable) 5:00 evening news, and the late night television comedy/talk shows. Our government leaders are only focused on what will further advance their party. The schools are not teaching what is important, the Fox News channel is not available in the average American kitchen, and those who are watching the late night entertainment are deceived by believing that if there is something that they need to know, John Stewart will tell them.
This general lack of education and understanding is appalling to you and to me, but it is the present state of our nation. What the average middle school, high school, and college students are reading in their history and literature classes, as well as the conversations in the classrooms across America need to be changed. What people are watching on television needs to be changed. Newsreels need to be returned to the pre-show in the movie theaters. Proper education ( you know what I mean when I say proper education) is the only hope that America or any other nation has left. Until our politicians care that there really is a right and a wrong, and that their positions of authority are a responsibility ( for which the majority of them are not equipped), we cannot look to our leadership to lift us out of the turmoil we have fallen into.
What must we do? There is power found in owning television stations.). That would be one goal worth working toward. Also, the influencing of the education and hiring of teachers can make a big difference. University curriculums and professors need to be replaced. Writing school curriculum guides will help turn things around. Finally, citizens need to be made to understand the dangers that have been perpetrated upon people who trust unworthy politicians. The ethics of hard work and responsible decisions must be reintroduced into our educational system, our forms of entertainment, and the national conversation."
I might also add that I have been reading the book, "The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization by Vishal Mangalwadi. The author also has a simple message that the new philosophy of eliminating God has placed the populace in the state of vacuum, without soul, without truth and steering through a Neverland without ideals. Until that changes, there can likely be no hope for rational government.
Dear Congress and General Electorate,
I recently wrote you indicating my discouragement concerning my efforts to convince you in establishing a more rational federal government for the future of the USA. My discouragement was based upon actual federal government continued developments toward socialism, with disregard for rational spending and the national
One of my Political Associates responded in a way, which I thought might be of interest to you. Her comments are as follows:
"Iefully appreciate your most recent comments on the progress (or lack thereof) of federal government change. Since I have just returned from Texas, I am particularly aware than that Texans are, in general, more kind than the average American. The rest of the country sees Texas as a state where people know how to protect their own families, possessions, and conservative values. The problem with most Americans, including Texans, is that they do not understand the dangers and subsequent horrors of socialism and communism. The average citizen receives education from public school, the primary network (not cable) 5:00 evening news, and the late night television comedy/talk shows. Our government leaders are only focused on what will further advance their party. The schools are not teaching what is important, the Fox News channel is not available in the average American kitchen, and those who are watching the late night entertainment are deceived by believing that if there is something that they need to know, John Stewart will tell them.
This general lack of education and understanding is appalling to you and to me, but it is the present state of our nation. What the average middle school, high school, and college students are reading in their history and literature classes, as well as the conversations in the classrooms across America need to be changed. What people are watching on television needs to be changed. Newsreels need to be returned to the pre-show in the movie theaters. Proper education ( you know what I mean when I say proper education) is the only hope that America or any other nation has left. Until our politicians care that there really is a right and a wrong, and that their positions of authority are a responsibility ( for which the majority of them are not equipped), we cannot look to our leadership to lift us out of the turmoil we have fallen into.
What must we do? There is power found in owning television stations.). That would be one goal worth working toward. Also, the influencing of the education and hiring of teachers can make a big difference. University curriculums and professors need to be replaced. Writing school curriculum guides will help turn things around. Finally, citizens need to be made to understand the dangers that have been perpetrated upon people who trust unworthy politicians. The ethics of hard work and responsible decisions must be reintroduced into our educational system, our forms of entertainment, and the national conversation."
I might also add that I have been reading the book, "The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization by Vishal Mangalwadi. The author also has a simple message that the new philosophy of eliminating God has placed the populace in the state of vacuum, without soul, without truth and steering through a Neverland without ideals. Until that changes, there can likely be no hope for rational government.
Progress in Federal Government Change
Open email to Members of Congress and the Electorate:
Dear members of Congress and Electorate,
I am discouraged. For the past few years I have devoted considerable time and effort to trying to establish some change in the operation of our federal government. I've done this essentially through writing directly to House Representatives and Senators, with copies to the general electorate through blogs.
I've tried to point out the dangers of socialism, which basically is a philosophy that we pay for any project by dividing the cost among the electorate. The obvious difficulty is that many individuals interpret this as excluding themselves from bearing any portion of the cost while still reaping the benefits of the project paid for by others. With such operation, the nonpayers fall into a position of nonincentive as they gain "free stuff". The remaining payers see the inequity of this and try to do everything possible to reduce their payments, which is also a tendency to develop disincentive. When nobody is trying anymore and this is carried out over a reasonably long period of time, the project fails. The project may also be the total operations of the federal government. We have many examples of the failure of socialism, sometimes also called communism.
I've also tried to introduce the concept that power, which is apparently what many in Congress seek, is the ability to control something of value. Chief executive officers of private corporations are powerful within their sphere, because they control the assets of the corporations. Whenever a CEO is in charge of a private corporation on the verge of bankruptcy, he has effectively lost all his power. Congress apparently operates on the basis that power is based upon the ability to control the spending of large amounts of public money, basically generated by taxes, or through significant borrowing. I've tried to influence a change.
Within those specific two categories, I have promoted the following:
1. Develop a smaller federal government, by reducing funding to the various departments. Since federal departments are generally restrictive in nature, with respect to business development and individual liberties, that would seem to be advantageous.
2. Develop a balanced federal budget, which means a budget in which expenditures do not exceed revenues, so that further borrowing is unnecessary. 3. Start a program to work off the $17 trillion of debt, after we have established a program of not increasing it.
4. Specifically reduce, and in many cases eliminate, research grants to universities by various federal departments.
5. Consider every foreign national action from the point of view of what it means to US citizens and their livelihood. Eliminate costly involvement in foreign controversies based on "maintaining the status of the US" or "saving the world for democracy".
We recently held a Republican primary election in Lubbock. Two special incumbents were reestablishing their positions to maintain their office. One incumbent was instrumental in passing a $1 trillion Farm Law, which obviously would require further borrowing with an increase in the national debt. The second incumbent was instrumental in bringing an extension of the national debt to the Senate floor, where it was automatically endorsed by the democratically controlled Senate. I thought that I had clearly laid out the disadvantages of these two actions, at least is I saw it. In spite of that, the two incumbents were strongly endorsed by the electorate for the next federal election against the Democrats. From this I concluded that no matter what I say or how I say it, it has little or no effect on the electorate. I also concluded that the Republican electorate in Lubbock is also basically socialistic or composed of Limbaugh "low information" voters, who vote on name recognition, rather than issues.
In January, the Congress passed a massive omnibus appropriations bill, with funding levels for fiscal 2014. For 9 federal departments involved in research and development funding, which is basically giving grants to universities for various research projects, all had in increase. Homeland Security increased 53.8%, the National Institute of Standards and Technology increased .7%. Agriculture increased 9.8%. The lowest was the National Institute of Health, with an increase of 3.5%. One might say this is only research and development, which is a small matter. However, the total research and development expenditures for these nine departments totals $105 billion. Perhaps many in the electorate don't understand what $105 billion is, in which case we can place them in the low information voter category. We can also conclude that since funding for these agencies is generated in the House, of which the present composition is primarily Republican, at least the House Republicans have no intention of controlling the federal budget and the national debt and are easily placed in the same category as freespending Democrats.
We also see in arousal of Congress to the situation in the Ukraine. There's congressional rhetoric, which promotes our involvement, presumably on the basis that we must maintain some status in world affairs, even though we are in a semi-bankrupt condition, unable to realize that we have no real total power, but can use only intermediate forces, such as portions of our military, and economic sanctions. Fox News discussion this morning brought out the fact that use of economic sanctions against Russia will also have a negative effect on our already weak economy.
All told, the US continues to move to a high degree of socialism, with massive federal government, and no significant progress in any attempts to change. Obviously, I can do nothing about it. I've said my piece and recognize that when I have been essentially ineffective, there's no justification for me to continue to fight windmills. I may occasionally have a comment or two in the future, but I plan to significantly reduce my writing. I also don't see anything else that I can do to change the present progression, but am certainly willing to help others, within my capability, if I see they have any program which has a possibility for success.
Dear members of Congress and Electorate,
I am discouraged. For the past few years I have devoted considerable time and effort to trying to establish some change in the operation of our federal government. I've done this essentially through writing directly to House Representatives and Senators, with copies to the general electorate through blogs.
I've tried to point out the dangers of socialism, which basically is a philosophy that we pay for any project by dividing the cost among the electorate. The obvious difficulty is that many individuals interpret this as excluding themselves from bearing any portion of the cost while still reaping the benefits of the project paid for by others. With such operation, the nonpayers fall into a position of nonincentive as they gain "free stuff". The remaining payers see the inequity of this and try to do everything possible to reduce their payments, which is also a tendency to develop disincentive. When nobody is trying anymore and this is carried out over a reasonably long period of time, the project fails. The project may also be the total operations of the federal government. We have many examples of the failure of socialism, sometimes also called communism.
I've also tried to introduce the concept that power, which is apparently what many in Congress seek, is the ability to control something of value. Chief executive officers of private corporations are powerful within their sphere, because they control the assets of the corporations. Whenever a CEO is in charge of a private corporation on the verge of bankruptcy, he has effectively lost all his power. Congress apparently operates on the basis that power is based upon the ability to control the spending of large amounts of public money, basically generated by taxes, or through significant borrowing. I've tried to influence a change.
Within those specific two categories, I have promoted the following:
1. Develop a smaller federal government, by reducing funding to the various departments. Since federal departments are generally restrictive in nature, with respect to business development and individual liberties, that would seem to be advantageous.
2. Develop a balanced federal budget, which means a budget in which expenditures do not exceed revenues, so that further borrowing is unnecessary. 3. Start a program to work off the $17 trillion of debt, after we have established a program of not increasing it.
4. Specifically reduce, and in many cases eliminate, research grants to universities by various federal departments.
5. Consider every foreign national action from the point of view of what it means to US citizens and their livelihood. Eliminate costly involvement in foreign controversies based on "maintaining the status of the US" or "saving the world for democracy".
We recently held a Republican primary election in Lubbock. Two special incumbents were reestablishing their positions to maintain their office. One incumbent was instrumental in passing a $1 trillion Farm Law, which obviously would require further borrowing with an increase in the national debt. The second incumbent was instrumental in bringing an extension of the national debt to the Senate floor, where it was automatically endorsed by the democratically controlled Senate. I thought that I had clearly laid out the disadvantages of these two actions, at least is I saw it. In spite of that, the two incumbents were strongly endorsed by the electorate for the next federal election against the Democrats. From this I concluded that no matter what I say or how I say it, it has little or no effect on the electorate. I also concluded that the Republican electorate in Lubbock is also basically socialistic or composed of Limbaugh "low information" voters, who vote on name recognition, rather than issues.
In January, the Congress passed a massive omnibus appropriations bill, with funding levels for fiscal 2014. For 9 federal departments involved in research and development funding, which is basically giving grants to universities for various research projects, all had in increase. Homeland Security increased 53.8%, the National Institute of Standards and Technology increased .7%. Agriculture increased 9.8%. The lowest was the National Institute of Health, with an increase of 3.5%. One might say this is only research and development, which is a small matter. However, the total research and development expenditures for these nine departments totals $105 billion. Perhaps many in the electorate don't understand what $105 billion is, in which case we can place them in the low information voter category. We can also conclude that since funding for these agencies is generated in the House, of which the present composition is primarily Republican, at least the House Republicans have no intention of controlling the federal budget and the national debt and are easily placed in the same category as freespending Democrats.
We also see in arousal of Congress to the situation in the Ukraine. There's congressional rhetoric, which promotes our involvement, presumably on the basis that we must maintain some status in world affairs, even though we are in a semi-bankrupt condition, unable to realize that we have no real total power, but can use only intermediate forces, such as portions of our military, and economic sanctions. Fox News discussion this morning brought out the fact that use of economic sanctions against Russia will also have a negative effect on our already weak economy.
All told, the US continues to move to a high degree of socialism, with massive federal government, and no significant progress in any attempts to change. Obviously, I can do nothing about it. I've said my piece and recognize that when I have been essentially ineffective, there's no justification for me to continue to fight windmills. I may occasionally have a comment or two in the future, but I plan to significantly reduce my writing. I also don't see anything else that I can do to change the present progression, but am certainly willing to help others, within my capability, if I see they have any program which has a possibility for success.
Friday, March 7, 2014
House Speaker Boehner on the Economy
Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
Thank you for your recent message. You said, "Right now, my focus is what it's always been: getting our economy moving again to make sure our kids and grandkids have their chance to realize the American Dream. Your input will be critical as we go about fulfilling this mission."
I'm sure you already know what to do on this, but I'll repeat it anyhow.
You get the economy moving again by eliminating restrictions on business. This does not mean to slow down the restrictions it continually are put into place by the Obama administration, but it means to start eliminating a good portion of them. Specifically, government should get out of the wage and hour business. The free market will determine what is most appropriate for hiring people and paying them competitive salaries. The second most obvious thing is to start reducing taxes which will allow it a reduction in consumer prices for goods and services.
You do this by starting to unravel the various departments which you, the Congress, set up and which Obama is using to develop his socialistic system. This does not mean to talk about it, but actually make changes in how those departments operate. This is specifically the Environmental Protective Agency (EPA), Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the US Department of Human Services.
With respect to "our kids and grandkids having the chance to realize the American dream", we now sunk so far into debt that this is almost an impossible realization. If you can't make any significant accomplishments on the other matters mentioned above, it would be futile to work on American dream realization.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
Thank you for your recent message. You said, "Right now, my focus is what it's always been: getting our economy moving again to make sure our kids and grandkids have their chance to realize the American Dream. Your input will be critical as we go about fulfilling this mission."
I'm sure you already know what to do on this, but I'll repeat it anyhow.
You get the economy moving again by eliminating restrictions on business. This does not mean to slow down the restrictions it continually are put into place by the Obama administration, but it means to start eliminating a good portion of them. Specifically, government should get out of the wage and hour business. The free market will determine what is most appropriate for hiring people and paying them competitive salaries. The second most obvious thing is to start reducing taxes which will allow it a reduction in consumer prices for goods and services.
You do this by starting to unravel the various departments which you, the Congress, set up and which Obama is using to develop his socialistic system. This does not mean to talk about it, but actually make changes in how those departments operate. This is specifically the Environmental Protective Agency (EPA), Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the US Department of Human Services.
With respect to "our kids and grandkids having the chance to realize the American dream", we now sunk so far into debt that this is almost an impossible realization. If you can't make any significant accomplishments on the other matters mentioned above, it would be futile to work on American dream realization.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
The US in the Ukraine
Open Email to:
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
The US war drums continue beating to raise public interest in doing "something" in the Ukraine. John McCain is up to his usual warmonger rhetoric.
Before we go off half cocked, let's look at when the shoe would be on the other foot.
Ukraine is a neighbor of Russia, just as Mexico is a neighbor of the US.
Let's suppose Mexico comes into a state of semi-revolt, wherein the Mexican government wants to maintain ties with the US, but a large segment of rebels want to establish ties with Russia. Chances are the US would quickly supply money and arms to the Mexican government to control the rebels, and might even supply soldiers.
The Russians have only done that with the Ukraine government. Is that unreasonable, and does that justify our waving a war flag at the Russians?
Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Rep. Royce and Sen. Menendez,
The US war drums continue beating to raise public interest in doing "something" in the Ukraine. John McCain is up to his usual warmonger rhetoric.
Before we go off half cocked, let's look at when the shoe would be on the other foot.
Ukraine is a neighbor of Russia, just as Mexico is a neighbor of the US.
Let's suppose Mexico comes into a state of semi-revolt, wherein the Mexican government wants to maintain ties with the US, but a large segment of rebels want to establish ties with Russia. Chances are the US would quickly supply money and arms to the Mexican government to control the rebels, and might even supply soldiers.
The Russians have only done that with the Ukraine government. Is that unreasonable, and does that justify our waving a war flag at the Russians?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
