Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

PAX, LUX ET VERITAS SINCE 1965
Post Trump Presidency at Six Months: An Appraisal
Created by John Eipper on 07/24/17 4:11 AM

Previous posts in this discussion:

Post

Trump Presidency at Six Months: An Appraisal (Istvan Simon, USA, 07/24/17 4:11 am)

In this post I will recap some aspects of the successful presidential campaign of Donald Trump and comment on what I consider to be his unsound policies. The following policy areas will be analyzed: Foreign Policy, Terrorism, ISIS, National Security, Energy policy and Climate Change. As it will be seen, all these aspects of Trump's policies are interrelated.

I will start with the assumption that the most important duty of a president of the United States is to help maintain our way of life and defend it against enemies both foreign and domestic. In my view, president Trump has abysmally failed in this duty.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Trump's campaign and presidency has been his Russia policy. Trump campaigned on better relations with Russia, on the grounds that Russia can help defeat ISIS. ISIS is a threat to the United States, but let's face it, it is a minuscule minor threat. So to base his entire Russia policy on this is a fig leaf at best for hiding the true reasons for his policies towards Russia. Consider the following points:

1. Russia has intervened in the Syrian civil war on the side of Assad. Russia could potentially be an ally against ISIS, but in fact they have done absolutely nothing to defeat them. The Russians bombed Aleppo to complete rubble, but there was no ISIS in Aleppo. Aleppo had the rebels that the United States supported, not ISIS. ISIS is in Raqqa, not Aleppo. The Russians have done nothing at all in Raqqa.

It follows that the rationale given by Trump for his stance on Russia is fake and cannot withstand the scrutiny of critical examination.

ISIS is an excuse for changing our Russian policy to one highly favorable to Russia. The truth is that ISIS is a minuscule tiny threat to the National Security of the United States. They have killed fewer than 100 Americans with all their terrorist bombast, and while their ideology is attractive to Muslim radicals and they are a dangerous adversary, clearly Climate Change poses a far bigger threat to US National Security than ISIS does. So does North Korea. North Korea poses a real and very serious threat to the United States National Security, yet Trump has hardly mentioned it during his campaign, and rarely mentioned it during his presidency. Furthermore, Russia is not cooperating with the United States on North Korea, a fact never mentioned by Trump, in pointed contrast with China whose non-cooperation with us has been constantly emphasized by Trump.

2. Climate Change can reduce the territory of the United States by a large amount of land lost to rising seas in a short time. Clearly, losing territory is a national security issue and a catastrophic economic issue as well. It is something that ISIS could not dream of doing in 100 years of terrorism and or guerrilla warfare. This threat is real and supported by science, yet Trump has threatened to withdraw from the Paris accords designed to combat Climate Change. He also named a complete idiot for the Environment Protection Agency, Pruitt, who is a climate change denier. His interior Secretary, Zinke, is no better, the worst in recent memory, intent in destroying our heritage, our National Monuments, and our public lands. Trump's policy on coal can only be characterized as demented. It has zero chance of success.

Coal is dead as an energy source. Natural gas is far cheaper and far less polluting, so no matter what Trump does the coal industry will continue shrinking and jobs in the coal industry will be lost by the tens of thousands, no matter what Trump's unsound policies are.

3. If Trump were a man with a forward-looking vision, (he is not: he is short-sighted, has a lack of focus, and is oriented towards short-term rather than long-term goals), he would recognize this reality and instead of his misguided and frankly stupid energy policies he would emphasize the energy sources of the future. These are green renewable sources of energy. There are three main sources of renewable energy:

a. Solar generation of heat and electricity,

b. Wind power for generating electricity, and

c. Geo-Thermal energy that can cool and heat buildings without air conditioners and furnaces.

Both solar and wind energy are plentiful in the United States and cheap. But they suffer from the problem that they do not produce energy constantly. Therefore a fourth area of energy technology is necessary for the future.

d. Storage technology must be developed and invested in, so that one can use excess solar and wind energy when there is plenty of it, for later use, when there is no sun and no wind.

Instead of pushing coal and fossil fuels, an intelligent President would push these four new technologies, and insure the United States will be a leader in all of them. The economic benefits and payoff in jobs, reduction in pollution, reduction in health care costs that we now must spend on diseases due to pollution, and overall savings would be tremendous. Jobs in the energy sector will be growing in all these four areas, and would amply compensate for the loss of jobs in coal and the fossil fuel industry that would result.

4. Going back to Russia I have shown, I think persuasively, that Trump's alleged motivation for his strange Russia policy is bogus. So we must ask, what would explain this weird policy? The answer is greed, corruption, and blackmail, and will lead to President Trump's impeachment for treason and his imprisonment in federal prison. He will drag his entire family with him, as well as all his political associates, including the Vice-President and countless others involved in this vast criminal conspiracy.

5. Russia is no ally of the United States. The Russian geopolitical interests are the opposite of the United States, so clearly once again Trump's ideas do not appear to be feasible, even if the venal motives behind it did not exist. I have mentioned above, for example, that the Russian policy in Syria is inimical to our interests in the area. So far from cooperating with us, the Russians want to decrease our influence in the region and everywhere. Russia is a geopolitical enemy of the United States. North Korea is also a threat to Russia, yet Russia's fear of the United States is larger than its fear of North Korea, and so the Russians are not being helpful at all with North Korea. Neither are the Chinese, but Trump only complains about the Chinese, and never about Russia. Why? To me the answer is clear and is the criminal conspiracy that I mentioned above.

Russian interests in Europe are the opposite of our interests in Europe. Russia wants to weaken NATO. Strangely enough Trump attacked NATO during his campaign and also during his presidency. This weakens the United States and our best allies, so it amounts to a disastrous policy.

Russia is destabilizing Ukraine, and this once again is against American interests. Further, it is a violation of the policy of no unilateral changes in the borders of countries in Europe, which has been a backbone of American and European Union policy after World War II.

6. So on NATO too, Trump is defending Russian interests, not ours. Whom has Trump attacked since he took office? It turns out, he attacked our best allies, and allied himself with our worst enemies.

6a. He has attacked the Prime Minister of Australia. Now Australia is a faithful ally of the United States. They have fought alongside the United States as an ally in every war since World War I. It is shameful and a disservice to this country's best interests that Trump has attacked and been rude to the prime minister of a true friend of the United States like Australia while licking Putin's nether regions at every turn.

6b. He has attacked Angela Merkel, another faithful ally of the United States.

6c. He has allied himself with Nigel Farage, of UKIP, and allied himself against the European Union, a position which, in spite of Nigel Jones's support in this Forum, is in my opinion against the interests of both the United States and of the the United Kingdom.

6d. He has allied himself with Marie Le Pen in France, whose anti-European Union policies Trump has endorsed. Marie Le Pen is a fascist, with the same objectives as her father, who is an avowed anti-Semite and Nazi. She is far more intelligent than her father was, but the objectives remain the same.

6e. He has allied himself with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has actively campaigned against the ex-president of the United States (Obama), a stupid move that will cost Israel dearly over the long run.

I could go on, for there are many other examples where Trump has attacked our allies while coddling our enemies. I will mention just China, a powerful country that Trump has insanely and for no benefit whatsoever attacked during his campaign and since taking office.

7. ISIS--I have argued that Isis is in fact a very minor National Security threat that was hugely exaggerated by Trump during the campaign with the objective to give him a fig leaf for his unsound Russian policies. We do not need the Russians against ISIS. ISIS was losing territory everywhere, and soon will cease to control any territory at all which will make it a Caliphate without a place to call home, and which in turn will transform ISIS into a weakened network of terrorists without territory, very much like Al-Qaeda.

JE comments:  Nothing wrong with laying your cards on the table, so to speak.  Should Istvan Simon's prediction come to pass, someday we'll be facing a President Pence.  Stephan Richter of The Globalist portrays Pence as "disciplined and boring," the exact opposite of the entertaining, loose-cannon Trump.  Yet in substantive policy issues, Pence might be even more intransigent than his current boss.  See below--it's good fodder for discussion:

https://www.theglobalist.com/united-states-donald-trump-impeachment-mike-pence/


SHARE:
Rate this post
Informational value 
Insight 
Fairness 
Reader Ratings (0)
0%
Informational value0%
Insight0%
Fairness0%

Visits: 118

Comments/Replies

Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

  • Trump Presidency at Six Months: An Appraisal (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 07/26/17 4:54 AM)
    An excellent (but imperialist) post from Istvan Simon (24 July). For sure, these views may be highly appreciated by the average American citizen from let's say Alamogordo, but they may be rather hard to accept for the average foreigner. Let's look at the various points.

    1) Russia has intervened in Syria with great skill, completely changing the situation on the field. The problem however is the huge difference in interests among the various parties involved: Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and especially the US.


    The US, in order to dominate the area, has created only chaos since 1979 (maybe we can go back to 1953; see Mossadegh). They practically created Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. For 16 years through the present, with the help of their lackeys Italy in primis, the US has been involved there in a never-ending and never-winning war.


    The US has destroyed all lay (secular) governments, more or less civilized, which were protecting the various religious communities. This has been a great war crime.  The best thing the US can do is to pack all their apparently useless armor and go home.


    After all, the US now does not need any more oil. The "freedom fighters" supported by the US are just throat-cutters like ISIS, and they destabilize and create refugees as well.


    2) Climate change--I agree with Istvan.


    3) Green policy--Also agree.


    4) Domestic politics--I am not adequately informed on this.



    5) Of course Russia is no ally of the US, as for the present American mentality an ally should in reality be a colony occupied by some military bases (even reluctant France has the Istres base).


    Why in the hell should Russia be of help to the US against North Korea? North Korea is a danger only for the imperialist mentality which wants to impose its will on all nations. If North Korea is left alone it can only eat its nuclear devices.  It will never risk launching one bomb just to immediately receive back thousands that will completely reduce the whole country to ashes.


    I also agree that Russia's interests in Europe are the opposite of US interests, but again here, apparently after 1991, Russia wants partners in Europe while the US wants only obedient colonies.


    Sorry Istvan, but no unilateral changes in the borders of countries in Europe has not been the cornerstone of American policy after WWII.  It was only thanks to the US and its lackey troops that Yugoslavia was completely dismembered. Have we forgot the three months of bombardment of Belgrade, with thousands of dead and injured?


    6) NATO is not made up of the best allies of the US but, at least since 1991.  It is made of the best US colonies or lackeys. Some Europeans are starting to notice this.


    6d) Sorry, but Marine (not Marie) Le Pen in France is not Fascist. She can be nationalist, traditionalist, etc. Furthermore, one cannot be a Nazi and a Fascist, as between the two ideologies there is a great difference. Nazism and Fascism were allied during WWII, as the Capitalist Democracies were allied with the Soviets but you cannot say they are the same.


    6e) Trump is allied with the Prime Minister of Israel.  This is the same story that has been going on since 1948 (the only small exception was with JFK and nuclear weapons).  We may even say that the US is ruled from Tel Aviv through the AIPAC.  No candidate is elected president who does not first go to kiss the "candelabrum."


    Not even when the USS Liberty was attacked on 8 June 1967 did the US have the guts to react but preferred to cover it up. The report prepared by the USS Liberty Veterans Association has never even been acknowledged by the US Department of Defense.


    JE comments:  As I often say in response to Eugenio Battaglia, there's lots to chew on here.  Several huge mouthfuls.  Let me just focus on North Korea.  The accepted "truth" in the US media, even in the mainstreamiest of the mainstream, is that Lil' Kim is not to be trusted in the traditional diplomatic sense.  Meaning, like a toddler (albeit a nuclear-armed toddler), North Korea may use the bomb in the geopolitical equivalent of a temper tantrum--consequences be damned.


    The "orthodox" view can be summed up in a recent article from Time:  "North Korea:  There is No Good Option":


    http://time.com/4856217/no-good-options-on-north-korea/



    Is this simply hype, in Eugenio Battaglia's view?


    Please login/register to reply or comment:

    • USS Liberty Incident, 1967 (Robert Whealey, USA 07/26/17 5:14 PM)
      In response to Eugenio Battaglia (26 July), the Israeli government never officially apologized for the attack on the USS Liberty. But several years later they contributed several million dollars in benefits for the families of about 16 Naval survivors.

      JE comments: Wikipedia says there were three rounds of payments: 1. to the families of the 34 killed personnel, 2. to the wounded survivors, and 3. compensation (in 1980) for damage to the ship. Moreover, there was an apology from the Israelis, who claimed they mistook the Liberty for an Egyptian destroyer.


      The attack happened 50 years ago this summer, in June '67.  What do WAISers remember from the incident?


      Please login/register to reply or comment:

      • I Was in Egypt During Six-Day War; USS Liberty Incident (Edward Jajko, USA 07/27/17 4:00 AM)
        At the time of the attack on the USS Liberty, 50 years ago last month, I was interned in a pension in Alexandria, Egypt, along with other students and some faculty from the American University in Cairo, awaiting the outcome of the war. It had been a frantic day and a half in Cairo, packing up belongings and getting to the rendezvous point, and trying to contact my best friend there so that I could say goodbye to him. He is still my friend, and is a German citizen and a professor emeritus of the Martin-Luther Universitat Halle-Wittemberg.

        I spent weeks traveling home, which I was able to do because my Fulbright had provided return air travel and the AUC fellowship I got that extended my time in Cairo also gave me a return trip, so I knocked about Italy, France, England, and Germany, initially in an addled state because I had unwittingly received sun poisoning during the day's sailing, on the deck of the German freighter Ankara. Fifty years ago this month, I was in Poland, seeing Warsaw and Krakow and meeting my relatives, with whom I am still in touch.


        It was while I was traveling that I began to see reports of the attack on the Liberty. I saved up the magazines I bought in Italy and France and pursued the matter once I got home. But then life intervened; I reentered graduate school, then went to library school, married, was hired by Yale, had a family and a mortgage, etc. It was only after I joined the Hoover Institution in 1983 that I learned of the USS Liberty Veterans Association. Through them, I was put in contact with James Ennes, author of "Assault on the Liberty." Jim had been officer of the deck at the time of the attack and was wounded severely enough that he spent a year and a half in Naval hospitals. During that time he began work on his book. Jim donated all his papers relating to "Assault on the Liberty" to the Hoover Institution Archives. He put me in touch with other crewmembers and I was able to get several more significant collections for the Archives. These include personal papers relating to the attack and its aftermath, films taken on board before the attack, and even a uniform of crewmember Ron Kukal.


        Through Jim, the Hoover acquired the papers of the captain of the Liberty, James McGonagle, after his death. His family asked only to keep his Congressional Medal of Honor. It is a sign of the unsavory handling of this whole affair not just by the Israelis, but by the US Navy and the US government, that Medals of Honor are customarily bestowed on recipients by the president in a special White House ceremony. Captain McGonagle's medal, in recognition of his actions during and after the attack, was given to him by, I believe, the secretary of the Navy in a private ceremony in the Washington Navy Yard. There are on-line resources for finding Medal of Honor recipients. They are arranged by war and or theater of combat, then by date. Captain McGonagle's medal is the only Medal of Honor bestowed during the Vietnam War for actions in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the enemy forces are not identified.


        I have seen a lot of the materials relating to the attack and have known crewmembers. It was my honor to be allowed to speak at two Liberty Veterans' reunions, asking them and their families to consider placing their valuable papers in the Hoover Institution Archives, or in any responsible archives, for that matter. All too many of the crewmembers whom I knew have died. So many of them had stories that were riveting.


        The Israelis initially overflew the Liberty for a considerable period, at altitudes and speeds low enough (despite their Dassault Mirage jets), that the American crew were able to see the faces of the Israeli pilots and to wave to them. After all, friends, no? The whole time, the Liberty was flying its large American colors. Additionally, the Liberty was a sister-ship of the Pueblo, which the North Koreans took with impunity scant months later--a converted freighter. There was the big flag, there were all the antennas and dishes, there was only a handful of .50 machine guns for defense, there was the big GTR5 painted on the bows. The excuse that the Liberty was confused with an Egyptian horse transport or, please, a destroyer, is an insult to the intelligence.


        Sometime after the Mirages, which bore the Israeli markings, stopped their overflights, fighter planes returned, this time with any markings painted over. They strafed the ship and shot it up with cannon and rocket fire. The Americans, recovering from shock, tried to send out distress signals. The antennas were destroyed or heavily damaged. The American flag was shot down so at great risk the Liberty crew replaced it with what are called Holiday Colors. Imagine the giant flag one sees at US car dealerships, with brilliant gold braid on three edges. This was also shot down.


        They tried to reply with their ineffective .50 machine guns, and as sailors went for the guns they were cut down. The attack persisted for some lengthy period, then was broken off suddenly.


        While trying to attend to the dead and wounded and send out emergency messages, the Americans were suddenly faced with a new problem, the arrival of Israeli motor torpedo boats. Liberty survivors have told me, and have told those in Congress and among the public who are willing to listen, that as the American crew tried to lower life boats, the Israelis shot and destroyed them, a war crime. The torpedo boats shot torpedoes at the Liberty. One struck amidships, hitting the area where the NSA had listeners and interceptors of radio transmissions. Twenty-six men died immediately.


        A marvelous man, a Liberty survivor who had enlisted in the Navy when he was 17 and was only around 40 when I got to know him, told me that if the torpedo had hit the ship one foot away from where it pierced the hull, it would have split one of the main members holding the ship together and the Liberty would have sunk in minutes.


        As it is, for reasons unknown, the motor torpedo boats broke off their attack and then there was a call to the Liberty, asking if help was needed. None of the crewmembers told me precisely what the reply from Captain McGonagle and his men was, but I can imagine. The Liberty was left on its own, listing severely but afloat.


        The ship made its way west, finally meeting up with an escort and ships that offloaded the dead and seriously wounded. Then, at some point, came something truly disgraceful. This was related to me by Liberty crewmembers. I can't remember when and where this happened, but a US Navy Court of Inquiry was convened, on board the Liberty. The court was headed by Adm. Isaac Kidd, with Ward Boston of the JAG Corps. Ward Boston, in recent years, published documents stating his disagreement with the findings of Adm. Kidd and that he disagreed with how it all was handled.


        The court of inquiry was set up to inquire into the conduct of the ship and the crew, not the actual attack, the who, how, and why. I was told by several crewmembers that Adm. Kidd made a show of appearing before the Liberty survivors, of removing his admiral's insignia, and then saying that he was now one of them, that they could talk freely. So they did, about the whole attack. When they had finished, Adm. Kidd put on his insignia once again and ordered the crew to maintain silence about the attack, on pain of the most severe discipline. The Liberty crew were broken up and transferred around the fleet, so as to prevent them from getting together and talking about the attack. One crewmember told me that he had serious problems in his new ship because he wouldn't tell anyone about his previous service, even though it was clear that he was an experienced sailor.


        The whole business about Israel explaining and apologizing is, in my opinion, fiction. I may not be recalling this accurately but I seem to recall reading that within hours of the attack, days perhaps, US congressmen and senators spoke in their respective houses, not denouncing this treacherous attack that cost American lives, but explaining it away as a tragic mistake.


        The US Congress has never investigated the attack. There have never been congressional hearings. And fifty years on, the USS Liberty Veterans held a reunion in Virginia, that included a graveside ceremony at burial site of several crewmembers. They continue to lobby, to the extent they can, for a fair deal from their own government.


        JE comments:  This is a chilling narrative, Ed.  You've literally transported us back to that tragic day.  Is it safe to say that if any other nation had attacked a US naval ship in such a sustained and callous manner, it would have been treated as an act of war?


        Please login/register to reply or comment:



    • US Intervention in Foreign Elections (Massoud Malek, USA 07/28/17 1:58 AM)
      I applaud Eugenio Battaglia for his excellent post of July 26.

      The US has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries. It's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.


      That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the US didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring.


      Levin defines intervention as "a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides." These acts, carried out in secret two-thirds of the time, include funding the election campaigns of specific parties, disseminating misinformation or propaganda, training locals of only one side in various campaigning or get-out-the-vote techniques, helping one side design their campaign materials, making public pronouncements or threats in favor of or against a candidate, and providing or withdrawing foreign aid.


      http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html


      "Several months after the CIA was created in 1947, it set out to steal the Italian election in 1948 to support the Christian Democrats who were pro-American, against the socialist Democrats, who were pro-Moscow.


      Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan after the American invasion post-9/11 was a paid CIA agent.


      http://www.wnyc.org/story/history-us-intervention-foreign-elections


      In 2011, the Obama administration argued that its bombing campaign in Libya was aimed at "preserving regional stability"!


      On Tuesday, the US House overwhelmingly voted to punish Putin for his intervention in the presidential election of 2016, by imposing new sanctions on Russia. It is ironic that on the same day, the US imposed fresh sanctions on Venezuela in effort to stop the rewriting of its constitution.


      This is not the first time the US feels a threat from Venezuela. On March 9, 2015, Obama signed and issued a presidential order declaring Venezuela a threat to our national security!


      In May the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Venezuelan Supreme Court claiming that the Venezuelan people are suffering from a collapsing economy brought about by Maduro's government. But no country dares to impose sanctions on the American Supreme Court for making Citizens United the law of land and imposing a Siberian candidate on us.


      Should we blame Vladimir Putin or Citizens United for making the US election of 2016 a farce of American democracy?


      JE comments:  The common US response would be that it intervenes in elections to protect democracy while the Russian example was intended to undermine it.  Would such a claim be a gross oversimplification?  Downright false?  In the notorious cases of Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, I'd have to go with the latter interpretation.

      Please login/register to reply or comment:

      • Vlad and Trump: Some Doggerel (John Heelan, -UK 07/28/17 5:27 AM)
        An interesting piece of political doggerel I read recently:

        I'm not all bad" says Vlad.

        And I'm not a Czar.

        Now Trump's in my pocket,

        No need for a rocket!



        JE comments:  Doggerelissimo!  John:  are Vlad and Czar supposed to rhyme?


        Next up:  Rootin-tootin' Putin...


        Please login/register to reply or comment:


      • Venezuela's Constitutional Referendum (José Ignacio Soler, Venezuela 07/29/17 7:45 AM)
        On Friday, July 28th, Massoud Malek wrote about the multiple times the US government has attempted to influence elections and generally intervene in foreign countries. A specific quote from Massoud interested me: "On Tuesday, the US House overwhelmingly voted to punish Putin for his intervention in the presidential election of 2016, by imposing new sanctions on Russia. It is ironic that on the same day, the US imposed fresh sanctions on Venezuela in an effort to stop the rewriting of its constitution."

        I won't argue in favor or against the moral or ethical question of whether the US has attempted to influence other countries' politics or internal affairs. It is a historical fact that countries with some kind of power--you name it, the US, Russia, China, Iran, Israel, etc., and even Cuba--will try to influence or intervene in whatever way possible for the sake of its interests.


        But the point I want to address is that Massoud seems to be very indulgent with the Venezuelan regime, as he has been with the Cuban regime.


        Let me clarify what the Venezuelan government intends to do by means of "rewriting its constitution," the "constituyente" as it is called here.


        The "constituyente" has been called and promoted by the regime with specific antidemocratic goals. The official objectives at first sight appear to be harmless: to gain peace and reassert the values of justice and establish a national dialogue, to improve the Venezuelan economic system based on productivity and diversification, to reinforce the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking, to institutionalize the "comunas" or communes (soviets if you like), to give room for new forms of participative and direct democracy, to defend national sovereignty and to bring an end to the political violence.


        These all seem to be good, except this government seeks peace as long as you submit to its ruling.  It has continuously violated the current constitution; its is well known that officials and military are involved in corruption and drug trafficking; it continuously ignores and overrules current democratic constitution or opposition institutions; it uses terror, repression, political harassment, and social extortion; they are willing to use "free" elections, direct or otherwise, as much as they are sure to win, etc.


        The true underlying goals are more subtle:


        --To overcome the current political and social turmoil by way of reinforcing repression and to legitimize the incarceration of opposition leaders and members of congress, or any other dissenting political expression.


        --To eliminate or reduce the principles of Freedom of Expression, political dissent, Freedom of the Press and other basic democratic liberties.


        --Secondly, to eliminate the current "democratic" institutions, to remove public officials in the opposition; to restructure institutions according to their political interests. Particularly the Congress (El Congreso), the General Attorney Office (La Fiscalia), Governors or Mayors, and to remove any other public servant suspected of being unfaithful to the revolution. To delete the democratic principle of Separation of Powers.


        --Third, to suppress elections the regime suspects it would lose, including presidential referendums, as well as pending regional and municipal elections. Eliminating real free democratic elections.


        --Finally, to give unlimited powers to the president, and extend the presidential period to an almost unlimited time. In summary, the constituyente is a coup through a supposedly legal means.


        It is unnecessary to say this government´s strategy is directed by the Cuban regime, under which Maduro is simply a puppet.


        Under the present circumstances, the regime has no real obstacles opposing its actions, and the political opposition has few real instruments to counter them. In this scenario, would I be against US intervention or for that matter any other foreign country? I believe the answer is pretty obvious even if sovereignty might be questioned.


        JE comments:  The referendum will be held tomorrow (July 30th), and the last several weeks have been marred by violence and dozens of deaths.  Please stay safe, José Ignacio, and send us an update when you get the chance.

        Please login/register to reply or comment:

        • Cuba and Venezuela (Massoud Malek, USA 07/31/17 9:00 AM)
          This is in response to José Ignacio Soler (29 July). The Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries created a permanent underclass of workers in England, France and Germany, many of whom lived in poverty under terrible working conditions and with little political representation.

          In 1848, German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who were influenced by Hegel's philosophy, wrote "The Communist Manifesto," one of the world's most influential political manuscripts. The manuscript was basically an extension of the "Master-Slave Dialectic," a key element of Hegel's philosophical system.


          Modern Cuba was created based on Hegel's philosophy. Meanwhile, the leaders of its neighbor, Haiti, the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, refused to follow the "Master-Slave Dialectic."


          Marx and Engels wrote their manuscript for an industrial society. They never imagined that an uneducated bus driver in Venezuela who never read Hegel's writings would claim to protect Venezuela's workers against its fortunate citizens who refuse to respect the dignity of the lower classes.


          I defend Cuba, because of its accomplishments. Fidel Castro, an educated lawyer, decided to follow Hegel's philosophy, by providing universal health care and free education to its citizens, and also wiping out homelessness. But both the United States and Haiti struggle with these three basic human rights.


          JE comments:  I wonder how many Venezuelan workers believe they are being "protected" right now.  Only the truest of the True Believers are still in the Maduro camp, although there must be fear among the faithful that a post-Maduro regime will seek to even the score.


          Yesterday's Constituyente vote was marked by rampant violence that left at least nine people dead.  The results should be announced by the end of the day.


          Please login/register to reply or comment:

          • Cuba and Venezuela (Istvan Simon, USA 08/01/17 7:07 AM)
            My friend Massoud Malek (31 July) presents a rosy and unrealistic view of Cuba under the Castros, to say nothing about the idiot in Venezuela who is maintained in power only by his goons.

            I do not much care about Hegel or Marx, and frankly they offer nothing very useful in today's world. Marx's ideas failed on a grand scale everywhere. Communism collapsed in Europe, and is maintained only in name in Vietnam and China. It would be hard to say that the regime in Pyongyang is communist. It is just a garbage hereditary regime that maintains itself in power through terror. Communism should and will collapse in Cuba as well, where Massoud ignores the absurd staying in power for decades of another hereditary dictatorship. Why is Raúl Castro the president of Cuba? What has he done which justifies his remaining in power 58 years after the Cuban Revolution? Why does Massoud so conveniently forget the thousands murdered by Castro and Che Guevara, another man Massoud admires, who does not deserve admiration?


            Cuba is a poor country where women can be bought for sex for a few dollars. This is much worse than was the case under Batista, when prostitution was a main feature in the casinos. Now a very large number of women have become disguised prostitutes. Cuba was a relatively rich country under Batista compared to Cuba today. Though the poverty now is distributed evenly, except of course to the top top elites like the Castros, who live in luxury. The Castro regime has few accomplishments (like health care and education} and many many giant failures.


            Cuba remains dependent and poor 58 years after the Castros came to power. There is no justification for a one-party state in Cuba, and it will not remain for long.


            JE comments:  The Cuban regime "will not remain for long"--but it has.  Will we be saying the same thing about Chavismo in Venezuela, ten or twenty years hence?

            Please login/register to reply or comment:

            • Hegel, Marx, Cuba (Tor Guimaraes, USA 08/08/17 5:13 AM)
              In his post of August 1st, Istvan Simon was critical of Massoud Malek's view of Cuba's performance as a sociopolitical and economic system. While Istvan makes some good points, one of the major factors that every critic of Cuba's performance have so far neglected to consider is the huge impact on such a little country that a powerful enemy country like the US can have. Just the fact that Cuba survived the US pressure is impressive enough, particularly after the USSR was terminated.

              Also, in his criticism of Massoud's post, Istvan stated, "I do not much care about Hegel or Marx, and frankly they offer nothing very useful in today's world. Marx's ideas failed on a grand scale everywhere. Communism collapsed in Europe, and is maintained only in name in Vietnam and China."


              This shows a profound misunderstanding of what Marx actually proposed. He did not propose Communism. He merely provided clear evidence that rampant Capitalism carries its own self-destruction. While I am a proud capitalist and can clearly see its constructive powers (from the benefits of savings and investments in innovative ideas, free markets, etc.), it has also become obvious that Marx is correct in his assessment of rampant capitalism.  It exploits the workers, it eliminates competition and destroys free markets, and its creates economic turmoil.


              JE comments:  We should also keep in mind the opposite: the huge impact such a little country (Cuba) has had on its powerful neighbor.


              Remember the old Soviet aphorism?  In Capitalism, Man exploits Man.  In Communism, it's the other way around.  (Apologies; I think I ran this one just a few weeks back.  So here's another chuckle from the USSR:  We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.)


              Please login/register to reply or comment:

              • Are Capitalism and Market Economies the Same Thing? (Cameron Sawyer, Russia 08/08/17 8:28 AM)

                There are two important points in Tor Guimaraes's post of August 8th:



                Capitalism and market economics are not the same thing at all, and capitalism (economic system dominated by the power of finance capital) is frequently acting against the market when capitalism is strong.



                Marx was at his best when he was criticizing other systems. His own self-constructed system was highly flawed, in my opinion, but he correctly identified a number of weaknesses in industrial capitalism.


                JE comments:  Re:  Marx, Cameron Sawyer is echoing our earlier point about the "usefully wrong." 


                A hypothesis:  Marx's doomsday warnings may actually have preserved capitalism over the years, by showing the cigar-chomping robber barons what could happen if they don't shape up.  I'm reminded of the Monopoly oligarch, Rich Uncle Pennybags.  Ironically, he was born during the Great Depression (1935).

                Please login/register to reply or comment:


              • Defending Against US Aggression? (Timothy Brown, USA 08/09/17 4:12 AM)
                Tor Guimaraes's post of August 8th sounds like a great argument in favor of Kim and North Korea. Someone should bring it to the attention of Kim since, by this reasoning, because the US is gigantic and North Korea so small, it must be obvious to peace-loving people everywhere that all Kim is trying to do is defend his country against American aggression. Just look what happened in Europe during the 20th century when they didn't defend themselves well enough. The Great Aggressor forced Germany and the Axis to defend themselves against their will, thereby causing World Wars I and II. If the US had just left Europe alone, today Europe would be a far better place.

                Just look at what would have happened if the US had just stayed out to the Cold War, this sort of reasoning did not apply to the much nicer Soviet Union. In that case, all the nice, peace-loving Soviet Union was trying to do was help its ungrateful neighbors escape from the claws of the real aggressor nation, the US. And on it goes. Today Nicaragua and Venezuela are, by this reasoning, not dictatorships. They, and all the Marxist dictatorships to come, are just innocent victims of the Great Empire, just as are all the other nations of the world.


                I beg to differ.


                JE comments:  Tim Brown's point is well taken, but there is a middle ground here.  The US is not innocent of aggression against its weaker neighbors, especially in its dealings with Latin America since the days of Monroe.

                Please login/register to reply or comment:

                • Defending Against US Aggression: Cuba, North Korea (Tor Guimaraes, USA 08/09/17 10:39 AM)
                  The overdose of sarcasm and convoluted logic in Timothy Brown's last post go beyond my comprehension. How anyone could read my August 8th post and see an argument in favor of North Korea's present dictator, or any other Communist dictator, is totally made up in his own mind.

                  Just because it is impressive that Cuba's government be able to survive the US government's undermining influence for so many years is not an endorsement of all their deeds or objectives. Further, it is also beyond my understanding what the North Korean dictator hopes to accomplish with what I believe to be totally irrational behavior: he is verbally threatening the militarily most powerful nation in the world with a few nuclear weapons in his arsenal. He should know that the US can vaporize his entire country with just one MIRV missile launched from just one of our many nuclear subs.


                  Either Kim is crazy or I am crazy.


                  JE comments:  I wonder what kind of advisers, if any, Lil' Kim listens to.  The North's actions are pure evil, but madness, too?  We could build an analogy with the schoolkid acting out in class.  Kim knows that with his nukes, the West will pay attention when they otherwise would not, and maybe throw in some concessions to prevent the destruction of Seoul, Tokyo, and perhaps San Francisco.  There's a cruel logic to all this.

                  Please login/register to reply or comment:

                  • Psychology of the North Korea Standoff; from Gary Moore (John Eipper, USA 08/09/17 4:50 PM)

                    Gary Moore writes:



                    Re: the debate between Tor Guimaraes and Timothy Brown on North Korea,
                    with JE adding that Latin America shows US aggression can be wrong:
                    It's true that even General Grant later said we should never have launched
                    the confiscatory 1846 war on Mexico, and 1898 in Cuba was classic war fever,
                    though subsequent notorious interventions like Nicaragua were embroiled in
                    such local chaos that they are arguable.


                    But unfortunately on North Korea
                    there's a larger point of psychology: In the history of mass violence one
                    of the major mysteries is the tendency of far-outnumbered but emotionally
                    driven belligerents to suicidally and delusionally provoke their own doom--and the
                    doom of many others. There are sharper examples than the most familiar one,
                    the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Since nobody understands the grandiosity
                    x-factor in L'il Kim, or his willingness to manipulate that air of mystery, the
                    guesswork now called for is what makes policy makers turn gray. Trump has already
                    shown that his own blustering techniques can sometimes work--for example on
                    illegal immigration at the Mexican border. Both USA Today and, impressively, the
                    ferociously anti-Trump New York Times, have run stories saying that the flow of
                    indocumentados has been drastically cut--in part by increased enforcement but
                    in part by Trump's seemingly crazy rhetoric, which in this case has worked as a
                    tacit negotiating tool, scaring prospective immigrants, especially in Central America,
                    into refraining from shelling out the big smuggler fees, which they would lose if
                    they're caught.


                    Long ago on the brinksmanship front we managed to slip past
                    the Cuban Missile Crisis on a sheen of mistakes and illusions in the Kennedy ranks.
                    Do we now again face Russian roulette--or Korean roulette?


                    JE comments:  Might war be the pursuit of psychology by other means?  Regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, I have an analysis from Tim Brown in my inbox.  Be sure to sign on to WAIS early tomorrow!


                    Please login/register to reply or comment:

                    • What Kennedy Knew during Cuban Missile Crisis (Timothy Brown, USA 08/10/17 4:37 AM)
                      My apologies if Tor Guimaraes was offended. But it's the norm not exception that those who are not fully informed of the realities of history are the most fervent believers of falsehoods.



                      Two examples. Contrary to popular opinion, the Cuba missile crisis was not just about missiles. As President Kennedy knew at the time, there were nuclear warheads in Cuba that could have been quickly married to the IRBMs.  While Soviet Spesznaz had control of the warheads, had Kennedy told the American public this it could have set off an essentially uncontrollable panic among the populations of Florida and our southern states because they would have been well within their range. This became public knowledge, and has been confirmed by the Cuban government recently. Personally, I applaud Kennedy for not telling the public everything he knew.

                      When Castro thought the Soviets were going to withdraw their missiles, there were a number of reports that he tried to block their removal.



                      (An aside.  At the time of the Missile Crisis I was both a Thai and Spanish Marine Corps Intelligence-Linguist and received Flash orders to report to a unit that was deploying to Florida.  The orders were countermanded just as I was mounting by a second Flash ordering me to report to the CG of Task Force 116,"wherever he may be" that turned out to be in Thailand because the Pathet Lao were making a lunge towards Thailand simultaneously, just possibly coordinated with the Soviet effort to install IRBMs within miles of our southern mainland.)


                      Another widely believed myth is that had the United States been nicer to Castro, since at first he was not a Marxist, he would never have established a Marxist government there. Therefore it was the US's fault, not Fidel's, that Cuba became a Marxist dictatorship. That's certainly what most of those I met during my decades serving in European and Latin America countries believed. But that's precisely the opposite of what my Marxist-Leninist friends who actually knew him say. But don't just believe me. Instead, check out what is said about Fidel in my When the AK-47s Fall Silent by a handful of his close revolution-era comrades.


                      They are all, to this day, proud Marxists. But they are also all very critical of Fidel (and, for that matter, Che Guevara). Their comments are listed in its index on pages 308 and 309. Unfortunately I was not prepared when I published it to include the strongest critic of Fidel, Noel Guerrero Santiago, the secret COMINTERN agent that worked closely with Fidel, Raul and Che Guevara before, during and after the Cuban revolution. So perhaps the myth-believers would have refused to believe what he said, either.


                      JE comments:  Wouldn't a Marxist True Believer want to think that Fidel had their politics ingrained in his DNA?  Especially, because Marxism preaches the dogma of its inevitable triumph.  It's not as appealing to accept that Fidel may have sought Soviet sponsorship out of expediency or opportunism--or especially, that a Marxist system could ever be a second choice.


                      Just thinking out loud...


                      Please login/register to reply or comment:


                    • Abelard's "Sic et Non" (Enrique Torner, USA 08/10/17 6:17 AM)
                      The latest discussions on WAIS, the one on the latest North Korea/US exchanges, and the one on Ellen Horup (whom I had never heard of before) hit me hard as I found it amazing how scholarly, intelligent people like WAISers can disagree so much about a given subject, even when it's not politics.

                      During the three years (I think) I have been a member of WAIS, if I had to mention one characteristic of this Forum, it would be how contradictory opinions can be on a single subject. This reminded me of a work written in Latin by French medieval philosopher and theologian Peter Abelard (1079-1142): "Sic et Non," translated as "Yes and No." This work is considered as one of the most important medieval theological/philosophical treatises in Western civilization.


                      It is a fascinating essay about the Church Fathers that examines the many contradictions among them about all kinds of theological subjects. For each one, he offers examples of contradictory statements. Peter Abelard offers rules for reconciling these contradictions, and provides suggestions on how to deal with these disagreements.


                      Here is an excerpt from "Sic et Non" I think you will find useful as you (we all, including me) think through and write about WAIS discussions:


                      http://www.indiana.edu/~dmdhist/1120abelard.html


                      JE comments:  We should never deprive ourselves of a spirited discussion.  As Abelard argues, it's an excellent intellectual exercise.  An interesting aside is how Abelard excludes the Bible from fallibility.  Any patent absurdity in Scripture, he assures us, is the work of a sloppy copyist or translator.  Would that make him (Abelard) a Fundamentalist avant la lettre?  Or rather, weren't all medieval theologians literal readers of the Bible?  More creative exegesis came along with the Renaissance, or perhaps even spurred it.


                      We Romantics best remember Abelard as the ill-fated lover of Héloïse, whose uncle (father?) put an end to their hanky-panky by having him attacked and castrated.  Yikes.  And you thought your in-laws were mean...

                      Please login/register to reply or comment:



                  • Kim as Nero? (John Heelan, -UK 08/10/17 5:17 AM)
                    There appear to be some parallels between Kim's reign and that of Nero (AD 54-AD 68).

                    Nero murdered relatives (mother and two wives). Kim killed his uncle and his family and allegedly more recently his half-brother. Perhaps he should learn from Nero's fate, as the Roman dictator eventually lost public support from food shortages and over-taxation as well as the trust of the military.


                    In AD 68, the Gallic and Spanish legions, along with the Praetorian Guards, rose against Nero and he fled Rome. The senate declared Nero a public enemy and to avoid assassination by the military, he attempted and botched suicide on AD 9 June 68.


                    JE comments: Ah, but does Lil' Kim play the violin? (I couldn't help myself with that one.)


                    The crucial element for Kim's survival is his continued control of the world's fourth-largest military. This I assume can only be achieved by fomenting paranoia, pitting one faction against another, and a purge from time to time.


                    I found this illustration, courtesy of artist Steve Vanderhorst.


                    Please login/register to reply or comment:







        • "The Day Venezuela was Buried": 30 July 2017 (José Ignacio Soler, Venezuela 08/01/17 6:20 AM)
          July 30th 2017 was the day Venezuelan democracy was buried. The government's "Constituyente" election this Sunday was the beginning of the announced dictatorship. As Gabriel García Márquez wrote in Crónica de una muerte anunciada--chronicle of a death foretold--the death announcement for democracy is in Venezuela, which has been met with indifference and timid reactions from the democratic governments of the world.

          Not only was the process illegal and against current constitutional norms, but it was dishonest with fraudulent results.


          The "call" for a referendum was not legal because the president called for it without a previous general referendum, as required by the constitution, which most likely would have been defeated.


          The election process was irregular because there were no previous audits of the electoral system or the voter rolls. Nor was there any oversight of the results, no local or international observers, press coverage was forbidden, and there were no neutral witnesses at the polling stations or during the vote count. Moreover, the government's extortion and manipulation over public employees forced them to vote, and the hungry population was offered food in exchange for votes.


          The result claimed by the government is not credible. Very soon they claimed a participation of over 8 million. There are plenty of videos, as well as local and international witnesses, to show that this number of votes is not possible. It is a fraud, only aimed at countering the 7.6 million opposition votes in the recent June 16th non-binding rejection of the "constituyente." According to more objective sources, there were only 2 to 2.6 million votes, about 9% of the total electorate.


          In a previous WAIS post I mentioned the government's real objectives of this process, and the possible outcomes. There is nothing new to add to this: a concentration of power, dictatorship, political persecution, removal of democratic freedoms and institutions, etc. The list is as extensive as anyone might suspect.


          Today I participated in a public poll in Spain, on whether I believe Venezuela is on the path to become the new Cuba. 95% voted affirmatively.


          Now, in response to Massoud Malek´s post of July 31st. I really appreciate his ideological and historical lessons on Socialism and Communism but, frankly, I doubt the virtues and benefits of Hegel's philosophy, the Communist Manifesto or the master-slave dialectic, on even his beloved Cuban revolution. It is very tempting to sympathize romantically with all these socialist theories when you live in a free and democratic society. The price to pay is too high for having supposedly "free" education or universal health care. This price includes hunger, lack of basic freedoms, repression, and a dictatorial and criminal regime which produces a privileged and corrupt ruling class.


          JE comments:  The Venezuelan opposition called for a boycott of the referendum, and with turnout as low as 9%, they clearly got the result they sought.  The big question is, what now?  Does the opposition have a Plan B of protests, general strikes, and the like?


          Thank you for the update, José Ignacio.  Has there been a more crippling blow to democracy in the Western Hemisphere since, perhaps, the military coups of the 1970s?

          Please login/register to reply or comment:



      • Ideologically Selective Moral Indignation (Timothy Brown, USA 07/29/17 8:24 AM)
        WAISers may remember my mantra: "Ideologically selective moral indignation is profoundly immoral."

        I've dealt professionally with hundreds of officials, politicians and private citizens in more than two dozen countries over my more than fifty years of involvement in international affairs, and politely listened dozens of times to opinions like those of Massoud Malek in his posting of July 28th. If the mind of the speaker seemed open I'd dialogue with them. But when their mind was clearly closed, I'd just smile and walk away.


        That's how I was able to have in-depth and respectful dialogues with some of my former worst enemies, including the five senior-level Communist revolutionaries, who express their views in When the AK-47s Fall Silent (Hoover, 2000) and allowed me to videotape our dozens of gloves-off dialogues that form the foundation of my next book, We Were Enemies Once, and Young.


        JE comments:  If I may be the Devil's Advocate, wasn't Massoud Malek also making a point about ideologically selective moral indignation--namely, that the US sticks its nose in other countries' elections, but cries foul when it's on the receiving end of the meddling?


        On to a happier topic:  tell us how your book project is coming along, Tim!  I'm a big fan of the Brown oeuvre.


        Please login/register to reply or comment:




Trending Now



All Forums with Published Content (44633 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications

Economics

Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy

Education

Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series

History

Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust

Nations

Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire

Politics

Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 US Elections 2020 Violence War War Crimes Within the US

Religion

Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)

Travel

Geography Maps Tourism Transportation

WAIS

1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who