Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the
round pegs in the square holes... the ones who see things differently -- they're
not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify
them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change
things... they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the
crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that
they can change the world, are the ones who do.

Steve Jobs
US computer engineer & industrialist (1955 - 2011)

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Why the Saudi Purge, and Why Now?

Make no mistake, the ongoing purge in Saudi Arabia is not about corruption. If you believe that, well, leave your tooth under a pillow for the tooth fairy.The purge is about one thing, and one thing only - power. Specifically, for the power of Mohammed bin Salman. The only questions to be answered is why the power grab, and why now?

The reason why: Saudi Arabia is about to go to war with Iran. There is no doubt that Salman, or MBS as he is known, has been conducting an aggressive covert war against Iran for years now. And, when I say Iran, I mean the Shiite. It's a blood feud going back thousands of years, and both sides take it very seriously. However, until now, Saudi Arabia and Iran have been able to avoid direct war with each other by sponsoring mini-wars with client states - like Lebanon, Syria, and the like. Why is that changing now? The Saudis are losing.

Saudi Arabia's military intervention in tiny Yemen, along with its (and MBS's) staunch ally the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) has become a disaster. Not only have the Saudis failed to defeat the Houthis (Shia), but they have lost immense prestige and influence in the Arab world and elsewhere for the failure. What they have achieved is the starvation of hundreds of thousands in Yemen, vast swaps of destruction in Yemen cities, and a massive cholera epidemic affecting hundreds of thousands of Yemen's people. What they have not achieved is any decisive, or otherwise, defeat of the Houthis. Rather than withdraw from this situation, Saudi Arabia just implemented a land, air, sea blockade of the tiny country. By any standard, Saudi Arabia's action in Yemen have been not just a war crime, but a crime against humanity. Yet, you would never hear a peep about it in the western press, or in western houses of parliament.

In addition to the massive failure in Yemen, Saudi Arabia's covert war in Syria has literally blown up in its face. Depending on which organization you believe, hundreds of thousands have been killed and maimed in Syria during the last four or so years, but the result has been abstract failure. While much of Syria lays in ruins, particularly the larger cities outside Damascus, the Syrian government itself was saved by direct Russian military intervention. Saudi Arabia attempted to bribe the Russian government into staying out of Syria by promising to hold terrorists back from attacking the Sochi Olympics - at least that is what was presented in the Russian media. Having failed to convince Russia that way, the Saudis decided to conduct an oil war against Russia. Specifically, they flooded the oil market with product and then refused to freeze or cut back production bringing the price down as low as $30 US a barrel in an all-out effort to destroy Russia's resource based economy. It failed. Instead of crippling Russia financially, the Saudis blew their own legs off, consolidated the Russia-China oil relationship, and severely discredited themselves among oil producing nations.

The common theme to all of MBS's covert and overt actions has been failure. It has become quite obvious that the US and Israel, both the powers behind MBS's moves, have lost patience with the Saudi's attempts to reverse Iranian influence in the Middle East. I say "reverse" because Iran has been present in Hezbollah (Lebanon), Syria, and Yemen for years. Therefore, it's quite obvious that MBS is not responding to any "new" Iranian aggression or threat, but rather simply taking on Iran as a regional actor. In other words, MBS is the aggressor. And by relation so is the US  and Israel. There is no better evidence of that relationship than the recent meeting Jared Kushner, son-in-law of  US President Trump and well connected member of the Jewish establishment in the US, with MBS just prior to the current purge within Saudi Arabia. In case that doesn't satisfy you, then please refer to Trump's own Twitter remarks where he states MBS "knows what he's doing".

In the nutshell, MBS, with the overt backing of the US and covert backing of Israel, took almost complete reigns over the Saudi state for the purpose of going to war with Iran. MBS's statement most recent statement that Saudi Arabia was in a "state of war" with Lebanon is  just the first step. It also jives perfectly with Israel's recent bombings of Lebanon and Syria, and matches the Israeli government's position on Hezbollah to a tee. Unfortunately it smells of desperation. With the war all but lost in Syria, and quagmire in Yemen, MBS is left with one option only - go after Iran itself. There are likely a few ways such a war can play out.

Before the US invaded Iraq, a Sunni-controlled buffer existed between Saudi Arabia and Iran. As I've often said, the only real result of the US invasion of Iraq was the ability of the Iraqi people to elect their own Ayatolla. Now Iraq is dominated by Shia, and thus Iranian, influence. So, bottom-line is this, if Saudi Arabia wants to get at Iran they'll have to do it through Iraq. Iraq and Iran are now strong allies - they're fought together to liberate Iraq from ISIS, and they'll keep fighting together to do the same in Syria - namely against the Kurds. Not to put too fine a point on it, but within the last month or so MBS has made it clear a war with Iran won't be fought on Saudi soil - so there's a process of elimination there.

So if you want to know why MBS has managed to clear the decks of all distractions in Saudi, the answer is that he is going to war with Iran directly and wants complete control of the apparatus of state to do so. If you wonder why now, the answer is he intends to go to war very soon. He has the complete backing of the US, and has given his own green light to Israel taking on Hezbollah in Lebanon - likely simultaneously. No question all of this smells like "Plan B", but we can all see what has happened to "Plan A".

What is key in all of this to remember is what aims all this serves. The world-wide economy is in a state of stagnation - essentially. Central banks have failed to create any real inflationary pressures that might allow them to raise interest rates. Oil is similarly stuck in the post-Saudi oil warfare blues. My feeling is there is a perception among those up high that a massive war in the Middle East will cause inflation to skyrocket world-wide. Saudi would theoretically benefit from a huge price increase in oil - as would the US. Russia's southern border, visa-via an Iranian defeat, would be massively exposed which of course is a major win for the US. Which brings me to a final point-Saudi's partial privatization of its huge state owned oil firm. Does MBS really want to stir Saudi Arabia on a post-oil course and diversify its economy? Or, is he raising a war chest to fight a to-the-death war with Iran? My bet is the latter. A full on war with Iran will likely triple the price of oil, so the Saudis will still get their much loved money, but they need cash to fight a big war, and their failed oil war has left them near a recession. Is it any wonder Trump encouraged Saudi Arabia via Twitter to conduct that initial offering on the New York Stock Exchange - hours before the purges started?

Monday, October 9, 2017

The Bitcoin Mirage

Let's be honest with each other here, Bitcoin is more of a home science experiment gone amok than a legitimate form of currency. In fact, Bitcoin far more resembles a classic Ponzi scheme than it does a currency, or a monetary system. It was created by a phantom figure known as Satoshi Nakamoto, whose identity has never been confirmed. The Japanese translation of his name roughly equates to "Central Source Wisdom (or Reason) in Japanese.

The basics of Bitcoin resemble a version of a video game you might play from your PlayStation. To enter you must get a "wallet". To create wealth you must "mine" Bitcoin. The mining process was easier at the beginning of the Bitcoin system - known as the "Genesis Block". However, the Bitcoin program was designed to make mining more and more difficult as more and more people joined the process. It has become so difficult that many groups of Bitcoin 'miners" have joined together in pools to share rewards, rather than strike out on their own and have nothing to show for it after months of work. Hence, the Ponzi scheme nature of Bitcoin. Easy money early, but as the pyramid grows the easy money gets to be less and less. Imagine yourself playing a simple video game that has you set up mines here and there, and transporting the "product" back to your fort. As your product grows you can cash it in for stronger fort walls, better soldiers, etc. You get the idea. Essentially, this rather basic concept is the Bitcoin concept.

Beyond the video gaming and Ponzi nature of Bitcoin, there are numerous, serious fundamental flaws in the concept. Firstly, and most importantly, Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. In other words, it is not regulated by anything other than a computer program - essentially. There is no governmental control. There is no central authority like a central bank. In this sense, Bitcoin is almost an anarchy currency - with the important exception that every single transaction of Bitcoin is recorded. Fundamentally any currency, whether gold, salt or paper currency, has as its primary objective to regulate the consumption of resources by people. Given that currency regulates consumption by citizens, and citizens belong to nations, and nations control territory, and territory produces resources, it has always been the case that nations have there own currency - or in the case of the European Union a supra-national currency. The one constant feature is these nations, and even the EU, have governments responsible to their citizens for policy, including the regulation of resource consumption. What Bitcoin attempts to do is take away the regulation of consumption from the state, including the responsibility for that regulation, and hand it over to a computer program that is not responsible for its decisions to anyone. A truly bizarre state of affairs for the human race - one which you might have seen in a sci-fi movie from time to time.

The most dangerous concept of Bitcoin is that it is not rooted in value, but rather transactions. In the Bitcoin world, transactions create value. Essentially, it has no intrinsic value. By contrast, gold is a commodity that is very limited in quantity, is physical, and is almost indestructible. What Bitcoin does is actually emphasize the basic fundamentals of our current financial state. The world now runs on debt rather than value. In this way it regulates how much each person consumes. For example, if you want to purchase a boat, but do not have the necessary cash to do so, you must have enough debt room to borrow to purchase that boat. More often than not, in todays world, you have very little physical wealth to back that loan. However, allowing you to buy that boat now, as opposed to when you have enough dollars to do so, allows companies to keep selling, growing, and so on. Bitcoin takes that a step further. Instead of having debt that is measured in dollars, which have now lost most of their value due to unsupported borrowing, a new Bitcoin system will not require any physical constraint to consumption.

Bitcoin represents a new generation of irresponsible economics, designed primarily to serve the individual rather than the collective society. Its inevitable result is the stripping of social constraints on consumption. For instance, medicare may be paid by taxes in one country, but another country may require private payment for the same services. In a Bitcoin world the transactions for such services would be between the doctor and the patient, leaving no room for societal values. In this sense, Bitcoin represents an extreme Libertarian view of the world. After all, if you take Bitcoin at face value, and take it to its logical conclusion, a Bitcoin world would be dominated solely by Bitcoin transactions - the world currency. If this isn't the case why does Bitcoin exist? It's the old "half-pregnant" argument. There is either a recognized crypto currency in the world or there isn't. If there is such an instrument, then the world recognizes that this currency based on a computer program is legitimate. If that is legitimate, then the current currency model must no longer be legitimate. There cannot be two simultaneous currencies in the world - one which is controlled by central banks and one which is not.

Our financial system is, at the moment, is unsupported and unsustainable. It is based on nothing other than debt. China, Russia and a few other countries are trying to reign in consumption of resources by tying the value of currencies to something meaningful and measurable - gold. China has basically banned Bitcoin operations in its country, and that is a wise move from one of the wisest societies on earth. Instead, it is implementing discipline by implementing a gold standard to measure its currency by. Russia is moving in the same direction. Personally, I see the Bitcoin movement as an attempt to circumvent the direction China and Russia have been moving in. It's simply a very poorly veiled attempt to convert the American dollar as the world's main reserve currency to Bitcoin. By doing so the Americans hope to halt the reestablishment of the gold standard which, if implemented on a world-wide basis, would render the US dollar almost worthless and see the Chinese currency become the world's leading reserve currency. No doubt the Chinese see this themselves as they banned Bitcoin.

The current price for a single bitcoin is $6,025.06 or about four times the price of an ounce of gold. All the gold mined in the world, since recorded history at least, could fill three Olympic sized swimming pools. So what makes Bitcoin so much more valuable than one of the least available commodities in the world? The answer is nothing. It's sheer speculation by the same folks that normally run up the stock market. In fact, they are attempting to create a market where one isn't needed. The reason: greed. It's like a new gold rush. Except it isn't gold. It isn't anything but a play on a simple video game that rewards those in early, and leaves the last arrivals holding the bag. Do yourself a big favour, see Bitcoin for what it is - a mirage.

Monday, October 2, 2017

Dear Premier Ball

Dear Premier Ball,

I know it's been awhile, and I know I've sworn off writing about Newfoundland and Labrador politics, but some things just can't be left unsaid. I've watched you now for almost two years, and am constantly amazed at how you let the issues that arise beat the bejezuz out of you before you act. Maybe it's the advice your getting (it's bad advice). Maybe it's you being bull headed (I hear you don't like dissent, but who knows). Perhaps it's a sadomasochistic enjoyment of being pummeled before cluing in (I doubt it, but who knows). Bottom line is this Dwight, when you drag your feet on obvious decisions those back biters in your party love it cause it makes you look like a weak leader, and the PCs who caused the problems in the first place love it cause you begin to wear their dirty clothes. Here's how you can turn that all around.

The Muskrat Falls nightmare. Yes, it's a doozy. One of those damned if you do and damned if you don't, cause you wanted political office too badly and now you have to live it, quagmires. The way out is like this: don't put off an obvious political decision until it looks like you're hiding something to cover your own arse. It's called political foresight. If you don't have it, and none of the people around you have it, do yourself a favour and find someone that does. When it comes to the Muskrat Falls inquiry, I've taken it upon myself to give you a free-bee.

First off, it has to be seen as beyond reproach. That's a pretty tough call in Newfoundland - as one very senior judge in Newfoundland once said to me: "If nothing else Mr. Cabana, you have managed to expose ... I'm not sure if this is the right word ... the incestuous relationship between the court and the legal profession here." When every law firm has a finger in the political pie, it is very difficult if not impossible to get a judge to preside over this inquiry that is beyond fairly easy scrutiny. Here's my suggestion: if not a judge from out of province, then try retired Justice Orsborne. He took on Danny Williams over the naming of the court house in Corner Brook so I think you would have a winner there.

Secondly, the terms of reference. It's not much good to have a great judge and then tie his hands with a restrictive terms of reference. Besides, the finger will be immediately pointed at you for trying to sabotage the inquiry before it even starts. To be honest Dwight, having the "departments" craft the terms of reference is a really bad start. The departments have a vested interest in covering their own butts in any inquiry, and you know they were up to their necks in it. Kinda like asking the thief to judge himself. You have to avoid stuff like that. What you need to do here is use your common sense. Muskrat Falls was a "political issue" from day one, and not a "departmental issue". If you want to get at the truth, and you aren't trying to white wash the deal for say a friend, like I don't know, say Brian Tobin, who is a friend of say Danny Williams, then you have an open terms of reference: The legislation that ran up to it; the awarding of contracts; the sale of the former Premier's assets to companies that won the major bids; etc, etc.

While you are at it Dwight, but only if you want to try and calm the waters, you might want to include the government and Nalcor's treatment of dissidents of the project. After all, Liberals are big champions of the Charter, right? Showing that the government is concerned about citizens being silenced and character assassinated by their own government might win you some points amongst the "Known Critics", and hey, they may not be attacking you and your inquiry every five minutes. A degree of bipartisan support never hurts. Being a statesman is never a disqualification for leadership, and hey, you and I both know some Liberals are sharpening their knives in the shadows. So do yourself a monumental favour, and make this an important part of the inquiry. After all, if a province has healthy dissent its leadership is less likely to pull bone head moves, like, say, Muskrat Falls.

Just an aside Dwight. On the whole forensic audit thing. You might as well announce that too. Just like Scrooge's ghosts, not green lighting this is gonna bury the inquiry, you, and the Liberals. You don't want that right?

Oh ya, one last thing. If you fail to take this free-bee advice, your inquiry is going to blow up into the nightmare your mother warned you about. Imagine it now: the social media, and especially us bloggers, are going to crucify you and the party for covering up for your buddies; radio shows will be giving you a throbbing head ache; and even the press will more than likely join the band wagon. They're all looking for blood - yours, Danny's - you get the idea. Do yourself a favour, Dwight, stop listening to whoever it is that's giving you the shitty advice, probably helping you out the door for their buddies, and do the sensible thing. You can't be faulted for the sensible thing. Come what may.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Dangerous Diplomacy in Syria

When does diplomacy become dangerous? The answer: when it is not sincere. Now that may sound a tad naïve, but give me a moment of your time to explain. The purpose of diplomacy is to allow nations to settle differences through talk rather than war. It can work, and it can fail miserably. The most often cited case of diplomacy failing is the now infamous peace plan brokered by British Prime Minister Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler just prior to the outbreak of World War Two, and Chamberlain's famous words "Peace in our time". More often than not diplomacy solves small issues between nations, while the more serious, or strategic issues generally have ended in military action.

In todays world we have all kinds of "diplomacy" happening every day, and all day long, but we also have wars raging during the same period. In fact, diplomacy has been reduced to acts of one-up-man-ship for some theoretical "moral high ground" rather than its intended purpose of resolving disputes. The peril that results from this kind of behaviour leaves mankind with no real dispute mechanism other than war, or the "Law of the Jungle" - might is right and the end justifies the means.

Just recently I had the unfortunate privilege of watching the Israeli military Chief of Staff give a brief interview regarding a possible Kurdish state being formed from the countries of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. Although that push to create a Kurdish state from these countries is not news, his particular delight in the idea, and his "too cute for words" pronouncement that Israel wouldn't be opposed to such a development, as he smiled into the camera, was in a word shocking. It wasn't shocking because he believed in the idea, but rather it was shocking because he showed no respect for the territorial integrity of the three nations already at war for their survival. In other words, while Israel sits somewhat quietly on the sides of these conflicts, feigning if you will diplomacy, in reality Israel isn't uninvolved or sincere.

Similarly, while the United States sits at one UN Security Council meeting after another, in many cases over Syria, and attempts to diplomatically pressure the Syrian government and its allies, one of its senior Generals recently pronounced that the Syrian army and its allies would not be permitted to cross the Euphrates River to enter Eastern Syria. Take a moment and consider that General's pronouncement. The Syrian army would not be permitted to enter the eastern half of its own country... Where in the rules of international law could this statement be rooted? The idea that a sovereign power cannot exercise sovereignty over its own territory is an affront to the very foundation of nationhood. An exception to this rule can me made in cases of genocide, such as Rwanda, but that is clearly not the case in Syria.

In fact, with the establishment of at least two US airbases in eastern Syria, and according to the Turkish government at least ten US bases of all types in the same area, it is clear that the American government is occupying eastern Syria in order to reinforce the Kurdish annexation of that area in order to establish a Kurdish state. The impending independence vote of the Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq, an area also heavily aligned with the US government, reinforces the notion. Yet, and here comes the dangerous diplomacy, the Americans continue to posture internationally that they want a peaceful settlement of the Syrian civil war.

The question then becomes, obviously, how sincere are the US diplomatic pronouncements about peace in Syria? The answer quite clearly is they are not serious what-so-ever. That leads to a greater problem: if the US is not serious about its diplomacy in Syria, then is it serious in its diplomacy toward Iran, North Korea, or even Russia and China? Should these countries take American diplomacy seriously at all, or should they rely on military means to resolve their inevitable national clashes of interests? Therein lies the danger of diplomacy without sincerity, and diplomacy that ignores its fundamental foundation which is international law. How nations must act toward other nations.

Real diplomacy has resolved some of the world's most anxious moments. The Cuban missile crisis comes to mind. There was also the fall of the Berlin Wall. These were crisis that, once resolved by diplomacy, gave nations a chance to move forward without the direct use of force. Yes, they had their origins in force, but sincerity and adherence to international law overcame the threat of war, because the nations involved sincerely did not want such a confrontation. That is missing today. On a daily basis we here one side or the other threatening nuclear war, or "limited" nuclear strikes as doable. The aim is not to restore international law, or for that matter international order. The goal quite clearly appears to be the reverse - "strategic interests or national interests" trump (pardon the pun) the law of nations. The same type of scenario the world witnessed just before World War Two and the "peace in our time" declaration. It was not "appeasement" that didn't work in 1939, but the sincerity behind the "appeasement". The exact same conditions exist today. So, yes, dangerous diplomacy is alive and well, and ruling the hearts of men and women who lead their nations, but conveniently toss the lessons of history to the side - at all our peril.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

War With China

There are only so many coincidences in politics, and even less so in international politics. Today we stand on the precipice of  a war with China - all the coincidences point to it.


The Indian military's move into tiny Bhutan, which is located between India and China, is the latest hostile act between the two neighbors. The Indian army allegedly moved troops into the western part of Bhutan at the request of Bhutan's government in order to halt Chinese road construction on what it considers to be its sovereign territory. Each side has its own view of who's territory or claim is the truest, but the bottom line is China now has a mounting, perhaps imminent conflict on its southern border with India. As the Indian deployment in Bhutan remains ongoing, both sides have assembled forces on the border waiting to engage each other should the need rise.

The South China Sea

China's claim to the South China Sea has caused rifts with its neighbors - many of them in fact. From a purely legal point of view, China's claims to the Sea are out of whack with international law which delineates maritime boundaries between nations. The only possible way China can legitimately claim the South China Sea is to prove its has been a part of China. However, putting the legitimacy of the claim aside for the moment, let's take into account what is happening "on the ground" there. The United States navy has been conducting "freedom of navigation" drills, one tiny frigate at a time, in the Sea for months now - three since Trump became president of the US. In addition, the US has mounted aerial challenges to China's claim with mainly electronic surveillance aircraft. These challenges have been met with intercepting Chinese jet fighters. The naval challenges have not been met on the seas to any extent.


Taiwan has been a thorn in the side of China since anti-communist forces retreated to the island after the Chinese civil war. The US, in order to keep the peace presumably, has respected the "one China" policy that views Taiwan as essentially a part of China. However, that has not stopped the US from selling massive amounts of arms to Taiwan, and formally guaranteeing Taiwan's independence from China - essentially a country to country defence treaty. That policy hasn't changed under Trump. Instead, the Trump administration caused a furor when it suggested it may not recognize the long standing "one China" policy. It quickly changed its mind when China became enraged with the suggestion. However, the US did continue to sign multi-billion arms deals with Taiwan for the latest in military hardware.

North Korea

By far the most pressing issue between the two super powers is that of North Korea. Having been levelled by the US air force during the Korean War of the 1950's, North Korea seems completely unprepared to surrender its nuclear weapons, and/or nuclear program. It claims self-defence, and views the massive military exercises between the US and South Korea as evidence of an ongoing hostility toward it. And on it goes. What has been completely lost in this whole conflict, at least in the mass media and therefore with most of the general public, is that China and North Korea have a "NATO-like" defence treaty known as the Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty. The treaty was signed in 1961, renews every 20 years automatically, and Article 2 requires each side to come to the defence of the other in case attacked by an enemy or coalition of enemies. In other words, war with North Korea means war with China.

Now, there can be no doubt that the US government is fully aware of China's obligations to North Korea, yet the US is dramatically escalating the conflict with North Korea. US President Trump has even gone so far as to threaten North Korea with "fire and fury the world has never seen". What the US government is conveniently leaving out of its pronouncements is that, should it attack North Korea, it will immediately be at war with China. That's a revelation that may well alter any war licence the American people might grant their politicians. After all, it is questionable whether North Korea poses a serious threat to the existence of the US, but there is no question that China could end that existence via nuclear war - at least there shouldn't be.

Connecting the Dots

The pressure being placed on China at multiple fronts is very similar to the pressure being placed on Russia at multiple fronts. One similarity is these areas of conflicts are on China's and Russia's borders for the most part - with the exception of Syria. Just this week the top US military types were claiming "thousands would die", but those thousands would be in North Korea and not the United States. So, it seems safe to say, that the deliberate US strategy is to engage China and Russia, in an aggressive fashion, on those countries borders. A second similarity is the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems by the US on both Chinese and Russian borders. In the case of China, the THADD system set up in South Korea to nominally defend it against ballistic missile attack from North Korea. In the case of Russia, the construction of a "missile shield" in former Soviet bloc countries to thwart potential Iranian missiles. These deployments, however, clearly effect the ground based retaliatory measures either China or Russia could take in the event of a nuclear war - back to the whole only so many coincidences thing.

Just in case you believe all these geopolitical moves have a single thing to do with "saving the world for democracy" or "fighting rouge regimes", pause, take a deep breath, and think. China is eclipsing the US as the dominant world power - a movement that has been happening slowly but surely since the early 1990's. China and Russia are in the midst of building their own world economy - Eurasia, BRICS, and the Silk Road - and this is perceived by the US as a direct threat to its "place in the world". To emphasize the point, in response to this weeks US sanctions against Russia, Russian President Putin announced his country would be dramatically ramping up its "settlement of trades" aim. Essentially, dropping the US currency as the means for trading internationally. China will likely not be far behind. The plain, obvious and simple truth is the move toward wars with China and Russia is all about business. Not the kind of business you often hear about with accusations of the "military industrial complex" looking to make more arms sales. No, not that. It's the war for economic supremacy, or better put the war to maintain economic supremacy. That's all this is about. Don't wrap yourself in a flag over it. If you have to wrap yourself in anything pick a dollar.

My final thought on the machinations happening around the world right now is this: God must be very disappointed in his creation at this time.  

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Is the US a World Dictator?

Is the United States a world dictator? It's a question I've been wrestling with for some time. Being situated next door to the US, but as a separate country, Canadians get a fairly unique view on the matter. We aren't encumbered, or most of us are not, with wrapping ourselves in an American flag. In fact most Canadians are only quite happy to distinguish themselves from our American cousins to the south. Our foreign policy has typically been based on international law. For example we refused to take part in bombing Syria as we were not invited to do so by the Syrian government or the UN. We refused to take part in the invasion of Iraq for the same reasons. However, under our last Prime Minister, Harper, and apparently under our new Prime Minister, that has somewhat changed. My country has become far more vassal-like which is disturbing and upsetting.

Simply put, the United States has been subjecting the rest of the world to its economic and military will since that cement wall came down in Germany. Slowly at first, but since Bush it has been a dam burst. The US has attacked, militarily and especially financially, countries counter to any semblance of international law. It has become readily apparent that the US considers international law whatever it deems it to be - in other words international law is American law. Nations are defined primarily on their ability to assert their own law within their borders. If a country can't do that it loses sovereignty over areas of its country, and it quickly devolves into a state without borders or control - a failed or non-state.

Some examples of very disturbing, unilateral American actions include: unilateral withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile defence treaty with Russia; the imposing of economic sanctions against individuals and countries at will; the promotion of escalating tensions by accepting new NATO members of nations that border Russia; encouraging "regime" change in sovereign countries like Venezuela; needlessly provoking conflicts with China, Iran, and North Korea; unilaterally leaving trade agreements like NAFTA or environmental agreements like the Paris Accord; and the list goes on. All these instances have one thing in common though - belligerence. The US government is strutting about the world like a drunk man in a bar, taking swings and pushing people in a desperate quest for a fight.

I realize this sounds harsh, but how else can you credibly describe it? Let's take a moment. When is the last time North Korea, Iran or Venezuela militarily attacked another country - let alone the US? When is the last time Russia, as Russia, invaded another country - let alone the US? How about China? India just invaded a southern part of China which the two sides claim. China has held back from attacking India even though a part of its country has been occupied. That is restraint. What are the odds that the US was behind the scenes on this one? They have a "interest" in dividing the two Eurasian and BRICS partners. That will come out in due time no doubt. The bottom line is the US has not been seriously threatened by any of these countries. Even the US Generals I've listed to have stated North Korea's threats of retaliation (note "retaliation") are not serious given their vast superiority in fire power. So why the aggressive US stance in the world?

Frankly, the US's problems are not military, but rather financial. Russia, China, and Iran are now trading in their own currencies. In short order those trades will be backed by gold bullion - including trades in oil. As these vast markets trade in their own currencies, and/or gold bullion, the US petro dollar, established by Nixon with Saudi Arabia in the 1970's, will be undermined - thus undermining its position as the world reserve currency. In other words, it will no longer be needed in the fastest growing and most important markets in the world. As its demand falters so goes its value, and US dominance at home and abroad. That is really what you are witnessing play out on the world stage right now. It's a very big game of chess to try and preserve the "American century". The goals are quite obvious: alienate Iran from Iraq; alienate Syria from Iran; alienate India from China; alienate Russia from Europe; and eventually alienate China from all the above. A divide and conquer strategy, by any means, to; stop the Eurasian economic block from forming. If the Eurasian block, or the "Silk Road" as China terms it, does not successfully form the threat to the US dollar from gold backed currencies is removed.

The biggest question in the room is this: do the ends justify the means? Or, what does it benefit a man to win the world, but lose his soul? That's a question a lot of American should be asking themselves. What if the US wins? We have a world subjugated into virtual economic dictatorship by the US houses of Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency? Isn't the United States supposed to be the country that was founded on freedom and liberty when it rebelled against... wait fir it ... the dictatorship of the English Crown? Isn't freedom the most defining value most Americans associate with their nationality? Yet, those very same people are prepared to see the rest of the people on this earth denied that same freedom in the name of "American national interest"? That very notion sticks in the back of the throat as a stone too large to swallow.

Yes, the US government is acting as though it were a world dictator. Of that nobody can have any serious doubt. It does so without the concern over the impact it may have on the other nations and their people. It does so without the implied or express consent of those people. It meats out sanctions and military action against nations without regard to the suffering of others. In essence it has become the bully of the world. If you believe that we reap what we sow, then the US may well be in for a rocky road in the near future. Just like those early American patriots that rebelled against an oppressive King, nations capable of fighting back against the thwarting of their sovereign rights will do so. Unfortunately for us all, the result can only be a devastating world war that leaves no part of the earth untouched.

Saturday, July 29, 2017

One World Government or We the People

Let's call one world government what it is: Corporate World Government - primarily American Corporate World Government. Now most of us in the world do not have a problem with business, or labour, or profit, etc. We understand that the world only has so many resources, and those resources have to be rationed in a responsible way amongst those of us existing on the planet at any given time. Without those controls, which are supposed to be in the form of national currencies, we would quickly consume what the world could offer and be left without resources for the basics of life. So all that is a given.

However, the key question is what form should the controls placed against us take, and who should be responsible for that control. Whether it be trade, barter, or purchases, we have come to accept that we must contribute in order to receive. The exception to that is welfare policy that is meant to give those unable to contribute a subsistence living, but no more than that. It doesn't seem that the give to get policy in human affairs is in danger. What is in the process of attempting to unfold itself is the "who controls it" part.

You can call them the Rockefellers, the Bilderberg's, the Bankers - they're all the same lot. Through various bodies and mechanisms over decades they have not just influenced governments, but also decided who will participate in governing, what they will implement, and so on. In fact, one only needs to watch the news every night and see the decisions made by our political parties, to realize that those parties are making decisions that clearly benefit other people at the expense of those they are meant to represent. Today that realization, and the revolt against it, can be seen from Greece to the United States, and everywhere in between.

The problem this "group" faces is the innate desire of human beings to be free. Freedom is simply an impediment that needs overcoming to them. Give them credit though, they've been hard at work changing all that. There's the "war on terror" for example. One of the most tried and true ways of getting people to surrender their freedom is to scare the hell out of them. How many times do you think you've seen the World Trade Centre crashed into by planes, and fall into a great heap? Probably thousands of times. It's meant to bend your perspective, to sacrifice your freedom for the "greater good" of security. The simple truth is far more people are killed by drunk drivers on   North American freeways than by any crazed terrorists running around creating mayhem, and interrupting your daily visit to Walmart.

Climate change is another big one. Yes the earth is heating up, but let's face it, the earth was heating up well before the advent of the automobile. In fact the earth would have to have been much hotter than it is today at one point, because if it wasn't we would still have three mile thick ice surrounding the entire planet. That's just common sense. Man made activity is adding to global heating, but it's a trend that cannot be stopped by man. The earth is it's own organism. It expands an it contracts due to forces well above the paid grade of man. The expansion, the resulting earthquakes and volcanoes, and the subsequent clouding of the atmosphere will put earth into another ice age regardless of what we do or don't do. That's the real "inconvenient truth". It's been going on for hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of years. However, it's great licence for the above mentioned groups to require national governments to lose further control of governing for the sake of humanity - or earth.

These are what I like to call "motherhood strategies". The first characteristic of a motherhood strategy is that it cannot be defined. In other words, it is without end. The war on terror cannot end, because the definition of terrorism continues to grow to the point that any country who stands against the desired outcome of the groups previously mentioned is classified as a "regime". Now that "regime" has more than likely been elected by its citizens, and that "regime's" leader was likely elected with a greater voter turnout and a higher percentage of vote than your local Western government, but don't bog me down with details - it's a regime cause we say it is. But it doesn't end there. The "regime" has little other regimes as friends and they also sponsor, you guessed it, "terrorism". And so it goes, and so it goes. The wheel never stops, and neither do the wars, and therefore the necessity to sacrifice "freedom for security". Ditto for climate change. It never stops till the place is iced over again.

The second characteristic of "motherhood strategies" is their unassailable truth. You can't argue against a "war on terror", because then you would be arguing to let the terrorists take over the whole place. In effect, you'd be aiding them in their quest, and so it goes. Nobody can argue terrorism is a good thing, so nobody can argue that a war on it isn't a good thing. An unassailable truth. Ditto for climate change. It doesn't seem to matter that climate change is part of the natural evolution of the earth, coming and going as the earth regulates itself. No, the human species must not add to that which is already occurring, otherwise it will be disaster. Well, strangely enough, that "disaster" is coming whether we all ride bikes and hug trees. Sure we can take steps to make ourselves feel, as my wife would say, "warm and fuzzy" about ourselves, but is that justification for global treaties that tie the hands of national governments? Again, you can't ague that either another ice age or a melt down is a good thing, so it's an "unassailable truth".

The third characteristic of "motherhood strategies" is they require sacrifice of sovereignty and therefore freedom. If you consider that a nation is but a summation of its people, and if you consider that those people granted their government the right to govern them within certain parameters (ie: a Constitution), then you must agree that those people's freedom can only be taken away to the extent, and in the fashion, prescribed by their national Constitution. The one world folks portray these constitutional restraints as archaic. Boulders in the way of progress. Small mindedness in the greater scheme of things. If a measure, like a war on terror or a war on climate change, contains the necessity to sacrifice your constitutional rights for world "necessities" then it is a motherhood strategy. After all, you must be a very selfish person if you don't want to surrender your right to privacy, etc for the betterment of all right?

As international trade agreements, climate agreements, and even military alliance agreements continuously expand their ever encroaching shadows over our world, we must really take a moment and ask ourselves: "Who does this benefit?" The answer to that is very, very clear - multi-national corporations. It's gone beyond the point of obvious to the realm of certain. Ask yourself this question: Does my government make decisions that make me believe they're dancing to another's tune? Then ask yourself this very important question: Why? As our earth divides daily between the forces of Eurasia and the Western world, and the separate visions they reflect, we need to decide as people whether or not corporations are worth losing our world for. Do they reflect our values as our Constitutions are meant to? Do they guard our rights and freedoms as our Constitutions are meant to? Do they mean anything at all to us?       

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Omar Khadr is not a Terrorist

Omar Khadr was not a terrorist then, and isn't one now. He was never a terrorist. Yes, I get that might leave some frothing, but the truth needs to be spoken.

At the age of ten Khadr was taken, along with other male family members, by his father to live in a Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Then 911 happened. At the time the Taliban ruled most of Afghanistan, with a small faction known as the "Northern Alliance" fighting a losing battle with them for that control. Post 911 the US government demanded the Taliban government of Afghanistan, yes I said "government of Afghanistan" because that is what they were in 2001, hand over 911 mastermind Osama Bin Laden to them. The Afghan government refused on the traditional Islamic grounds that he was an "invited guest" in their country, and they were therefor obligated not to hand him over. At least that's what they said.

Bottom line is that didn't wash with the US and a small coalition of countries, and under a UN mandate they went to war with Afghanistan. It was a war. Not a policing action. Not an anti-terrorist operation. So let's agree on that point, because it is important. The United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and others went to war with the ruling power in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, US President George Bush, and many US politicians, claimed that if you supported the terrorists you were in fact a terrorist yourself. That was pretty convenient for the US government as they then treated Taliban (then the Afghan Armed Forces) as enemy combatants, or more accurately "unlawful combatants".

In reality, the captured Taliban forces in Afghanistan were really prisoners of war. By skirting the use of the proper term "prisoner of war", and by housing these people in Cuba, the US was able to skirt international and for that matter their domestic law. That allowed the US to, as former US President Obama said: "we tortured a few folks." Bush and company referred to it as "enhanced interrogation".

On July 27, 2002, Omar Khadr was involved in a battle against US Delta force soldiers. A battle for his life. One small battle, or more accurately "fire fight" in the midst of a far larger war. He was severely injured with two massive bullet exit wounds to his chest, and a lost eye - among other injuries. In the midst of the chaos he is alleged to have thrown a grenade that killed a US medic, and cost another US serviceman an eye. For this act he was charged with a war crime. But was it a war crime? Battle is chaos no matter what you might think. The old saying that the plan only lasts as long as the first contact with the enemy holds true. In order for this act to be considered a war crime he would have to be deliberately attempting to kill a marked medic. In any case, whether he did or didn't commit a war crime is not the issue here.

The issue here is whether he is a "terrorist" or a "prisoner of war". Certainly the US medic who saved his life on that day did not consider him as a terrorist:

"This is a human life. This is war. This is something that most people can't fathom, and they want to be real quick to give an opinion just because it makes them feel good about themselves ... but there's more to this story than just talking points."

The Canadian Press story then goes on to summarize Donnie Bumanglag's take on the circumstances:

"At the time, he is clear that Speer and Morris were grown men who had signed on the line to become elite professional soldiers, knowing the risks of their jobs. On the other hand, Bumanglag also makes it clear he empathizes with the young Canadian who was taken by his father to another country and thrown into an ideologically motivated war over which he had no control."

You can't put it any more truthfully, or correctly then that. You can read Donnie Bumanglag, the medic who saved Khadr's life, here . I highly recommend it. As a retired infantry soldier/officer, I admire Bumanlang's professionalism for calling it as it was. Strip away the whole political spin job of if you're not with us you are a terrorist - as Bush put it. Understand that professional soldiers are volunteers. I was one myself. You sign up. You know your health and life are at risk. You know when you go into combat that it is war. You know that an enemy that surrenders is a prisoner of war, and entitled to Geneva Convention protection - just as we would expect for our own. It is only the opportunistic, and morally bankrupt political class, that have in turn influenced some of the same in the military class, to see a bogey man when in fact you ought to see a prisoner of war.

Bottom line is this, Khadr did not, to the best of my knowledge: massacre civilians; hijack an aircraft; kill athletes at an Olympics; or any other normally terrorist associated acts. How pathetic, and insecure in ourselves do we have to be to label other people as terrorist because they fight on the battlefield for what they believe? Is that what we have become in Canada? Simple minded, unquestioning, and brain washed by US propaganda used to justify breaking international law in the treatment of prisoners? Has our collective soul become that poisoned? It sure seems that way.

The polls show a majority were against the actions of our Prime Minister when he did the right thing by upholding values we as Canadians have always upheld - until we became brain washed that is. Now the Conservatives are going to the US to try and humiliate our government to score political points. That is just too morally corrupt to even speak about. It's as if we can't enforce our own Constitution, because it might upset the US government's sense of moral superiority. That's what it boils down to. You're either with us or against us. Your national values are of no consideration. All options are on the table. There is no right or wrong way. Just our way. This is a war on terror, and we define terrorists as those that oppose us. In case you haven't noticed, every other tin pot country in the world began labelling opponents to them as "terrorists". It's the new catch all phrase. Every time it is used it loses its original meaning - those that terrorize. Was a 15 year old kid, facing a US Delta Force unit in a fire fight, being a terrorist? Or was he more likely a child soldier scared shitless? Common sense should tell you that he wasn't "terrorizing" anyone at all, and in fact he was likely the only one "terrorized" in that firefight.

Whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not, there is no question that Omar Khadr was never a terrorist. He was a child soldier at best. He fought in self-defence against one of the most elite special forces units (Delta Force). A mismatch if there ever was one. You could say he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. You could say he was brain washed by his father, and 5 years in Taliban Afghanistan. You could say he fought in self-defence for his life. One thing you cannot say with any credibility at all is this 15 year old kid, as he was then, was a terrorist. To say otherwise is to make comment on your own conditioned reasoning.

Omar Khadr as a 15 year old "terrorist"

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Are we being de-humanized?

Take a moment and have a good long look at our world today - specifically our scientific world. I've found myself doing that quite frequently as of late. We appear to be on the verge of a new technological revolution that is the modern day equivalent of the personal computer revolution of prior decades. Almost suddenly, artificial intelligence has sprung upon us in a great wave of media hype. Self-driving cars, robots (yes even sex robots), robotic weapons of war are all on the verge of joining such miracles of modern know how as the drones that now dot the earth doing the nasty business of killing people from a video terminal. Brave new world indeed.

These technologies all have intended consequences, but they also have many unintended consequences - at least to the normal mind. Take for instance cellular phones. Two decades ago the mobile phone, as it was known, was strictly a tool for well off business people to remain in contact while literally mobile. It's use then exploded when much cheaper versions were marketed to the public. They became popular, but it wasn't until those cellular phones became mini-computers that owning one became a must. Now every child, and every adult has one. Even the poorest populations,  the least able to afford such luxuries (like India for example) find a way to get them and become "connected". All these years later humans have gone from being "erectus" to becoming "hunched". Hunched meaning that whether walking, sitting, or even communicating people have their heads and necks bent down toward the source of their interest - the "smart" phone screen.

There is an ominous warning for all of us from the cellular revolution - we are changing. Not the sort of change that elevates the human spirit, but rather the sort of change that isolates humans one from another. That's perhaps the best way to characterize the effects of our current technological dependency - "human isolation". Take that a step further. Consider what the technological community has in store for us. Self-driving cars for instance. Why do we need self driving cars? We have all the necessary skills to drive our own cars - at least most of us. Perhaps the reasoning is us humans will have more time then to focus our attention on other tasks - like starring endlessly into our smart phones...

The real kicker though has to be the personal robotic evolution. You may have noticed that the biggest media splash on robotics has been reserved for sex robots. Last I checked there were roughly the same number of each sex in most populations, so why the need for robots to do the job? Would it free us from having to have a relationship with our significant other so that we could maintain a normal sexual relationship? Perhaps it will free us from having a relationship with another human at all. A robot for cleaning and housework. A sex robot for that need. And of course cyber space will satisfy the need to communicate and socialize. However, is it really sex to have a one way gratification with a piece of machinery? Is it really independent living when a robot feeds you and cleans up after you? Is it really freedom to travel in a vehicle that drives without you?

Some people will say yes. The more technology the more freedom. The one question these people normally have a hard time answering is: The freedom to do what? Also, freedom at what cost? We don't have to travel to see the world anymore - simply watch tv, or if that's too old fashion, get an app and watch other people do it. There's also things like Google Earth. We don't have to count money anymore, simply press a button on your smart phone and it can count and send it for you. With "artificial intelligence" you won't have to think anymore, so more time to think doesn't seem to be in the equation.

It would seem that technology, present and in the near future, really just has one definite effect on us all: we are becoming much less human. We are in fact becoming more like the machines that are sold to us as making our lives that much easier. That much less stressful. Strange then that modern life is wholly characterized by massive stress throughout the world, and whole masses of people who "just can't find the time" or are "too busy". That's an odd by product of a technological revolution meant to make our lives better isn't it? The rat race, the road rage, the violent crime, the break down of the family and marriages all signal something quite different.

The real and true effect of all this technology, soon to be compounded with much more dangerous evolutions, is the isolation of the individual person from those around him/her. That isolation takes us back to a time before humans gathered into communities from their individual caves. It takes us back to a time when we could not communicate with each other, except perhaps with grunts and groans. It turns us away from human values like compassion, empathy, love, understanding, and the like. In its place it leaves us with rationalization, efficiency, etc. We have become emotionless observers of others framing our existence as a species into the cold calculations of technological dependence. We cannot think for ourselves. We cannot act for ourselves. Unless we have a machine to assist us with it. After all, we now live in a world where we are seriously discussing the "ethical ramifications" of having sex with a machine. Need I say more.

Just as any species can eventually become extinct, mankind is no different. Perhaps it is even becoming arguable that mankind is already extinct, and a "machine-kind" has replaced him in the name of "progress". Perhaps we are now incapable of independent thought, or emotion unless we are prompted  to it by some artificial means - and by those that control those means. In that way it seems we have in a sense become the "androids" of science fiction lore. Half human. Half machine. Unable to feel real emotion, or express it, and simply created for efficiency. If we aren't there yet, then we better be very aware of the dangers these new "artificial intelligence miracles" hold for us. We can't afford, as a world, to become any less human than we already are. We can't afford to inherit the earth, but lose our souls. Our souls are what makes us different than any other species. Without that soul we can easily face the same extinction that many species before us have.

Sunday, July 9, 2017

Omar Khadr's Settlement

The case of Omar Khadr has created a lot of upset in certain circles in Canada. As a teenager, Khadr was spirited off to Afghanistan, by his father, to take up the fight against the US military in that country. Clearly brain washed, Khadr was a 15 year old left by his father to fight a grown man's war. During a fire fight with American troops he stands accused (and convicted in the US) of throwing a grenade that killed a US combat medic. He was captured barely alive and, after having sustained severe wounds, including the loss of an eye, was spirited off to an the Bagram Air base. Here he was treated for his wounds, extensively interrogated, and then extradited to the infamous Gitmo prison in Cuba. That's the gist of the story that most Canadians associate with him.

That back story is not the reason Khadr just received $10.5 million dollars from the Canadian government, along with an official apology. It has absolutely nothing to do with it at all. The reason Khadr was compensated so lavishly in an arbitration settlement by the Canadian government was not to "reward a terrorist", as some politicians and self-interested groups are putting it. Far from it. The reason he received what he got was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that the Canadian government had violated his Charter rights by using agents of CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Agency) to interrogate him in Cuba, who then passed that information to their US counterparts, which resulted in him remaining in a situation that not only violated the Geneva Convention, but also the Charter. The reason it violated the Charter was the participation of the Canadian government, against its own citizen, in a process that involved torture and suspension of any and all human rights.

This is from the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2010:

 "Canada actively participated in a process contrary to its international obligations and
contributed to K's ongoing detention as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the
person, guaranteed by section 7 of the Charter, not in accordance with the principles of     fundamental justice.... The Charter applies to the participation of the Canadian officials in a regime later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by international law....There is a sufficient connection between the government's participation in the illegal process and the deprivation of K's liberties and security of the person.

The interrogation of a youth without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogation would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth."

 I found it insightful, given the Supreme Court of Canada's finding in favour of Khadr, to view Khadr's submissions to the Court, which included a very disturbing excerpt from an interview conducted with him by CSIS agents. I place this in here to give the story some balance, and because it sheds a light on why the Supreme Court made the decision it did.

CSIS:  You look tired. Okay, so I brought you a burger. It’s very hot though. What’s
OMAR:  [indiscernible]
CSIS:  Pardon me?
OMAR:  … something that’s very important, but I’m afraid to say it.
CSIS:  Okay, take your time and could you do me a favour today while we’re talking? Just
 make sure you talk nice and loud, so I can keep that air conditioning on so we’re cool.
OMAR:  There’s something that I’m scared to say.
DFAIT:  You don’t have to be scared of anything from us.
CSIS:  What are you scared to say?
OMAR:  Promise me you’re going to protect me.
CSIS:   Why don’t you just tell us what it is you have to say?
OMAR:  Promise me you are going to protect me from the Americans.
CSIS:  From the Americans?
OMAR:  Yes.
CSIS:  Okay, what’s going on with the Americans?
OMAR:  Promise me that you are going to protect me if I tell you.
CSIS:  Well we can’t protect you if we don’t know what it is that you have to say directly.
OMAR:  Promise me you’re going to protect me if I tell you.
CSIS:  Well, the only thing I’ll promise is that I’ll listen to you, and I’ll talk to the
 Americans for you here.
OMAR:  And after you go?
CSIS:  Pardon me?
OMAR:  And after you go?
CSIS:  And after I go, then I’ll listen to what you know, then I’ll come back and talk to you
 again. Make sure everything’s alright. Tell me what’s changed from yesterday.
OMAR:   I’m scared to tell you.
CSIS:   Well, I’ll tell you, there’s not much we can do, unless I know what you’re talking
OMAR:  Everything that I said to the Americans was not right, I just said that because they
 tortured me very badly in Bagram. So I had to say what I said.

The conversation shows, quite clearly, a terrified youth. It is important to remember that.

Now the Conservative Party, and some veterans among others, have spoken out publicly against any financial settlement with Khadr - this group also includes former Prime Minister Harper. Ironically, the Supreme Court found that it was the deliberate actions of the Harper government that led directly, and profoundly to the violation of Khadr's Charter rights. It was the political decision of the then Prime Minister to align himself completely and without hesitation to the American invasion of Afghanistan and other US military foreign interventions. The attitude that prevailed was that when it came to "terrorism" there were no boundaries restraining the western powers and how they responded. The Khadr story is simply a footnote of that policy. Essentially, the Harper government's policy was the end justified the means. That was the US policy as well, which resulted in torture being used against prisoners.

Bottom line is this, the ends do not justify the means. The Charter of Rights enshrines that very view. Our governments in Canada, federal and provincial, have their hands tied by the Charter so as not to violate the freedoms and rights we as Canadians take for granted. Those rights and freedoms are so much a part of who we are as a people that any violation of them is really a violation of us - or that is how it should be treated. Unfortunately, during the ongoing wars in the Middle East, Canadians have become numb in many cases, and fail to respect that people from the areas of war are just that - people. A really good example of this was the recent "celebration" of a Canadian soldier's sniper shot that killed an insurgent in Afghanistan. I was left with the very disturbing impression that Canadians viewed this "achievement" in the same way one might view the killing of an animal in a hunt. It is a reoccurring theme that has somehow permeated our core beliefs since the start of all these Middle Eastern wars - that people from this area are somehow "inhuman" and not viewed with the same humanness as say the soccer mom down the street. The Harper government's treatment fit that billing, and the Supreme Court of Canada saw it in that light.

As Canadians we've been here before. It wasn't that long ago that all people of Japanese ancestry were herded into concentration camps for the duration of the Second world War - in Canada. It wasn't that long ago that Aboriginal people were herded into residential schools - in Canada. We are not as Lilly white and pure as we like to see ourselves. We have a history of sacrificing other peoples rights to suit our own agendas - as ugly and disturbing as that is to admit. Omar Khadr is just the latest case of the ends justify the means. The latest victim. Luckily for Khadr we now have the Charter, which we did not back in the aforementioned cases, and he had recourse. He used that recourse. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with him, and wholly condemned the federal government's actions.

Mr. Harper, and the rest of the people who believe the end justifies the means, and justice is allocated based on the colour of your skin, have been served a message by the highest court - the days of the ends justify the means are over. Nothing can be more serious for a citizen, other than death, than to have their dignity stripped from them by a government that violates the very code meant to protect them from such actions. It is the social contact of all humans across the planet - we agree to be governed by you within these limits. It's often referred to as a constitution. The federal government violated Khadr's and it paid the price for it. Not enough Canadians stood up against their government to stop it from happening, and so we will all pay that bill. No matter who you think you are, or what you think of another, you are only ever their equal, and the Charter ensures it stays that way. Thank God.    

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Russia and the US are Wrong in Syria

The United States is wrong in Syria, and the Middle East in general. Wrapping naked ambition in the cloak of national interest only serves to accentuate the gross abuse of power it wields there. There is no recognizable high ground, or moral imperative, that the US can trot out to justify its flagrant disregard for the rules of international law and state craft. It has to be said, and it must be said by people of good conscience, that the US is behaving like a barbaric, unrestrained colonial empire from the pages of our world's darkest history.

Having covertly, but obviously, supported the Islamic State in its attempt to overthrow the Assad government in Syria, the US now finds itself in the position of "Plan B". Plan B means upping its support for the Kurds to split Syria in half while green lighting Saudi Arabia and its allies into a coalition directly opposing Iran. In other words, having failed to overthrow Assad, the US is now aiming to make the new battlefield Iran itself. The newly named Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia said as much when he stated the upcoming battlefield would be in Iran and not in Saudi Arabia. In effect, the US has established Saudi Arabia as the attack dog of the Middle East.

Saudi has been very aggressive in its war of regional influence with Iran over the last year. It invaded Yemen after to counter an Iranian-friendly Houthi uprising deposed the Saudi-friendly president of the country. It led an "Arab NATO" exercise of 350,000 troops aimed directly at invading Syria. It has just recently led an economic and geographic blockade of the Iranian-friendly Qatar. On and on it goes. Essentially, the US is now employing Saudi directly in the region, which means Iran will become even more involved in the region, and so it goes. Bottom-line is this, the US is escalating the world's path to war in the Middle East like a child playing with matches in the fire works factory.

This is not a case of Iranian aggressive action against its neighbors. Nor is it the case that Russia is attempting to physically extend its influence or power in the region. The battle ground in Syria is an excellent case in point. The US and its allies were not invited by the Syrian government to militarily intervene in the conflict there. Prior to the Islamic State's armed insurrection in Syria the country was firmly in the grip of Russian and Iranian influence. That was the status quo, and has been for decades. There was no attempt by Syria to expand its influence. In fact, years before, Syria completely withdrew its military from Lebanon. In other words, there were no grounds for any country becoming involved militarily on Syrian soil.

Israel, which has up to recently been fairly prepared to remain on the sidelines while its enemies killed each other, has become more and more involved in the regional fight. Its air force has conducted numerous attacks on the Syrian army in the last year with apparent impunity. Furthermore, and in a sign of things to come, its ministers have made comments insinuating a coming invasion of Lebanon to take on Hezbollah - another Iranian ally in the region. Hezbollah has not been conducting any military assaults on Israel, but it has been an invited military ally of Assad in the current conflict.

It is a fair conclusion that prior to Russia's direct military intervention in Syria, with Iran and Hezbollah in tow, that the US, Israel, and Saudi were prepared sit back and covertly support the various Islamic militant groups that were tearing Syria apart. However, after the Russian led alliance stopped, and then reversed, theses groups battle field successes, all bets were off. It is all a matter of record now. No imputation of fact or speculation is required.

While the US has grossly abused its power and position to drive the world to the brink of war, the Russians are not without fault - just for the opposite reason. The Russians have been far too uncommitted for a country that purports to lead the bloc which seeks a multi-polar world. Russia is failing both Syria and its vision of a multi-polar world by not forcefully coming to the aid of an ally in crisis. By the way, China could also be included in that criticism. Both Russia and China have very large militaries, and both have the capacity to employ those forces far from home. Before now, well before now, the Russians should have deployed forces on a divisional level to assist in the destruction of militant groups in Syria.

Unfortunately, for regional and world stability, the Russians have decided to give Syria piece meal assistance rather than decisive support. Instead of a division or two of Russian troops rolling over the militant groups, and ending the war there swiftly and decisively, the Russians committed some air force support, but left control of the ground to Syria's army and Hezbollah. A minimal risk scenario for Russia, but not the actions of a world power intent on creating a multi-polar world. In effect, a timid response. That has left the door open to the US on the ground in Syria, and the US has taken advantage of that.

Less than a year ago there were essentially no US forces on the ground in Syria. Today the US has established at least one base, if not more, in Kurdish held Eastern Syria. Ditto for the southern border of Iraq and Syria, where the US has now established a base with missile artillery that has an effective range of 300 km. Now, instead of the Russians having to simply rid Syria of militant ground forces, they must engage American forces directly to free Syria from uninvited guests. The prospect of having to engage US forces that have invited themselves onto Syrian territory raises the spectre of a Russian-American direct conflict.

Make no mistake, the current crisis in Syria and now the Middle East in general, is as much a fault of Russian inaction as it is of US intervention. This cannot be overstated. The Americans no longer take Russian threats over Syria seriously, because Russia has failed to adequately respond to US and Israeli strikes against the Syrian armed forces. The US and Israel have been able to impose military action upon a key Russian ally with no consequences whatsoever. This is where the blame for Syria's destruction and the danger for our world meet. A habitually aggressive superpower vs a habitually over cautious superpower creates an imbalance that leads to conflict on a global scale. Russia by its lack of serious military commitment in Syria is for all intense and purposes appeasing the US, and in doing so emboldening the US to go ever further with its plans for the Middle East - and the world in general.

The only solution for the crisis of balance we face in the world is for the Russian and Chinese governments to become resolute in their responsibilities as world powers. That doesn't mean Russia and China should become overly aggressive with their militaries,  but a minimum requirement of a super power is to safeguard its weaker allies against the aggressions of another state - particularly another super power state. If Russia and China fail to take decisive action in Syria, and force the Americans out by facts on the ground, it won't be long before we will have the following wars: an Israeli invasion of Lebanon; a Saudi led war on Iran; and God knows what from there. The Russians and Chinese have a responsibility to act so this does not occur - for the world's sake. Balance in world affairs, in line with the rule of international law, must be restored to this place we call home, or the natural consequence may be that none of us have a home anymore. 

Monday, April 17, 2017

War in North Korea?

I said some time ago (years actually) that the United States is facing two choices: war with China; or surrender of its position as global financial king. Two stark choices with no grey area. Why? That answer is a little more complicated.

Since the Berlin Wall fell in the 90's the Chinese have adopted a deliberate policy to out play the Americans at their own game - capitalism. Essentially, the Chinese are mimicking the path the US took to super power status. Firstly, they became very disciplined and kept their cost of production of goods and services to the bare bone, thereby capturing the lion's share of global manufacturing trade. Secondly, they stayed out of wars. Security for China became a gradual building of their military capabilities without the expense of fighting wars in the process. Thirdly, they became a lender to nations all over the world, thus spreading their political and economic influence to the point they are indispensable. Much like the early American policies of industrialization, free trade, open seas, and non-interventionism. Now China is what the US used to be, and the US has become what the British Empire was. We all know what happened to the Empire.

China's dominant financial position globally has allowed it to lead in the development of BRICS, Eurasia, and its own version of the IMF. In other words, the Chinese, along with Russia have turned the world economic, and therefore political, order on its head. The US is now attempting to pivot. US encouragement of Britain exiting the EU is a good example. The US is  desperately trying to  create a viable trading bloc to counter Eurasia/BRICS. It is apparent that their answer is a British Commonwealth 2.0 -  ie: US, Canada, Britain, Australia, etc. In a strange little clue, former Vice-President Biden, after making his final remarks on the make election loss, whispered "God save the Queen" as he walked from a still live mike. The truth is that no combination of countries can stand up to the resources, demographics, etc of the combined Eurasia/BRICS.

The US has had some successes putting dents in BRICS though. Most notably in South America. The pro-Russian leaderships in Brazil and Argentina have been replace by more western oriented leaders. Also, the President of South Africa is under intense pressure to resign, including resignation of his finance minister. So far that hasn't worked, and South Africa has a new finance minister. While these are victories for the US, and have somewhat stymied the Chinese/Russian momentum, they are no where near enough to hobble Eurasia.

The real dent in the Eurasian shield, however, must be made in China. That brings us North Korea - China's proverbial guard dog on its southern border. Trump has offered the Chinese a carrot and stick approach on North Korea. If the Chinese denuclearize North Korea the US will offer it better trade terms and not label it a currency manipulator.(which is closer to blackmail, because either you are a currency manipulator or you aren't) The Chinese, having just seen the stick approach offered to Russia in Syria, are taking the Americans seriously. They have a mutual defence pact with North Korea, as does Russia. An attack on one is an attack on all. That's why 150,000 Chinese troops have been moved to the border with North Korea. Russia has also stockpiled troops on its small border with North Korea. They are there to defend North Korea should it be required, and not to stem refugees as the western media has been playing it.

Meanwhile the Americans are moving a carrier strike group to the shores off North Korea. In addition, new intelligence has a total of two other aircraft carriers joining the group within the next ten days - about the time joint US/South Korean forces finish their massive annual war games. The US also has positioned massive air power at its various bases throughout the region.

The question is: Will all this result in war. The answer is yes. It is not a matter of North Koreas nuclear program, or Syria's "rabid dictator", or Russia's "meddling" in Europe, or China's "sea grab" in the South China Sea. No it's not any of these things. They are just stuff to spin to get the US people worked up and scared. The reason is Empire - either there will be one or their won't. The US simply cannot allow itself to lose at the economic game it set up. The only way to stop that is to create a world war that defeats China and Russia, but mostly China. After that, if there is a world left, the US will redraw the economic rules once again to keep them on top. While China and Russia stockpile gold, either to underpin their currencies or to pay for a major war, the US maintains the same course of ruinous debt, now even moving to strip the only real safeguards from their securities markets - a safeguard designed to stop a repeat of the Great Depression. So, if you've been thinking the world has been on its head, and kind of crazy the last while, well that's a reasonable interpretation of the chaos caused by the moves underway.

Nobody can say with certainty what will happen when the "Great American Armada" approaches North Korea. Traditionally, armadas haven't faired well in this kind of scenario. The North Koreans did give a bit of a hint though. During their massive military parade to honour the "Day of the Sun" the speaker stated North Korea will use its "own style" of nuclear war if necessary. One has to interpret that as an unconventional use of nuclear weapons. It may well be that the missiles and launching platforms paraded last weekend are a bit of a ruse. North Korea is well adept at deception. It may well be something far simpler, which the US may not be able to neutralize easily with their own missiles. Perhaps tunneling or submarines acting as delivery vehicles, rather than missiles. After all, how hard would it be for North Korea to retrofit some of its subs with a nuclear war head making them the delivery vehicles. A sub only has to get so close off shore to detonate itself and destroy an American city without launching a single missile. Ditto for the American Armada. A sub close by detonates and takes the works down. Three aircraft carriers is a real tempting target for them. So are we heading for war in North Korea, and elsewhere? The answer is yes. Unfortunately, the Americans are unable to accept the consequences of being economically outplayed, and are willing to take the whole house down with them. My sole hope is that technological superiority on one side or the other will prevent total waste being wrought over our planet.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

The Tragic Truth About the Muskrat Falls U-Boat Wreck - U-180

It was August 20, 1944, Bordeaux, France - at the U-boat pens. The Allies had broken out from their foothold in Normandy, and the USSR had crushed the German army and began its invasion of Romania. Five days earlier the US had invaded Southern France in an operation codenamed "Anvil". The German occupation of France was at its end, and the remnants of the German forces were desperately fleeing for Germany, or in the case of the U-boats - the sea. It was under these dangerous and chaotic circumstances that the Captain of U-180 prepared to take her out to sea on his maiden mission as the U-boat's commander.

Rolf Riesen, the commander, was not a fervent Nazi, but he was a very patriotic German. He was also a family man who loved his family dearly, but saw them very rarely since joining the German Navy in 1938. He considered joining the navy his patriotic duty, and was very committed to the "higher cause". His served as a junior officer on the German heavy cruiser Lutzow until the end of 1941. He then transferred to the destroyer and torpedo boat holding division. Deciding to take a different tact, Riesen undertook U-boat training until September, 1942, and then served as a watch officer on U-198 until February, 1944. He then undertook U-boat commander training for three months, and on April 2, 1944 he took command of U-180 - his final command.  This story, although of major historical import, is dedicated to the memory of  Oberleutnant zur See Rolf Riesen, the last commander of U-180.

Rolf Riesen as a watch officer in 1942

Rolf Riesen just before leaving on his final mission 2 years later

Riesen supervised the loading of his beloved first command before going to sea. However, there were a number of wood crates in his boat that he had no idea of their contents. He was a very meticulous officer, keen on details, but a very superior officer gave him the "it's on a need to know basis and you don't need to know" speech. As a loyal and dedicated officer he did not question his superior. Little did he know the crates contained u-234 - uranium. What he did know was they were stowed below, with other cargo stored upon them. He also knew his orders had him sailing for Japan, which was not an uncommon destination for the "black boats" of the German U-boat fleet.

"Black boats" meaning U-boats involved in transporting special cargos of uranium, mercury, weapons technology etc to Japan, and often bringing gold bullion back as payment to Germany. U-180 had been used in a well documented secret mission to transport Indian nationalist politicians to a Japanese sub for delivery to India earlier in the war, but her Mercedes engines were too loud and left an oil trail to be used again. She was mothballed, but then brought back having her engines pulled, new engines added, a state of the art snorkel and radar installed, and other modifications which improved her operations significantly. As he left Bordeaux on that August day, Riesen had no idea of the horror and betrayal that lay in wait for him from members of his own crew - many of them had no idea either.

U-180 left port with three other U-boats bound for Japan. They had an escort ship on the surface to protect them from sudden air or naval attack. Shortly after they submerged the escort ship reported that all U-boats had cleared the minefield and were en route. So far so good. However, just as the voyage started Riesen was confronted in private by MtrOGfr Helmut Hantschel. Riesen had befriended Hantschel, as much as a U-boat Captain would, he trusted the young man. They were all young men to Riesen as he was considered an old man in the U-boat service. What Riesen didn't know was young Hantschel was not a naval officer. His real name wasn't even Hantschel. He was, in fact, an SS officer acting under direct orders from Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler. His mission: take control of the U-180, and its cargo of uranium, and deliver it to the Americans at the Goose Bay Air Force base in Labrador, Canada. A grand plan to resettle Nazis after the war had been launched by Hitler's number one man, Martin Bormann. Bormann gave the order to Himmler, and Himmler gave the order directly to Hantschel.

Hantschel, for his part, was a fanatic Nazi with an almost psychopathic obsession with power. This was a dream mission for him, and he gladly accepted even though he had never been on a U-boat before. The confrontation between Riesen and Hantschel was nothing less than the deliberate killing of the Captain. Hantschel took a large knife from the sub's galley and plunged it in one single stroke through Riesen's heart. Riesen died almost immediately. As only a portion of the crew were aware of the plan to take over U-180, the killing needed to be kept secret to maintain order on the boat. To do this Hantschel used his experiences as a medic with the SS to carve Riesen into pieces. His remains were then placed in the rear torpedo tube and the Captain was expunged into the sea. And so begins the deliberate mutiny of U-180.

Surprisingly, perhaps, the absence of the Captain was kept under guard for days afterward. Days later three crew members suffered the same fate as they challenged the mutineers over the Captain's disappearance and the ship's mission. Most of the crew was unaware that the U-boat was heading for Canada rather than Japan. That was the way Hantschel and his mutineers wanted it kept. It was impossible to operate the U-boat over the trans Atlantic voyage without the various expertise of those on board, and complete discipline and control was absolutely necessary for success. It had to be a well oiled machine.

However, just a day before U-180 was to arrive at its destination in Labrador, a major battle broke out between the crew that was loyal to the mutineers and those that hadn't realized their mission had changed. In this one altercation, approximately half the crew were killed. Of an original crew of 56, only 24 were left now. Given the close proximity to the Goose Bay base, and wanting to remain submerged, the dead crew were left on the U-boat. Shortly after this final battle among the crew, Hantschel happened across a Canadian destroyer fishing with dynamite off the town Rigolet. read the media story here Years later, a then renamed Hantschel ( now Ernst Oscar Henschel) would relay to a sailor on that boat how he watched them fish with dynamite through his periscope. At that time Hantschel, or Henschel as he was then known, was a doctor in the Saskatchewan community of Prince Albert. Having been refused entry into the US after the war due to his "service" in the SS, Henschel emigrated to Canada at first.

U-180 then made its way up Lake Melville to a predesignated position just out to shore from the Goose Bay Air Force base. It was nighttime, and pitch black. The U-boat surfaced, and dispatched a dingy, with wooden crates, to a small supply/maintenance dock just south of the base (the dock no longer exists). There it was met by armed US servicemen. In the confusion and tension of the moment, 2 of the German U-boat men were shot to death by a US soldier when they made sudden moves he wasn't expecting. The uranium was eventually completely transferred. In accordance with the original plan given to him back in Germany, Hantschel and the remaining crew took the U-boat up the Churchill River on the surface. They used only their electric engines to power the boat to remain quiet in transit. However, even with these precautions they were heard and spotted by two Innu hunters in the area.

At the predesignated location, just south of Muskrat Falls, the crew scuttled U-180 in accordance with standard operating procedures of the German U-boat fleet. Charges were placed at the bow, rear, and centre of the boat. The dead crew members from the battle amongst the crew the day before, and the newly killed members from the supply dock, were left on board the U-boat as she sunk. However, even the scuttling didn't go well as two men were killed and two injured during the scuttling process. By the end of the mission only 15 crew members of the original 56 had survived.

The survivors of U-180, with the exception of Hantschel and a few others, were forced to stay in North America. Hantschel and the others were transported back to Germany to confirm the mission was successful. Ironically, Hantschel is shown graduating from Charles University of Prague, medical school, just six months later. He ended his career in medicine back in the United States as professor and chairman of the Medical College of Wisconsin, and has an annual award named after him. read here (notice the brief reference to his service in the German Navy) His wife, who he met in London in 1950, also became a well known doctor in the area. Today only two survivors of the horror and treachery that was U-180 are still alive. Both are now old men in their late 90's. One still has a keen mind, but the other unfortunately does not. The keen minded survivor was a fellow officer who loyally served under Captain Riesen, but as a young officer he was terrified to turn against the mutineers - with good reason as the history shows. He now lives with deep remorse and nightmares about his experience on U-180.

In the end, although the seizing of U-180 was a preplanned operation by the highest levels of the Nazi Party and the SS, the attempt to use the uranium as a bargaining chip with the Allies was apparently unsuccessful. The US double crossed their German partners, but got the uranium in any case for the Manhattan Project. U-180 remains unexplored on a sandy river bank near Muskrat Falls as a ghostly reminder of human tragedy, the ruthlessness of the dark world of Nazi Germany, and almost the last bit of evidence that the Germans and the Americans had cut a deal for uranium while still at war with each other in Europe. Meanwhile, the families of the men lost in U-180 have no idea what really happened to them on that dark voyage during the dying days of the war. Perhaps it may have been better that way, but for the necessity to observe the significant historical moment the wreck of the U-180 represents. It is the truth of the matter that counts now. It has been 75 years since U-180 sunk in Labrador's waters, yet the Government of Canada will still not release what documents they have on the matter. The grounds for the refusal - "releasing the information may cause harm or embarrassment to an ally." It was always hard to fathom how such an old story, and a forgotten wreck, could cause injury and/or embarrassment to an ally, but given the truth of what really happened to U-180 and its uranium cargo, well, perhaps it should.

Here are my previous stories on the U-boat wreck of Muskrat Falls:

Updated - Evidence of the Muskrat Falls U-boat Wreck

The Muskrat Falls U-boat Cover Up - emails

Sunday, April 9, 2017

On the Edge of World War III

It's ironic, in a way, that my country of Canada is today celebrating a bloody victory over Germany during World War I at Vimy Ridge, meanwhile the current world desperately races to repeat a similar but worse slaughter. Sad and ironic.

The United States, hand-in-hand with Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia had planned to take over Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon to erase Iranian influence in the region. Saudi Arabia's job was to take out the Iranian allied Houthi in Yemen. The American and Israelis left the job of Syria to Islamic militants. Lebanon hasn't happened yet, but that will likely be left to the Israelis. That was the plan. Once that was finished the goal no doubt was to turn the sights on Iran itself. All this had the benefit of not just an American dominated and controlled Middle East, but also a relegated and isolated Russia, which in turn would isolate China. A grand strategy if you will.

However, as they say, a plan only lasts as long as its first contact with the enemy. Saudi Arabia, with American assistance, was able to oust the Houthi government in Yemen, but has been unable to proceed much past that. The traditional Houthi lands of Yemen remain in Houthi control and the Saudis are bogged down in a hopeless quagmire. The Sunni Islamic State was unable to capture Iraq as Iran intervened just as they were at the gates of Bagdad. A Sunni victory in Iraq would have brought that country into US control, rather than the current state of Iraq as a Shia friendly government to Iran. As the Islamic State retreated out of Iraq, Russia intervened in Syria. Again, the Islamic State was right at the doorsteps - this time in Damascus. As it became clear to the Americans, that ISIS could not take Iraq, they jumped on the band wagon to destroy ISIS so they could stay in the game.

So much for Plan A, the Americans turned to plan B. Plan B calls for a direct American invasion of Syria, in conjunction with Turkey and Israel (perhaps even with the Saudis). While the partition of Syria seems to be the goal at the moment, it may well be a ruse. The US has been shipping equipment and men to Lebanon and Jordan on the quiet. However, as an example, that quiet was shaken yesterday as 20 US tanks and infantry had to intervene at the Syrian/Jordan border to rescue their new allied militia, which had become encircled by ISIS. In other words, the US has assembled significant forces in Jordan. Earlier this week there were reports of US ships delivering equipment and men to Lebanon. Furthermore, it's common knowledge that the US has moved most of the 82nd Airborne into the Syrian theatre, as well as special forces nd artillery units. This buildup is being complimented by two new US air bases in Eastern Syria. All in all, the US are preparing to take all of Syria - not just a simple partition of it.

On the Russian border, US and allied forces have been mobilizing from one end to the other. A move that serves the purpose of tying Russian forces down on their own border, thereby limiting their flexibility to respond to such conflicts as Syria, and establishing a force to attack Russia with. In other words, the West is attempting to pin Russia down while it manoeuvers to destroy its influence and power in the Middle East. If Russia sits back in a defensive posture, and allows the US to impose its will on the Middle East, then Russia will be next. It's only a matter of time.

As worrisome as all this is, the US is also acting against China. A US carrier task force, also referred to as a "strike force" is enroute to the waters off  North Korea. US President Trump has stated that if China will not reign in North Korea, well, then the Americans will. It seems that Trump is making good on his threat. We can expect a strike on North Korea's nuclear program, including arms, but also on the massive artillery forces poised to level Seoul, capital of South Korea. It has been estimated that the North could level Seoul with conventional artillery in hours - if not less. That ability has always been the North's greatest guarantee of non-intervention by the US. However, with a strike looming, it makes sense that the US would also be planning a massive bombing campaign of those artillery forces north of Seoul.

China, meanwhile, can not simply stand by idly while this happens. It has been targeted by the US itself for its claims in the South China Sea. All this must be in the US calculations. It's safe to say that if the Americans conduct the assault on North Korea that is expected, they will also in effect be going to war with China. Engaging China militarily also means engaging China economically, and the US has no hope of winning that one. It is very probable that China will release the "Chinese nuke", which is dumping all its American debt and currency on the market at once, thereby crashing the world economy. Even a simple strike on North Korea, that results in the North leveling Seoul, would more than likely be enough to crash the world's stock exchanges and currency markets.

I wonder if the Western world, with our fat cat life styles and Walmart mentalities, can fathom the result of an international financial collapse? The reality is most people will not even commit their minds for a moment to consider it. Ditto for the massive destruction caused by a conventional or nuclear war. Yet, we sit right on the precipice of it all. Watching as if somehow it wasn't our responsibility to think or speak of it, or against it. A great gaggle of sheep herded to the slaughterhouse doors, but taking comfort that there are other sheep before us, closer to the executioner's axe, and therefore we're okay for the moment. It can't happen to us. We're safe and sheltered from it all. It's really a damning commentary on us all to be frank. With all our education, technology and civilization we can't muster a better way than hoping the executioner gets tired before the sheep in front of us turns into us.