https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Category: Military

Armed forces, weapon systems, military budgets

Tweetizen Trump – 2019-10-07 – “My Great and Unmatched Wisdom”

Trump’s betrayal of the Kurds is just another step in dismantling US foreign policy and reputation

And when people ask, “Why do other countries not trust or like the US,” it’s because we pull shit like this.

That’s the US telling Turkey, “Hey, you feel free to go in and attack the Kurds that we convinced to disarm because we would protect them while they helped us fight ISIS, but you guys have always (and not without some reason) considered them terrorists and know that the Kurds have aspired for an independent state for over a century, so, hey, it’s all yours, we’re out of here because nobody’s paying us to be here.”

In the face of people worried about the folk we took under our wing and promised to protect, Donald was right there with a more egomaniacal statement than is normal even for him.

“In my great and unmatched wisdom.”

Humility has never been one of Donald Trump’s strong points. Though usually even he doesn’t end up writing like one of Kim Jong Un’s publicists.

It’s also a laughable way to try to disarm grave and bipartisan concerns (heck, even Lindsey and Mitch seeming peeved) about his throwing our Kurdish allies once more to the wolves.

(I can imagine the Senate GOP actually using this as a cover to convict on Trump if they need to, even if it’s not one of the Articles of Impeachment. I can also imagine them using it as a cover to say, “How dare you suggest I am a lackey of Donald Trump? Look, I expressed sincere reservations about his Syrian policy, even though I didn’t really do anything about it.”

I’m sure the Trump Tower Istanbul has nothing to do with Trump’s caving to Erdogan’s desires to wipe out the Kurdish areas in Syria. And I’m equally certain Trump’s threat to “totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey” is as empty as … well, when he … did it before? (When was that, precisely, and how long did it take Turkey to recover in the last three years?)

Trump’s casual assertion that the US “captured 100% of the ISIS Caliphate” would probably irk some of those allies that assisted at great cost, like the Kurds, if they weren’t facing an attack from a Turkey that has longed to destroy their separatist aspirations.

(I’ve been reading a history of the post-WWI Paris Peace Talks, and it’s probably only one of those weird coincidences of history that it was a century ago this year that the West sold out the Kurds to the Turks, too.)

Finally, as Donald takes some well-deserved mockery for the ego, pomposity, and zaniness that is involved in referring to one’s “great and unmatched wisdom” ….

(Also waiting for the Trump fanatics to say, “Well,  you know, he is pretty darned wise!”)

Meanwhile, the one thing Donald is probably not worried about:

He’s not worried because Pat and his Christianist cronies have been more than happy to support Donald up to the gills, regardless of what he’s done, in order to get all the juicy anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-religious-freedom-trumps-everything laws and regulations and Justice Dept., and they’re not about to actually turn on him now.

 

Independence Day

What is the meaning of July 4? Hint: It’s not about showing off tanks and jets.

When does the United States celebrate on July 4, “Independence Day”? What is it that John Adams wrote would be celebrated?

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

Is it the first noteworthy conflict with soldiery of the nation we rebelled against? Nope, would be the Boston Massacre, September 13.

How about the first defined military conflict with the British, at Lexington and Concord? Nope, that’s April 19.

Any other major Revolutionary War battles? Bunker Hill? Crossing of the Delaware and Trenton? Saratoga? Nope, those are June 17, December 26, October 17.

The British surrender at Yorktown? Nope, October 19. The Treaty of Paris, where Great Britain and the United States formally ended the armed conflict, recognizing American independence? Nope, September 4.

Unlike a lot of other countries, we don’t celebrate our national birthday based on a battle or war or even a violent protest. We have different days set aside to celebrate our military (Veterans Day, Memorial Day, etc.). We even have a different day set aside for the patriotic symbol of the US Flag.

Nor is it a date chosen to celebrate great individuals and their accomplishments, even among that generation. Presidents Day (the conglomeration of Washington and Lincoln’s birthdays) shows up in February. Not many still celebrate Thomas Jefferson Day (April 13), though it was once a big thing.

July 4 represents something special, transcendent of any one battle, any one enemy, any assertion of martial power, any one individual. It celebrates the ratification of the Declaration of Independence.

And the Declaration isn’t about the force of arms, but a document — a political document, a philosophical document.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It declares those human rights and, as a ramification of them, the right of a people to change or throw off a government that commits offenses against them, a government in which the people have no voice, no ability to consent in how they are governed.

It’s an imperfect document, if only for the compromise of removing a clause condemning slavery in order to get the required unanimity from the Southern states. But even that omission does not change the overarching message of human equality and human rights.

The Declaration is not a statement of military might. It is not about how we have the strongest army, the shiniest cannon, the pointiest bayonets, the fiercest soldiers, the most powerful ships of war. It is, instead, about values, about what is important, about the natural rights of human beings. It isn’t a screed against a specific foe so much as it is a statement of principle as to what political truths we stand by, what is important to us, transcending all national boundaries and political divisions.

It could have been a document about military conflict and war. It could have talked about how we’d beaten the British, how we were all taking up arms, how we would fight to the last man. It could have been about Us vs. Them, centering on that as its basis for declaring revolt against the Crown. Instead, it spoke of a higher set of principles, principles that applied no matter who was the strongest, who was the most powerful, indeed, no matter who actually won the conflict already begun.

As Lincoln wrote in 1859:

All honor to Jefferson — to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.

That’s what we celebrate today. And those who seem obsessed with making it about military power, a display of our our might making us right, about how this day makes is bigger and better and more important than anyone else … it seems to me that they’re not only missing the point of the Declaration of Independence, and the day celebrating its ratification, they’re actively opposing it.

Casting about for a casus belli

The Trump Administration’s “proof” about Iran attacking ships is far from convincing.

Despite Trump and his Administration baldly asserting that Iran is behind the tanker attacks in the Straits of Hormuz this week, there remain far more open, unconfirmed, and even weird questions about attacks and their aftermath. To name just a few …

  1. Why would the Iranians attack a Japanese tanker while hosting the Prime Minister of Japan, who was there on a peace mission?
  2. Why does the crew of the Japanese tanker say that the ship was hit by flying objects, not mines?
  3. If you’re sneaking up to a ship to remove a limpet mine you put there which didn’t go off for some reason, do you have all your crew crowd around while you’re removing the unexploded mine?
  4. If those were the Iranians doing that, why did the UN Navy just let them do so and and then sail off without, apparently, tracking where they went?
  5. How do the Iranians benefit from all of this?

That last one is key in this. Cui bono?, “To whom the benefit?” is an old Roman legal maxim. When seeking suspects, figure out who gains an advantage, who has a motivation.

Analyzing motivations is by no means foolproof, of course, as it assumes a certain level of rationality, enlightened self-interest, command and control within all the parties involved, and that you have sufficient facts on hand. On the other hand, just making assumptions based on biases toward an end you are seeking is even more of a mook’s game.

So how does Iran benefit by attacking these ships, at this time?

One semi-rational suggestion I’ve read about this (beyond vague “They’re crazy religious fanatics, go figure?”) is that by causing oil prices to surge, Iran’s restricted oil exports are worth more.  That seems a very high stakes way for a short term gain.

Another suggestion is that Iran is sending (while denying the attacks for international sensibilities) a veiled signal that it could cause significant economic damage, if it chose to, and if it is in fact attacked by the United States. The risk calculus there still seems dodgy, but the Iranians (among others) might not see it that way.

So, yes, these attacks certainly could be Iranian. That might even be the most likely answer. Or they could be by Iranian proxies, enough at arms length for plausible deniability.

Or, alternately, they could be Saudis or Emirate forces, looking to get the US to attack their regional enemy (and, hey, drive up oil prices, too!). For that matter, I have full faith in the Israelis being able to stage this, should they choose to see this as a way of taking down by proxy what they consider an existential enemy.

And that doesn’t even count the terrible possibility that it was actually perpetrated by US forces under a false flag.

Given US history, and our willingness to rush to war on mistaken or intentionally fabricated facts (the Maine, the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin, the war in Iraq), and given the staggering cost in blood and money that war  incurs, we should always question the proof provided as a casus belli, and call for it to be of the highest transparency possible. We need convincing evidence, presented by convincing representatives.

In this case the scanty proof (mostly assertions) given us by a US Administration whose leaders have made it clear they are itching for a reason to take down the Iranians, and whose penchant for dishonesty on matters small and great is staggering, is as yet unconvincing.

Do you want to know more?

Terms of Engagement

The US wants to Europe to spend more on defense … or, rather, on US weapons.

The Trump Administration wants Europe to spend more money on defense … but only if they are buying weapons from the US. Yeesh. https://t.co/Ijx53aijh7

Donald Trump has long lambasted our NATO allies for not spending more of their own money on defense, rather than letting the US do so. There’s some fairness in that, though it’s distorted by the degree to which the US has wanted to maintain bases in the NATO nations (in our own opposition to the Soviet Union, and then Russia), and the degree to which the US feels it needs to spend more money on defense than the next eight biggest spenders on the planet.

But, hey, the NATO nations have apparently been convinced that Donald might desert them if they don’t pay the US more (a model which doesn’t actually exist) or if they don’t boost their own spending (as, again to be fair, they have previously agreed to).

Except … they’re not doing it the way Donald wants.

The New York Times reported last week that Michael J. Murphy, a top official in the State Department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, “lectured” European Union ambassadors about their attempt to launch a new program that would exclude “third parties”—including the United States—from participating in cooperative military projects unless absolutely necessary.

Murphy was so angry about the issue, the Times reports, that he left no time in the session for discussion after his remarks. A “similar but less aggressive meeting” took place at the Pentagon, where discussion was allowed.

At his meeting with the ambassadors, Murphy accused the EU of “pursuing an industrial policy under the veneer of a security policy.”

We (the US) want them to spend more … but, apparently just as important, we want to profit from that spending. If they decide to boost their own military industry through defense spending (like we do in the US), well … that’s just … not … fair.

So, let’s summarize the messages that the Trump Administration is sending here to our European allies:

  1. The US is spending more on defending our European allies than we think they are worth.
  2. The US wants to make a lot more money off of our European allies.

I’m sure I read all about just that kind of tactic in How to Win Friends and Influence People.

Donald Trump revisits why he banned transgender folk from the military

Which is, at best, delusional. At worst, it’s simple self-justified prejudice.

Oh, you British press. You don’t sweat over whether you’ll be invited to the next US Presidential Press Conference, so you’re free, free, to ask irritating questions …

On his trip to the UK, Donald granted a single interview. It was to Piers Morgan (a one-time “Celebrity Apprentice” contestant), who actually raised some difficult issues for Donald to answer.  While his farcical answers about climate change drew the most national press attention, I found his answers about transgender folk in the military to be even more indicative of … well, something unpleasant.

Morgan pressed Trump about his self-trumpeted support for LGBT* folk, in the face of multiple actions against that community, in particular transgender people, and specifically booting them out of the military.

Trump trotted out a singular reason — the incredibly high cost of dealing with transgender folk in transition. The problem is, not only is that not what his administration argued in court about the ban, it’s also simply not true.

Quoth Donald:

Because they take massive amounts of drugs — they have to — and also, and you’re not allowed to take drugs, you know, in the military, you’re not allowed to take any drugs, you take an aspirin. And they have to, after the operation, they have to, they have no choice, they have to. And you have to actually break rules and regulations in order to have that.

When Morgan noted that the costs of hormone therapy were relatively small, and less than the amount the Pentagon spends on Viagra prescriptions, Trump went on:

Well, it is what it is. Look, massive amounts, and, also, people were going in and then asking for the operation, and the operation is $200,000, $250,000, and getting the operation, the recovery period is long, and they have to take large amounts of drugs after that, for whatever reason, but large amounts, and that’s not — the way it is. I mean, you can’t do that. So, yeah, I said, when it came time to make a decision on that, and because of the drugs, and also because of the cost of the operation, people were going in —

Morgan noted the number of transgender folk who had served with distinction. Trump replied:

Well, I’m proud of them, I’m proud of them, I think it’s great, but you have to have a standard, and you have to stick by that standard. And we have a great military, and I want to keep it that way, and maybe they’d be phenomenal, I think they probably would be. But, again, you have very strict rules and regulations on drugs and prescription drugs and all of these different things and — they blow it out of the water.

How many ways is this inaccurate? Let me hit a couple, speaking in the context of having a transmale son who is going through treatment, etc., at the present time.

  1. Actively serving military personnel are, in fact, “allowed to take drugs” that are prescribed. To take a simple case, military personnel can be diabetic and still serve, even as they have to take insulin.Indeed, the Trump Administration’s own self-justifying re-study of transfolk in the military found that “roughly three times more cisgender men want testosterone supplements than transgender patients.” And, of course, most famously (and as Morgan points out), the Pentagon spends significantly more on Viagra for serving personnel than it has ever spent on hormone treatment for trans folk.

    Speaking anecdotally, the required hormone treatment is not “massive,” and is, in fact, not even all that frequent. It’s certainly less obtrusive or regular than insulin shots.

  2. In no world except, perhaps, high fashion is gender reassignment surgery — “the operation” — a six-figure number, even a low six-figure number. That’s an order of magnitude higher (based on the Pentagon’s own numbers) than even full-blown surgery, something that not all transgender folk go in for.
  3. The idea that transgender folk are enlisting in the military in “massive amounts,” just to get gender reassignment surgery — which doesn’t remove from them the obligation to serve, potentially in combat zone — seems … a bit far-fetched. Okay, it seems like a paranoid delusion.On the other hand, is it any different from someone saying, “I’m going to join the Army so I can get trained for free in XYZ … and so that I get access to VA benefits for the rest of my life”?

The other point worth noting is that this is only a small fraction of the arguments previously raised by Trump’s Administration in court as to why they couldn’t possibly have trans folk serving (even though they’ve been serving with distinction). Those arguments included:

  • Arguments about “unit cohesion” in the face of transwomen being grouped with ciswomen (or transmen being grouped with cismen) — an argument a federal judge noted echoed arguments as to why blacks couldn’t possibly serve alongside whites, or why women couldn’t possibly be admitted into the military.
  • Arguments (based on debunked studies) about whether trans folk were mentally or emotionally stable.

Despite Donald’s expressed sentiment that trans folk would be “phenomenal” in the military, despite fact checking by the interviewer, despite the noted track record of openly trans folk serving in the military … Donald just won’t have it.

Which raises the question: is it simply because he personally thinks trans folk are icky and deluded and unfit (no matter what he says publicly)? Or is it because he feel he can score points among supporters who think trans folk are icky and deluded and unfit (no matter what he says publicly)?

Neither says much about the coherence of Donald’ statements or his moral leadership.

Do you want to know more?

The Last of Doolittle’s Raiders

Dick Cole, the last of the B-25 crewmen who flew  “Thirty Seconds over Tokyo” in the first daring WWII air raid of Japan, has passed away at 103. Cole was mission leader Jimmy Doolittle’s co-pilot.

The lead bomber crew, under Lt Col Jimmy Doolittle (2nd fr L). Lt Cole is 2nd fr R.

The April 1942 attack was as much symbolic as anything else — a first-ever (and one-way) carrier launch of tactical bombers …

B-25 taking off from the USS Hornet

… attacking five Japanese cities, then ditching (for the most part) over China, nearly 1500 miles beyond.

Newspaper map of the Doolittle Raid.

But even if its actual military effect was relatively small, it was a huge morale booster for the US, four months after the Pearl Harbor debacle, and demonstrated Japan’s vulnerability to bombing (a method of attack that would escalate to horrific proportions during the course of the war).

Cole was the last of the 80 raiders to pass away. In post-war life he was a citrus farmer in Texas.

Thank you, sir, for your service, those many years ago.

Do you want to know more? 

Puerto Rico isn’t the only place being neglected post-hurricane

Maybe the Commander-in-Chief can ship the Marines at Camp Lejeune some paper towels.

Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, home of a third of the Marine Corps’ combat power, is still unrepaired after Hurricane Florence hit last year. And the next hurricane season is only months away.

Hurricane damage at Camp Lejeune

The Marines say they need $3.6 billion to repair the damage to more than 900 buildings at Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station New River, and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point caused by the storm and catastrophic flooding in its aftermath. And while they have torn down soggy, moldy walls, put tarps on roofs and moved Marines into trailers, so far they have not received a penny from the federal government to fix the damage.

Now the Marine Corps’ top officer is warning that readiness at Camp Lejeune — home to one third of the Corps’ total combat power — is degraded and “will continue to degrade given current conditions.” In a recent memo to Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, Commandant Gen. Robert Neller cited, among other “negative factors,” the diversion of resources to the border, where the Trump administration has sent active-duty troops to patrol and plans to use military funding to pay for a wall.

Well, as long as the money is going to something important.

Do you want to know more? Camp Lejeune is still a mess 6 months after Hurricane Florence. Where’s the money for repairs?

Continued concerns about the F-35 and cyber-security

I love the smell of Massive, Innovative IT Projects in the morning.

The F-35’s promise — to be the single be-all and end-all of every combat mission that any service (of any nation) might want to fly — has always been terribly seductive, as has throwing every high-tech idea under the sun at the plane, from fully integrated data and networking systems, to the plane being able to tell ground-based logistics what sort of repairs and parts it needs.

But they look so cool!

But as anyone who has done any sort of large, innovative project, esp. one prone to scope creep (and where such creep profits the party doing the work), such efforts tend to be extremely expensive, as the F-35 has clearly demonstrated. It also has tended to create a complicated jet where a flaw over here can have unexpected consequences over there — and, as a fully networked combat system, something that may be vulnerable to cyber-attack.

Fortunately, we’re not building this to go against any enemies that can do cyber-attacks, are we?

Most worryingly, a report in October from the US government’s General Accountability Office found the Department of Defense had failed to protect the software used to control the F-35’s weapons systems. Testers could take control of weapons with “relatively simple tools and techniques.”

To give you an idea of how the interconnected nature of the F-35’s computer systems is a massive vulnerability in of itself: separate subsystems, such as the Active Electronically Scanned Array radar, Distributed Aperture System, and the Communications, Navigation, and Identification Avionics System, all share data. Thus, the GAO’s auditors warned, just compromising one of these components could bring down the others.

“A successful attack on one of the systems the weapon depends on can potentially limit the weapon’s effectiveness, prevent it from achieving its mission, or even cause physical damage and loss of life,” said the GAO team.

Of course, certainly the contractor and the government have been diligent about finding and plugging any security issues.

“As in previous years, cybersecurity testing shows that many previously confirmed F-35 vulnerabilities have not been fixed, meaning that enemy hackers could potentially shut down the ALIS network, steal secret data from the network and onboard computers, and perhaps prevent the F-35 from flying or from accomplishing its missions,” Grazier wrote.

As for penetration testing of the ALIS system, Uncle Sam dropped the ball, the independent watchdog suggested. Rather than unleash a DoD red team of hackers on the code, the US government paid F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin to do it, and just accepted the results. Such hands-off regulation didn’t work out so great for Boeing and America’s aviator regulator, the FAA.

Well, at the very least, I’m sure the Pentagon has no officers who feel their careers are caught up inextricably in the F-35’s success and would therefore push the plane forward before it’s ready for combat, and certainly they wouldn’t be already moving forward with retiring existing successful combat aircraft before the F-35 has demonstrated it can do the job, right?

Right?

Do you want to know more? Easy-to-hack combat systems, years-old flaws and a massive bill – yup, that’s America’s F-35 • The Register

Finally, a job we can all agree we’d rather have done by a robot

People often express a lot of concern about how robots are taking human jobs. Here’s a job I think pretty much any human worker would be willing to hand over to the machines: disassembling and decommissioning obsolete cluster munitions for the US military.

Roboticists keep saying that robots are there for jobs that are dull, dirty, or dangerous. The best robots are busy doing at least two out of three of those things at once, and the disassembly and recycling of thousands of M26 rockets (about 700,000 bomblets) seems like it would definitely qualify as dull, and mostly likely also qualify as dangerous several times over.

Here’s to the brave Sandia Labs-programmed robots at the Multiple Launch Rocket System Recycle Facility at the Anniston Munitions Center in Alabama — may they never unionize.

Do You Want To Know More?

Nuclear powered military bases? What could go wrong?

The US Army sometimes finds itself with bases that don’t have easy or reliable access to an electrical infrastructure. The alternative is diesel generators and the like, but those require an expensive and vulnerable logistical pathway for bringing in additional fuel.

So some Pentagon boffin has come up with the idea of building portable nuclear power plants to generate electricity. Such plants could be trucked or even flown in, and provide a steady, no-fuel-needed power supply to bases in the middle of the Iraqi desert, in Afghanistan, etc.

Sounds like a great, even futuristic idea, right? Until you start to think about what a beautiful target such plants would make — either to steal enriched uranium from, or simply to blow up and contaminate the entire area. And given that these things would be being sent into, by definition, war zones … well, it suddenly stops sounding like such a great idea.

Which concerns don’t seem to be slowing down the US Army from going out and seeking quotes …

 

Asinine prank “may” trigger discipline?

It's hard to believe that theft of Air Force's mascot, which led to injuries of the gyrfalcon's wings to the extent there was concern she might need to be euthanized, wouldn't "trigger discipline."

❝ Aurora, a 22-year-old rare gyrfalcon, was injured over the weekend when she and another falcon were stolen, wrapped in sweaters and shoved in dog crates while on the road in West Point, N.Y., for the Air Force/Army football game. Aurora is the lead mascot for the academy’s football, basketball and hockey teams. ❞

Which seems a pretty direct violation of the Army Cadet Honor Code: ""A Cadet will not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do." Indeed, failure to discipline the two yahoos who did this would seem to "tolerate" such an action.




West Point prank that injured beloved Air Force Academy falcon may trigger discipline
Aurora, the Air Force Academy’s 22-year-old falcon mascot, is recovering at home after she was injured in a prank at West Point.

Original Post

Because of course Trump wants more nukes and less nuke worker safety

Donald is ramping up production of more nuclear warheads, while at the same time slashing the size and the authority of the agency tasked with making sure nuclear warhead production is safe.

Because of course he is.




White House Hobbles Nuclear Weapons Safety Agency
As Trump calls for new bomb production, the administration cuts safety board access to nuclear facilities

Original Post

The Great “Negotiator”

So the US has given up, unilaterally and without any agreement by either our own Defense Dept. or our ally South Korea, the joint exercises we have engaged with annually with the South. North Korea always purported to hate these, and sometimes lobbed weaponry around when they happened, but both the US and the South had always maintained they were critical for the conventional protection of South Korea against a conventional attack from the North.

Pfft. Gone. Too “expensive” and, in Trump’s own words (though echoing North Korea’s), “very provocative.”

And what does Donald get in return for this? A vaguely worded pinky-swear by the North, echoing similar pledges in the past two decades, to denuclearize the whole peninsula.

Trump insisted he believed Kim was determined to disarm, adding that at the end of the summit, the North Korean leader had offered to destroy an engine-testing site that is part of the country’s missile programme. “He’s de-nuking,” Trump told ABC News. “I mean, he’s de-nuking the whole place. It’s going to start very quickly. I think he’s going to start now.”

You “think he’s going to start now.” Wow.

Well, at least you know precisely what denuclearization is going to look like, right?

Missing from the joint statement was the definition, promoted up until now by the Trump administration, of complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement (CVID). Asked at a press conference why those terms were not included, Trump said: “There was no time. I am here one day.”

Well, I’m glad you gave it all so much due thought and consideration, Donald, before kicking an ally to the curb and giving way on a concrete and verifiable activity in return for your telepathic belief that Kim is going to follow through on just what he’s failed to follow through on multiple times.

And you were there only one day, so those four words couldn’t somehow be included in the text of the agreement? Gee, if only you had a State Dept. that could, I don’t know, do much of anything, they might have had this all set up to go when you arrived for your “one day” rush visit. Or maybe if you had bothered to stick around for more than one day, you might have been able to actually get the agreement that the North is almost certain to violate to have some teeth in it.

This would be a world embarrassment no matter who the president was. That it was this particularly president who has always boasted that he can win any negotiation, and artfully manage any deal he pleases … well, it would be funny, except for how it involves, y’know, North Korea and nuclear weapons.

Kim played Trump like a sohaegeum. And he’ll never admit it, even if he realizes it.




US to suspend military exercises with South Korea, Trump says | US news | The Guardian

Original Post

In Memoriam

The people who have served and died in our armed forces are a mixed bag, as any collection of humans would be. Some were drafted; others volunteered. Some were drawn by patriotic service; others by the benefits. Some joined in times of peace; others in times of war. Some were born in this country; others were immigrants, legal or otherwise. Some fought and died in conflicts I agreed with; others in conflicts I opposed; some died outside of combat altogether.

But draftee or volunteer, patriot or poltroon, exemplar of nobility or war criminal, action hero or person hugging their foxhole wishing all the noise would stop … all of them lost their life in the service of our nation, and for that we remember both their sacrifice, and the sacrifice of those whose lives were impacted by those deaths.

War is hell. Glorifying it or myth-making about it is rarely a good thing. But ultimately, though every soldier serves for their own reasons, and in their own way, remembering and even honoring those whose service led to their deaths is a worthwhile thing to do, if only to make sure that those whose service should be honored are not forgotten, and that the cost we pay for having and using our armed forces is not just measured in budget line items.

Original Post

Tweetizen Trump – 2018-05-28: “Memorial Day”

Memorial Day is a day set aside in memory of American soldiers who have fallen in combat.

So, Donald, what is the President of the United States up to?

You do start off nicely with a glossy recorded video about Memorial Day, focused mostly on your interaction with the child of a dead soldier last Memorial Day.

Still, it’s a nice sentiment overall, in keeping with the subject of the occasion. It would have been a solid capstone on the festivities to just leave things there.

But you’ve never been one to leave good enough alone, Donald.

Happy Memorial Day! Those who died for our great country would be very happy and proud at how well our country is doing today. Best economy in decades, lowest unemployment numbers for Blacks and Hispanics EVER (& women in 18years), rebuilding our Military and so much more. Nice!

Um, this is kind of a day to celebrate the lives and sacrifices of soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice for their nation, not of a guy with a convenient set of bone spurs, whose boastful “personal Viet Nam” was avoiding STDs.

Instead, this tweet suddenly seems all about … you. Your personal accomplishments in office. You frame it as about how all those dead soldiers would be “very happy and proud” about your ostensible accomplishments with the economy, though I’m kind of dubious about your ability to speak for people who have died in the line of duty, Donald.

Well, I’m sure that’s where you left things, right? I mean, it’s Memorial Day, a time for sober reflection and focus on those fallen soldiers.

Nope. You started watching — and regurgitating — Fox News about “Spygate”. On freaking Memorial Day.

“The President deserves some answers.” @FoxNews in discussing “SPYGATE.”

“Sally Yates is part of concerns people have raised about bias in the Justice Dept. I find her actions to be really quite unbelievable.” Jonathan Turley

“We now find out that the Obama Administration put the opposing campaigns presidential candidate, or his campaign, under investigation. That raises legitimate questions. I just find this really odd…this goes to the heart of our electoral system.” Jonathan Turley on @FoxNews

I just don’t even, Donald. Your monomania, your towering tone-deaf narcissism, your lack of internal filters or shame — it all has to be about you and your Bigly Monster from the Id. If Jesus Christ came back to Earth, I have no doubt you would tweet that “Jesus has returned. I’m sure he is very happy and proud of how well our country is doing today.”

One would hope that your pivoting from even a tangential discussion about Memorial Day and what it means, to instead re-bleating out the talking heads on Fox News about the made-up scandal you’re trying to set up against the very real scandal under investigation — one would hope that even your most dyed-in-the-wool followers would get an inkling of what a self-centered zany you are, Donald.

Somehow, I suspect too many will just turn over their brats on the BBQ and raise a beer in their toasts to you, instead of to the people this day was meant commemorate.

To those who have fallen, and to the families and friends of those still suffering from their sacrifice, my apologies for this yo-yo taking the spotlight from that sacrifice for his own ends.

LATE-BREAKING UPDATE!

Even as I was writing this, we got another Memorial Day video from you, Donald!

Thank you for joining us on this solemn day of remembrance. We are gathered here on the sacred soil of @ArlingtonNatl Cemetery to honor the lives and deeds of America’s greatest heroes, the men and women who laid down their lives for our freedom. #MemorialDay

Nice message, Donald. Glad you could drag yourself away from retweeting Trump-supporting Fox News conspiracy theorizing long enough to attend the ceremony.

But wait! There’s more!

The heroes who rest in these hallowed fields, in cemeteries, battlefields, and burial grounds near and far are drawn the full tapestry of American life. They came from every generation from towering cities and wind swept prairies, from privilege and from poverty…

Oh, jeez … are we going to get a whole series of video tweets, camera zeroed in on you, all about you speechifying at Arlington?

Our fallen heroes have not only written our history they have shaped our destiny. They saved the lives of the men and women with whom they served. They cared for their families more than anything in the world, they loved their families. They inspired their communities…

The words are good ones, Donald. I haven’t listened to the whole speech to discover if you go off-script midway through to talk about your huge electoral victory or MS-13 or how great the economy is or how Crooked Hillary tried to steal the election with an embedded FBI spy … but, frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised.

Book-ending the day with tasteful video remarks doesn’t make up for the tweets in-between. For shame.

Because, of course, the North Korea stuff was going way too smoothly

The DPRK always goes ape over US/South Korea military exercises. But apparently they had advance warning about this one (as usual), and nobody was expecting things to get all contentious with all the upcoming talks and summits in the works.

Will this put the kibosh on Trump’s summit with Kim? Will Trump cancel the military exercise? Will he bluster and call off the meeting himself? Is Kim bluffing? Is Trump?

We shall see.




North Korea cancels high-level talks with the South

View on Google+

On the Diversity of Military Spouses and Mothers

So of the military spouses selected / invited / accepting the chance to go to the White House, we ended up with practically only white people?

A very oddly self-selecting (or selected) group of #MilitarySpouses , one might think.

Or at least that looked like the story. It turns out that particular picture was taken back in April, when Ivanka Trump attended the Joint Armed Forces of Washington Luncheon. Which still looks kind of pasty-white and all-female, but is a self-selecting group.

That said, it’s understandable that there would be confusion, because Ivanka tweeted it yesterday in conjunction with the White House event, which was both for Military Spouses and Military Mothers (because Mothers Day, right?). And a closer look from Melania’s tweet of the event does show a few faces of color in the audience (though only just a few).

So a mostly-false-alarm, even if the folk up at the podium for the signing of a bill to help military spouses find work again look pretty darned pale.

 

Originally shared by +Ken Montville:

What’s the chance.

View on Google+

The Trump of the Deal

So basically Trump demonstrated leadership by not engaging with Iran, by avoiding negotiations with our frenemies China and Russia, and getting our actual European allies to agree to all sorts of concessions and come supplicate themselves to keep the deal in place, only to throw them under the bus.

It has been said by many others before me, but Trump could not be doing more to destroy American influence and global power if he were an actual Russian agent. This man’s narcissistic buffoonery will take decades to recover from, if ever.




‘Defective at its core’: How Trump opted to scrap Iran deal
WASHINGTON (AP) — It was all there on paper in black and white, down to the precise number of centrifuges: the terms of a potential “fix” that President Donald Trump had demanded

View on Google+

Obama on Trump’s tearing up of the Iran Nuclear Deal

Because Trump firmly believes …

1. Anything Obama did devalues his own presidency, and therefore has to be eliminated.

2. He can force any country to do whatever he wants.

3. Might makes right.

4. He can do whatever he wants because by the time his actions have truly profound consequences, he’ll probably be dead.

What follow are Obama’s comments on Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Originally shared by +Kee Hinckley:

There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.

The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working – that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest – it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish – its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes – with Iran – the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

That is why today’s announcement is so misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America’s credibility, and puts us at odds with the world’s major powers.

Debates in our country should be informed by facts, especially debates that have proven to be divisive. So it’s important to review several facts about the JCPOA.

First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.

Second, the JCPOA has worked in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. For decades, Iran had steadily advanced its nuclear program, approaching the point where they could rapidly produce enough fissile material to build a bomb. The JCPOA put a lid on that breakout capacity. Since the JCPOA was implemented, Iran has destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced weapons-grade plutonium; removed two-thirds of its centrifuges (over 13,000) and placed them under international monitoring; and eliminated 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium – the raw materials necessary for a bomb. So by any measure, the JCPOA has imposed strict limitations on Iran’s nuclear program and achieved real results.

Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust – it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.

Fourth, Iran is complying with the JCPOA. That was not simply the view of my Administration. The United States intelligence community has continued to find that Iran is meeting its responsibilities under the deal, and has reported as much to Congress. So have our closest allies, and the international agency responsible for verifying Iranian compliance – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Fifth, the JCPOA does not expire. The prohibition on Iran ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is permanent. Some of the most important and intrusive inspections codified by the JCPOA are permanent. Even as some of the provisions in the JCPOA do become less strict with time, this won’t happen until ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years into the deal, so there is little reason to put those restrictions at risk today.

Finally, the JCPOA was never intended to solve all of our problems with Iran. We were clear-eyed that Iran engages in destabilizing behavior – including support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel and its neighbors. But that’s precisely why it was so important that we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Every aspect of Iranian behavior that is troubling is far more dangerous if their nuclear program is unconstrained. Our ability to confront Iran’s destabilizing behavior – and to sustain a unity of purpose with our allies – is strengthened with the JCPOA, and weakened without it.

Because of these facts, I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake. Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East. We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to America’s own security; and trigger an arms race in the world’s most dangerous region. If the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost, we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat, or going to war to prevent it.

In a dangerous world, America must be able to rely in part on strong, principled diplomacy to secure our country. We have been safer in the years since we achieved the JCPOA, thanks in part to the work of our diplomats, many members of Congress, and our allies. Going forward, I hope that Americans continue to speak out in support of the kind of strong, principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country and uphold our responsibilities around the globe.




Barack Obama
There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why…

View on Google+

The Ad Hominem President

It’s long been obvious that, rhetorically, Trump is completely comfortable with attacking the character, background, or physical appearance of individuals he doesn’t like, rather than opposing their positions with reasoned argument. He’d sooner call someone “lazy” or “crooked” or “lying” than actually addres what they have to say.

It appears he also puts his money where his mouth is:

Aides to Donald Trump, the US president, hired an Israeli private intelligence agency to orchestrate a “dirty ops” campaign against key individuals from the Obama administration who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal, the Observer can reveal.

People in the Trump camp contacted private investigators in May last year to “get dirt” on Ben Rhodes, who had been one of Barack Obama’s top national security advisers, and Colin Kahl, deputy assistant to Obama, as part of an elaborate attempt to discredit the deal.

According to incendiary documents seen by the Observer, investigators contracted by the private intelligence agency were told to dig into the personal lives and political careers of Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, and Kahl, a national security adviser to the former vice-president Joe Biden. Among other things they were looking at personal relationships, any involvement with Iran-friendly lobbyists, and if they had benefited personally or politically from the peace deal.

Team Trump didn’t hire Israelis (!) to try to attack the basis for the deal, or the particulars, or anything about the deal itself. They were hired to find material to smear the Obama people who had helped negotiate the deal, to discredit it through association.

Richard Nixon hired “dirty tricks” operatives, too. Just saying.




Revealed: Trump team hired spy firm for ‘dirty ops’ on Iran arms deal | UK news | The Guardian

View on Google+