Trump shows compassion/empathy.
And
For those who remember and those who need to know:http://interactive.guim.co.uk/ embed/2014/apr/image-opacity- slider-master/index.html?ww2- dday
+++++++++++++++++++++
After Obama, everyone believes they can test/challenge America. (See 1 and 1a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Lloyd Thompson is a friend and fellow memo reader and sent me this op ed he wrote. Rings so very true. A succinct and must read for those who believe America is not under full attack from within and cannot grasp the role Obama and his crowd of fascist radicals are playing. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++
The Saudis have low cost oil, they have wealth but they are frightened regarding the Monarch's survival. Obama financed their greatest enemy. Consequently, the military umbrella America once provided folded.
Trump's mission is to reassure The Saudis. Ironically, an ally in this endeavor is a strong Israel.
I warned, all along, Obama's intent was to weaken America, strengthen radical Arabs and sever the relationship with The Saudis while also weakening Israel. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++
Wormy Schumer is upset with Mitch McConnell and is complaining that the proposed health care bill ia being crafted in secret and his side of the aisle does not know what is in it but he conveniently forgets what Pelosi said when Obamacare was being shoved down the nation's throat - "We have to pass it to learn what is in it. "
Hypocrisy is never beneath politicians. Now the shoe is on the other foot and it pinches.
Consequently, Democrats, being the consummate foot dragsters, are engaged in slowing the Senate, which is glacial enough, in order to run out the clock on Congress' taking off for the summer. If McConnell is serious about Republican prospects they will cancel their vacation plans and stay in session and get some things accomplished. Wouldn't that be novel?
Former White House Speechwriter Bill McGurn on how Republicans are crafting their ObamaCare repeal and replace plan.
++++++++++++++++Senile humor. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++
1)Iran missile struck ISIS but is also aimed at US, Saudis, Israel
By YONAH JEREMY BOB
|
That Iran would verbally threaten ISIS, Saudi Arabia, the US and Israel is not new. That it would launch six Zolfaghar ballistic missiles more than 600 kilometers into another country is. Although Iran’s ballistic missiles hit ISIS in Syria on Sunday, the audience for the strike explicitly included the US and Saudi Arabia and, implicitly, Israel.
Recently, tensions have escalated on multiple fronts, between the US and the Saudis on one side and Iran on the other. The US and Saudi Arabia were specifically mentioned by an Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps spokesman as part of its audience for the “message” it sent by firing the missiles.
Israel, although not explicitly mentioned, has been the focus of constant threats by Iran – both directly and indirectly – via its support for Hezbollah and Hamas.
That Iran would verbally threaten ISIS, Saudi Arabia, the US and Israel is not new. That it would launch six Zolfaghar ballistic missiles more than 600 kilometers into another country is.
The question is how new, and does it transform Israel’s threat estimate? The argument – that firing the missiles greatly enhanced the threat Iran presents to Israel – would say its use of such powerful long-range weapons makes it more likely that it would use them again.
Going one step further, the argument would note: Even if Iran’s nuclear program is currently delayed by its deal with the West, in around another eight years, Iran could be launching ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads attached.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to take Iran’s missile launch seriously, saying on Monday: “We are following their actions and we are following their words. I have one message to Iran: ‘Don’t threaten Israel.’”
While the threat is nothing to scoff at, Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman appeared to downplay it on Monday saying: “Israel is not worried, Israel is ready for any development. We are not concerned.”
Those arguing that Iran’s missile launch is not a serious change for Israel and is primarily one for ISIS, and possibly Saudi Arabia, can note that Iran has for years had the capability to hit Israel with its less advanced Shabab 3 and other missiles.
The longer range of the Zolfaghar might matter for US bases in the Middle East and for Saudi Arabia, but it adds no new threat for Israel.
Also, past conduct suggests that Iran’s missile strike, even as it shocked most of the world, is predictable behavior and may even have been understated.
According to both Iran and the anti-Iranian Mujahidin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), on April 18, 2001, Iran hit the Iraq-based MEK with between 44 and 77 missiles in as many as six locations.
Iran’s onslaught on the MEK came following the MEK’s launch of more than a dozen mortar attacks around Tehran.
Sunday’s six missiles against one ISIS location were a response to Islamic State’s June 7 audacious, simultaneous terrorist attack on Iran’s Parliament and the Ayatollah Khomeini shrine in the heart of Tehran.
So, in that sense, Iran’s attack on ISIS was far more modest than its last firing of ballistic missiles on the MEK.
Finally, in both the MEK and ISIS cases, Iran fired missiles on a weaker enemy to “teach a lesson” when it believed they had crossed some lines in confronting Iran deep in its territory.
Saudi Arabia has far more sophisticated firepower than ISIS or the MEK to hit back at Iran from a long distance; and the US and Israel each have even greater firepower than the Saudis to rain down on Iran if attacked by missiles.
Ultimately, though Iran’s missile strikes raised some eyes and were probably meant to show some toughness to the US and Saudi Arabia, for Israel, they did little more than confirm Iran as an ongoing and relevant threat that must be carefully monitored.
Recently, tensions have escalated on multiple fronts, between the US and the Saudis on one side and Iran on the other. The US and Saudi Arabia were specifically mentioned by an Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps spokesman as part of its audience for the “message” it sent by firing the missiles.
Israel, although not explicitly mentioned, has been the focus of constant threats by Iran – both directly and indirectly – via its support for Hezbollah and Hamas.
That Iran would verbally threaten ISIS, Saudi Arabia, the US and Israel is not new. That it would launch six Zolfaghar ballistic missiles more than 600 kilometers into another country is.
The question is how new, and does it transform Israel’s threat estimate? The argument – that firing the missiles greatly enhanced the threat Iran presents to Israel – would say its use of such powerful long-range weapons makes it more likely that it would use them again.
Going one step further, the argument would note: Even if Iran’s nuclear program is currently delayed by its deal with the West, in around another eight years, Iran could be launching ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads attached.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to take Iran’s missile launch seriously, saying on Monday: “We are following their actions and we are following their words. I have one message to Iran: ‘Don’t threaten Israel.’”
While the threat is nothing to scoff at, Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman appeared to downplay it on Monday saying: “Israel is not worried, Israel is ready for any development. We are not concerned.”
Those arguing that Iran’s missile launch is not a serious change for Israel and is primarily one for ISIS, and possibly Saudi Arabia, can note that Iran has for years had the capability to hit Israel with its less advanced Shabab 3 and other missiles.
The longer range of the Zolfaghar might matter for US bases in the Middle East and for Saudi Arabia, but it adds no new threat for Israel.
Also, past conduct suggests that Iran’s missile strike, even as it shocked most of the world, is predictable behavior and may even have been understated.
According to both Iran and the anti-Iranian Mujahidin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), on April 18, 2001, Iran hit the Iraq-based MEK with between 44 and 77 missiles in as many as six locations.
Iran’s onslaught on the MEK came following the MEK’s launch of more than a dozen mortar attacks around Tehran.
Sunday’s six missiles against one ISIS location were a response to Islamic State’s June 7 audacious, simultaneous terrorist attack on Iran’s Parliament and the Ayatollah Khomeini shrine in the heart of Tehran.
So, in that sense, Iran’s attack on ISIS was far more modest than its last firing of ballistic missiles on the MEK.
Finally, in both the MEK and ISIS cases, Iran fired missiles on a weaker enemy to “teach a lesson” when it believed they had crossed some lines in confronting Iran deep in its territory.
Saudi Arabia has far more sophisticated firepower than ISIS or the MEK to hit back at Iran from a long distance; and the US and Israel each have even greater firepower than the Saudis to rain down on Iran if attacked by missiles.
Ultimately, though Iran’s missile strikes raised some eyes and were probably meant to show some toughness to the US and Saudi Arabia, for Israel, they did little more than confirm Iran as an ongoing and relevant threat that must be carefully monitored.
- 1a)
Skirmishing Over Syria
Putin, Iran and Assad test the Trump Administration.
A bipartisan conceit has been that the U.S. can defeat Islamic State by ducking the larger conflict in Syria, and now we’re finding out that may not be possible. A U.S. F-18 jet shot down a Syrian bomber on Sunday to protect U.S. allies fighting Islamic State, and on Monday Russia and Iran threatened to target U.S. planes in response.
A U.S. fighter shot down the Syrian SU-22 plane after Syrian aircraft made their second bombing run against Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) allied with the U.S. near Taqba. The regime was clearly testing whether the U.S. would assist its allies on the ground. The U.S. needed to send a deterrent message or Syrian President Bashar Assad will continue to press his offensive across SDF-held territory.
The risk of escalation is real, but this isn’t a skirmish the U.S. can easily avoid. Mr. Assad and his allies in Moscow and Tehran know that ISIS’s days controlling Raqqa in Syria are numbered. They want to assert control over as much territory as possible in the interim, and that means crushing the SDF.
The Russian threat on Monday to target with anti-aircraft missiles any U.S. aircraft flying west of the Euphrates River in Syria is part of the same intimidation strategy. Russia also suspended a hotline between the two armed forces designed to reduce the risk of a military mistake. Iran, which arms and assists Mr. Assad on the ground, vowed further Syrian regime attacks against SDF, all but daring U.S. planes to respond amid the Russian threat.
The White House and Pentagon reacted with restraint on Monday, calling for a de-escalation and open lines of communication. But if Syria and its allies are determined to escalate, the U.S. will either have to back down or prepare a more concerted effort to protect its allies and now U.S. aircraft.
This is the predicament President Obama put the U.S. in when his Syrian abdication created an opening for Vladimir Putin to intervene. Had the U.S. established a no-fly or other safe zone to protect refugees, the Kremlin might have been more cautious. Mr. Putin took the measure of Mr. Obama and gambled the former U.S. President would protest and do nothing. He was right. Now the Russian is testing President Trump as everyone maneuvers for post-ISIS advantage.
As a candidate, Mr. Trump supported “safe zones” for refugees and opposition forces. But he’s also shown no interest in a larger strategic goal than defeating ISIS. Now is the time for thinking through such a strategy because Syria, Russia and Iran know what they want.
Mr. Assad wants to reassert control over all of Syria, not a country divided into Alawite, Sunni and Kurdish parts. Iran wants a Shiite arc of influence from Tehran to Beirut. Mr. Putin will settle for a Mediterranean port and a demonstration that Russia can be trusted to stand by its allies, while America is unreliable. None of this is in the U.S. national interest.
The alternative would be to demonstrate that Mr. Assad, Iran and Russia will pay a higher price for their ambitions. This means refusing to back down from defending U.S. allies on the ground and responding if Russian aircraft or missiles attempt to take down U.S. planes. Our guess is that Russia doesn’t want a military engagement with the U.S. any more than the U.S. wants one with Russia, but Russia will keep pressing for advantage unless President Trump shows more firmness than his predecessor.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)WHY THE LEFT’S HATE IS SO DANGEROUS
Commentary by Lloyd Thompson
Behind the constant drum beat of the hatred of our president and his supporters is a calculated conspiracy to destroy our democracy and replace it with a socialist/ communist regime. The Democrat Party is essentially defunct, having been replaced with an amalgam of extreme ideologies spewing from the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – the new vanguards of the proletariat. In 1988, Sanders and his bride honeymooned in Soviet city of Yaroslavl, 160 miles northeast of Moscow, a true paradise for both workers and newly weds. Need I say more. Warren greedily flipped elderly Oklahoman’s homes in the early nineties, yet demonizes honest real estate developers. These caricatures of trailblazers would have you believe that the wonders of socialism – as demonstrated in Venezuela, Russia, and Cuba – should supplant the capitalistic system that has created the freest, wealthiest and most important nation in the history of the world.
Lenin and Molotov would be delighted with the actions and statements of these “useful idiots” – Lenin’s term for promoters of a cause, the goals of which they are not fully aware, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause. Putin and his clever Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia, Valery Vasilyevich Gerasimov, are gleefully wringing their hands at the success of their “fake news” campaigns aimed at bringing down Mr. Trump and destroying the credibility of American Conservatives. The “Gerasimov Doctrine” of propaganda and the weaponization of information has been swallowed whole by the Left. Gerasimov is never mentioned in our media. Yet, he is manipulating them all like a skilled puppeteer.
The bigger danger here lies in a combination of ignorance of world and American history, and a seeming unwillingness to learn the truth. Millions of young people have been duped by Bernie Sanders’ vision of a great tomorrow and Warren’s “hate the evil rich” pitch. Both of these would have you believe that “The 1%” are evil, while actually these two frauds are part of the 2% of the Inner Party of “Oceania” whom George Orwell portrays so brilliantly in his epic novel “1984”.
I’ll bet many, if not most, of this new breed of haters has never even heard of“1984”, let alone read and understood it. Of course, being written in 1944, it could not be relevant as it was written before their birth – when history, in their minds, began.
The danger also lies in the snowflake, candy-ass character of so many young men and women of high school and college age. Easily herded, many act like the Brown Shirt Fascists they claim to despise, yet, more than likely have never taken the time to study. How would these “safe space scaredy-cats” behave in a real crisis? Would they seek even safer spaces? A little independent thought would help.
Then you have the Barack Obama “Organizing for America” crowd, the George Soros backed “MoveOn.org” crew, and numerous other RESIST groups aiming their hatred at you and me and the family down the street. There is a not-so-hidden message of violence in the quest to prevent free speech and open meetings. What they forget is that others have tried to silence our voices, and the results have been disastrous for the perpetrators. We are slow to anger, sometime too slow.
Are the conservatives here as clever as Putin, Obama, Soros, Sanders, Warren and Garasimov? We better be better!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Fear Is What Changed Saudi Arabia
Why is Riyadh taking risks? It worries it can no longer depend on the U.S.—or on oil
By Walter Russell Mead
The Saudis are also bringing new gusto to domestic policy: The 2030 plan backed by Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is the most far-reaching and ambitious program for Saudi reform and restructuring ever seriously proposed. Privatizing the state oil giant Aramco (or at least part of it) and using the money to diversify the economy is, by Saudi standards, a revolutionary idea.
The jury is out on whether the Saudis’ new foreign and domestic policies will work, but no doubt something fundamental has changed in what used to be one of the world’s most cautious and slow-moving countries. The question is why. Some look to the deputy crown prince, a 31-year-old reformer elevated to his current role in 2015. But his rise is more a sign of the times than the main force driving change. After all, in the old Saudi Arabia, a mere 30-something never would have been allowed anywhere near the reins of power.
So what is behind the new Saudi activism? Fear. It’s an emotion that comes naturally to an oil-rich kingdom with a relatively small population in a neighborhood full of predatory rivals. For years fear made the Saudis cautious, since they felt they could take shelter behind a strong and confident America. Now they aren’t so sure.
In Riyadh, the Age of Insecurity began during President Obama’s tenure. Mr. Obama’s outreach to Iran—and his willingness to overlook its unprecedented regional aggression in his quest for a nuclear deal—left the Saudis feeling isolated and betrayed. As Iranian power spread across Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, Saudis concluded that the U.S. no longer saw Saudi security as part of its core national interest.
The Trump administration has sought to reassure the Saudis that the “tilt to Iran” has ended, but their insecurity runs deep. From Riyadh, and from many other world capitals, the erratic shifts in American foreign policy—from Bush to Obama to Trump—raise disturbing questions about the future. Who comes after Mr. Trump? Elizabeth Warren ? Sean Hannity ? As American politics becomes less predictable and more extreme, countries that have grounded their national strategy on the stability of an American alliance must reassess their options.
Then there is oil, an issue on which Saudis and Americans once saw eye to eye. With their enormous reserves, the Saudis believed that they were in the oil business for the long term. Unlike more aggressive players, who wanted to push oil prices as high as possible, the Saudis used their position as a “swing producer” to keep markets reasonably stable—something the U.S. appreciated. The Saudi goal was to keep their customers committed to oil long term and forestall heavy investment in alternative fuels.
The shale revolution is shifting this balance. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia are no longer allies in the oil market. American frackers, who can quickly increase or decrease output as prices change, are challenging Saudi Arabia’s role as the global swing producer.
Worse, from a Saudi point of view, the long-term dynamics of the oil market seem to be changing. There is much less talk of “peak oil” in the sense of peak production, and more talk of “peak demand.” Advances in energy efficiency and alternative power-generation are shifting the long-term demand curve for hydrocarbons. At the same time, Saudi Arabia’s rapidly growing population will place increasing demands on its economy. Riyadh worries that if oil becomes less profitable, it will be unable to keep its people happy.
All this suggests that the current turbulence in the Gulf is here to stay. If the Trump administration wants to restore tranquillity, it should think holistically about Saudi Arabia’s economic and security problems—and creatively about how this American alliance, a pillar of Middle East stability since World War II, can be renewed.
Mr. Mead is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a professor of foreign affairs at Bard College, and editor at large of the American Interest.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
determine whether or not an older person should be put in an old age home?"
"Well," he said, "we fill up a bathtub, then we offer a
teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the person to empty the bathtub.">
"Oh, I understand," I said. "A normal person would use the
bucket because it is bigger than the spoon or the teacup."
"No" he said. "A normal person would pull the plug. Do you
want a bed near the window?"
No comments:
Post a Comment