Syria
Over the past few weeks I have been kicking around different views on Syria and where the United States should stand. I've taken into consideration opinions from a few friends, so my opinion has changed, well more like it formed. So, here we go.
The missile strike on Syria was the correct decision. Assad continues to drop Sarin on his own countrymen and he's propped up by Putin and Russia. The strike lets the world know where we stand on leaders killing their own citizens and on nations supporting these leaders. Obama made that red line in Syria, but he didn't do anything about it; he didn't take a firm stance at all.
Assad, like other leaders, saw Obama make his apology tours to apologize for things that happened in the past. Apologizing for things that happened in history shows weakness not strength. Strength is exactly the thing we need to show to every nation. Trump showed strength by striking Syria right in front of Assad and his puppeteer, Putin.
I originally thought that the U.S. stay out of the Middle East, but that was too idealistic of a view. Once we became embroiled in world affairs, which happened decades ago, it was too late to pull back out of world affairs (this includes the Middle East). We, like every other nation, now have to protect our own interests, because no one else will. We need to put America first. It might selfish to some folks, however, we elect people to lead our country and put it first.
Now, we should move forward surgically when dealing with Syria, but maybe regime change isn't a terrible idea. We should make the best strategy possible and then commit to the strategy, unlike some previous administrations (I'm not just talking about Obama, let me just get ahead of it now).
Iran
The Iran nuclear deal needs to be investigated and I'm glad it is being investigated. That deal should have never been signed in the first place. As the saying goes, I don't trust Iran as far as I can throw them. Any nation that supports terrorism as much as they do should not be trusted with nuclear weaponry. They also hate Israel and Israel is really our only true ally in the Middle East.
Secretary of State Tillerson said it best, "An unchecked Iran has the potential to travel the same path as North Korea — and to take the world along with it."
Let's not forget how this nuclear deal was born. The Obama administration created an "echo chamber" of experts who all agreed on the nuclear deal. There were no dissenting opinions on the matter. I don't really need to say this, but that's not how you make a decision. You need people of different viewpoints involved in a discussion to make an informed decision.
The Iran deal was something the administration promised on the campaign trail, so they pushed it on through to say that they signed a nuclear deal with Iran. Did it matter that Iran supports Hamas? No. Did it matter that they hate Israel? No. The deal was political more than anything.
North Korea
North Korea, oh, North Korea... Where do I begin? Maybe I should start with the most recent American citizen to be arrested in North Korea. The following is from The Christian Post:
Korean-American Tony Kim, who also goes by his Korean name Kim Sang-duk and is in his 50s, was leaving after having spent a month teaching an accounting course at Pyongyang University of Science and Technology.....
Kim is the third known American being held in North Korea. Last year, Otto Warmbier, a University of Virginia student, was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in prison in North Korea after he "confessed" to trying to steal a propaganda banner. South Korean-born Kim Dong Chul, who is believed to have U.S. citizenship, is serving a sentence of 10 years for "espionage."
We are all well aware of the ICBM tests and the missile truck parades, those communists sure love their parades.
North Korea also supplies Assad with Sarin and Iran with arms. They profit from the slaughter of innocent people. Kim Jong-Un doesn't care of course, because he's a dictator who does whatever he wants regardless of morality. Dictators are all the same, no matter if they're North Korean or Syrian.
I hope we don't have to come to blows, but if they launch an ICBM with the ability to hit America, then it's go time. China may even put Kim Jong-Un on a shorter leash, who knows. My only point is that the world has had to put up with three generations of Kim's and I think this Kim's time may be coming. He's a threat to global security and he's getting ready for war.
In summary, Syria, Iran, and North Korea are all threats that need to be dealt with in some manner. We shouldn't rush to war, but doing nothing is what our foreign policy has been for the past few years. The world has shaken their heads at us for too long. We need to flex our muscles and show the world that America is a force to be reckoned with.
Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." We've been speaking softly, now it's time for the stick.
This past Sunday two teenage girls were not allowed to board a United Airlines flight at Denver International Airport headed for Minneapolis because they were wearing leggings.
That sentence is all it took for social media to go crazy. People too lazy to read the whole article were going off half-cocked hurling insults at United for being unruly. It doesn't take much to set off Twitter and Facebook, even something as trivial as this did it.
Here's the part people missed: the teenagers were "pass riders." Per United: "One of the benefits of working for an airline is that our employees are able to travel the world. Even better, they can extend this privilege to a select number of what we call "pass riders." These are relatives or friends who also receive the benefit of free or heavily discounted air travel... When taking advantage of this benefit, all employees and pass riders are considered representatives of United. And like most companies, we have a dress code that we ask employees and pass riders to follow."
The New York Times aptly named one of their articles on this matter: What Can You Wear on a Plane? It Depends Who’s Paying. Another New York Times article, After Barring Girls for Leggings, United Airlines Defends Decision, explains that this was started by a passenger who waiting to board a flight at the same airport. She took it upon herself to tweet about what was happening during the incident while saying that United was "policing the clothing of women and girls."
The leggings weren't really the issue. The only issue was that the teens didn't follow the dress code for pass riders. United wasn't doing anything crazy.
The only reason I brought this up is to paint a picture of the social climate today. Many people hear a fragment of a news story or a conversation and go straight to social media for blood.
As I said, even something trivial like a dress code violation can be turned into a social media firestorm. People have mostly been this way forever, but social media made it easy for people to rant and rave while being completely ignorant. There were twits before Twitter.
As the young folks say today: check yo self before you wreck yo self. As in think before you do something. It's a crazy idea, isn't it?
I would like to take a moment to thank the women who not participating in "A Day Without Women". These women, the ones not participating, are doing the right thing by going to work, taking care of their children, or doing whatever else they have to do. The women participating in this demonstration are doing themselves, their families, and society more harm than good. Women are important to our country and I don't deny that, but marching and laying out of work are not proving anything.
There's a lot of supposed problems with being a woman in America, according to the news. I'm here to say that America is the best country on the planet for women. Women in America can vote, they can go outside without a man, they can drive, beating women is a crime, they can have a career in practically any field, they don't have to wear hijabs, and they can do pretty much anything they want to. In other nations around the world women aren't allowed to do anything I listed and their husbands can legally beat them. Many women in Africa have to walk miles through deserts and war torn towns just to get water for themselves and their children.
So, to the women laying out of work and marching, please don't let the media and the radicals get you riled up about how bad America is. Compared to the Middle East and Africa, America is paradise. Don't forget that when you're complaining about oppression. My hat goes off to the women in the Middle East and Africa who have to live in those conditions. These women are the ones who truly need help in this world. Why don't you march to that?
There's just no sense in this mess. I'm not trying to be "that" guy, but I'm tired of people who live here complaining about America. I know America is not perfect, however, no other country is as good as America. We have it good here.
Edit: I removed the original ending, because I wrote it in haste and it got off of the message I was trying to get across. All I meant to say was that I don't see the problems these women talk about. I do, however, appreciate all that women contribute to our country.
President Trump's first address to Congress on Tuesday was very presidential and much different than his campaign speeches. Trump didn't use his normal language, but he spoke calmly and collected. That's not to say that I doubted he had the ability to speak this well, because he knows how to give speeches. I'm glad he did change his tone from his campaign speeches; I didn't particularly like those speeches, but that's in the past and not the present. As many pundits have put it: Trump became the president in that address.
Another thing that this address displayed was the pettiness of the Democratic Party. I read a study the other day (I can't find link to it) that said about 64% of Americans agree that if the Democrats don't work with Trump then their standing among citizens will be harmed. If this study is a good representation of Americans, the Democrats should reconsider their course of resistance and persistence, as Hillary Clinton encouraged in her little video. Most Americans hate political gridlock and that's what Clinton is suggesting.
The Democrats certainly showed themselves at the address Tuesday by refusing to stand and clap at almost everything. They seem to have forgotten that they are our representatives, We the People put them there.
Trump pointed out some serious problems that need to be fixed and promised to fix them, which he hopefully will. The problems that I'm personally glad he brought up are ISIS, Iran, the attacks on Jewish people, the infrastructure of our country, school vouchers, and immigration. All of these problems should have received bipartisan applause and should receive bipartisan attention in Congress.
I'm going to keep this post short, because I'm working on a longer post on another topic. Nonetheless, I wanted to at least commend Pres. Trump on a well put together address. I'm trying to be a little more supportive of the President, even though he wasn't my first choice. I was a part of this election, which is something I'm proud of. I only hope politicians and regular citizens will be less angry about Trump.
I know everyone doesn't agree with Pres. Trump's policies and I get that. I have empathy for them after the last eight years. I'm not going to trash Obama, but I didn't agree with most of his policies. Regardless of my personal feelings, Obama was the president. The office of the president should be respected no matter your personal feelings.
Flynn's resignation, or what some are calling a political assassination, is concerning because our government recorded a citizen's phone calls and used those calls to essentially get him fired. There is more to this than hearsay about Flynn possibly talking to Russia about US sanctions. The method used is what concerns me most of all, though the whole thing concerns me.
The intelligence community should not leak sensitive information to the press and they should not tap phone lines for no good reason. The press is not responsible for prosecuting someone, that's not patriotism in any sense of the word.
The reason I brought up patriotism is because I was watching MSNBC to see what they were saying, it's good to see what the slant is sometimes. The show that was on was MSNBC Live with Stephanie Ruhle and Carl Higbie was being firmly interviewed (that's the nice way to put it) by Ruhle; she asked him in the context of the White House press leaks, "You are a Navy SEAL yourself. Could you see that maybe there are some people in there who are patriots who are saying, ‘I’ve got to figure a way to get the truth out.'"
Let's talk about that question. First of all, are the majority of SEAL's unpatriotic? That seems to be what Ruhle is questioning. I could be putting too much into her question, so let's discount that one. The main problem I see with her question is that she says that it's patriotic to leak information to the press illegally. Edward Snowden may think that is patriotic, but I don't consider that to be patriotic.
Patriotism, according to Merriam-Webster, is defined as "love for or devotion to one's country." I can't reconcile how devotion to my country fits with breaking my country's law to leak information to the press.
Before I digress too much, I do believe this was a political assassination. The intelligence community wanted Flynn out by almost any means necessary.
This quote from an article on The Week is a good summary:
Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. "Finally," they say, "someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president!"
I don't agree with everything said in that article, but that quote I do agree with. The intelligence community, or the FBI, does not need to be engaged in undermining our own president and his administration. They didn't do this to Obama.
Why would Flynn be the victim of a political assassination?
Here's a reason: there was "a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump's national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran" by discrediting Flynn. Ben Rhodes, former Obama administration adviser, created this little task force. Obama wants to handicap our own country's national security to politically destroy Trump. I'm not putting the blame fully upon Obama, but he is clearly one of the cogs in this operation.
The only other reason I can figure is the intelligence community's dislike of Trump. It's not my most developed thought, nonetheless it's a thought.
If the intelligence community will take down a president's cabinet member, then who else will they take down? That's my concern. And let's not forget that a man's name was besmirched in all of this.
