Iowa Was A Massive Gift To Trump

The DNC blatant rigging of the Iowa caucus was another in a series of massive gifts to Trump in the general election.

The DNC is claiming that the app they used to calculate rankings in the Iowa caucus was due to a flaw in programming. However, that flaw did not appear until 62% of the votes had been counted, showing Sanders in the lead in the popular vote. A flaw in programming? This app should have been less complex than an over the counter pocket calculator! Definitely less complex than a high end scientific calculator, available for less than $100 at Walmart.

This was no mistake, no error in coding. To use a brand new app without extensive testing in advance and no backup system to verify calculations concurrent to the first use is something no technology expert would ever approve. Yet this is what the DNC claims they did.

Blatant caucus rigging. In 2016, Sanders had an advantage in caucus states, where he had much stronger rates of success. It was in primary, especially closed primary states where he magically had lower success rates. Same states that had problems with inadequate ballots available, broken machines, long lines, voter registration changes resulting in large numbers of provisional ballots, most of which were discarded without being counted and purging of voter rolls. As a result, the DNC has been working adamantly for four years on ways to rig caucuses in any way they can.

Sanders’ response. Before he ever released his response, I knew word for word what Sanders’ response was going to be. “I am sadly disappointed.” That’s telling ’em, Bernie! They’re shaking in their boots NOW!!! What would his response have been if this had been the GOP making the same “error”? I suspect he would have much stronger words.

This is far worse than “disappointing”. There is no reason for any reasonable person to believe that this was not fully intentional. It has been widely revealed that the company, Shadow, that developed the app has direct ties to the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC and candidate Pete Buttigieg, who just happened to be leading the delegate count in Iowa, though not the popular vote, led by Sanders.

Latest in a series of DNC machinations. Starting in 2015, the DNC has been demonstrated to have manipulated the 2016 election, with delegates pledging their votes to Clinton before the first debate ever occurred, before the first primary or caucus took place. As a response to the DNC fraud lawsuit, the DNC used the defense in federal court that they were under no obligation to offer a fair primary and could choose the nominee, “In a smoke filled back room” with no public input at all. The DNC use of superdelegates has come under extreme public scrutiny, leading the DNC to alter the rules regarding superdelegates so they cannot vote until the second round of voting in the primary. In other words, if there is a contested convention. Yet they have taken steps to insure the 2020 convention will most likely be contested. Still, it has been revealed that the DNC elite has been discussing changing those rules back and allowing superdelegates to vote in the first round of voting. They also implemented the DNC Loyalty Pledge, which states the DNC chair has the final say on who the nominee is, depending on how loyal the candidate is to the party, regardless of standing in the popular vote.

Russiagate/Ukrainegate. After more than 3 years of Russiagate beginning in mid-2016, Mueller lost in court to the Russian ad agency he himself had indicted. In the same week, immediately before his Congressional testimony, the DNC lost in federal court to Wikileaks. None of this mattered when Schiff presented his opening arguments in the impeachment trial, where Schiff resurrected Russia as a specter, sounding like he was attempting to impeach Putin rather than Trump. The literal fact of the matter is that Russia had absolutely nothing to do with the Ukraine issue. This led the GOP-majority Senate to disallow witnesses in the impeachment process, rather than allow the same false arguments to be continued for months, even years longer. Sanders could have and should have opposed Russiagate, if only after the Mueller report. Instead he helped perpetuate it even 2 weeks ago.

Drama, drama, drama. Yes, we all know Trump is extremely dramatic and childish. However, so is all of the DNC elite. On 2/4/2020, Nancy Pelosi made a dedicated show of tearing up her copy of Trump’s SOTU speech. All of Russiagate and Ukrainegate were nothing but drama. Mueller indicted the Russian ad agency for theater, believing they would have no representation in court to oppose him. Democrats turned their back on him during one SOTU address. Remember that? Is this how we want this country being run? When do we get someone to be the adult in the room?

What does all of this mean? This may help Sanders but only within the devoted Democratic voters in the primary. No matter who wins the DNC nomination, including Sanders, it is likely to cause immense harm. The only hope the Democrats were likely to have this year would have been to draw in new voters or attract voters across party lines. With all of the corruption and falsehood shown by the DNC, bringing in new voters is unlikely at best. Attracting voters across party lines simply will not happen. In fact, it seems most likely Independent voters will vote against the DNC. If that was not true before, this event cinched that deal. Voters who are not “Blue No Matter Who” will not trust the DNC, even if they dislike the GOP. Bernie has not helped by saying he will (AGAIN) endorse whomever gets the DNC nomination if he does not.

Even if we accept this as a mistake, that does not bode well for a party that is expected to be in charge of our national security. In fact it is terrifying when their emails were leaked months after the FBI offered to help secure their servers. Then THAT came after the whole drama of Hillary’s email server, which the Democrats defended ferociously and continue doing so to this day.

What the DNC has shown explicitly is that they are incompetent. Even when they are being dishonest, they are ragingly incompetent in doing so. To defend this is even more incompetent and nothing short of insane.

This was only the first primary of the year. How much worse can they make the remaining 49+?

This Is Why No Witnesses Were Allowed To Testify

For those who have been hoping for the Senate to oust Trump from office, that’s not likely. The Senate Republicans decided to not allow witnesses to testify.

Of course, the “Impeach!” crowd is crying foul. Then again, how many of them have watched even clips of the proceedings, rather than picking and choosing biased reports telling them what to think about the proceedings?

I will admit to have seen only a few clips from the proceedings but that was enough to make me understand why no witnesses would be called. Ulcerative colitis and respect for my own sanity dictated that I could only listen to Adam Schiff for so long. Just as I have never been able to listen to a Trump speech in it’s entirety or listen to Pelosi for over 2 minutes. In each case I can feel my brain cells actively imploding from the sheer vacuum emanating from the black holes which substitute for their intellects.

In his opening statements, Schiff sounded more like he was trying to impeach Vladimir Putin rather than Donald Trump. He completely ignores the fact that we have already suffered through over 3 years of Russiagate, which concluded in absolute discredit for Mueller and should have been complete shame for the Democrats and MSM. Yet here was Schiff stating such things as “Putin wakes up every morning dreaming of ways to destroy our democracy.” This while the DNC is installing methods of rigging the convention after already rigging the primary against Tulsi Gabbard. He compared Russia to a wounded animal.

He has offered such gems as “We need to fight Russia over there (Ukraine) so that we don’t have to fight them over here.” Hmm. I don’t see Russia arming Mexico or placing ABM sites along the Canadian border to the US. I do not see Russia holding massive military exercises right on our doorstep.

Yes, the US is arming Ukraine against Russia. Something happening under Trump which even Obama refused to do because of the risk involved. Never mind the fact that Ukrainian president Zelensky ran on a platform of improving relations with Russia. That’s why the people of Ukraine voted for him. Never mind that if we send weapons to Ukraine, most of those weapons wind up in the hands of right-wing neo-Nazi groups. Schiff thinks if he doesn’t mention any of that, that none of us will know about it. For most Americans, that is true. That would not fit with their 1 dimensional view of the world. “Us good, Russia bad.”

“My own presumptions.” I will hearken back to the testimony of former ambassador Sondland. When asked where he got the idea that any quid pro quo took place between Trump and Zelensky, his reply was, “By my own presumptions.” He was the absolute central source for all the information regarding the Ukraine allegations and all other “witnesses” were downstream from Sondland. There were no other direct witnesses to the events in question, so all other witness testimony relied on his account. The so-called “whistleblower” did not hear anything directly. Their own account states they heard something from someone who heard something from someone who may have heard the conversation between Trump and Zelensky.

No quid pro quo. The accusations involved are that Trump required an agreement from Zelensky that Zelensky would publicly announce that he had ordered the reopening of the corruption case involving the oil company for which Joe Biden’s civilian son worked for. Until that happened, Trump would withhold monetary aid for military purposes from Ukraine. The problem is, the funds were released to Ukraine and Zelensky never made any announcement, nor did he order the reopening of that investigation. The funds were released weeks before the initial charges were filed against Trump.

Without a proven crime, there was no obstruction. The accusations being raised against Trump do not rise to the extent of being called a crime, nor are they impeachable offenses. They would be considered ethics violations which would be best addressed by official Congressional sanction against Trump. Therefore, with no crime committed or even directly accused, there is no legal precedent to claim there was obstruction of justice because justice would only be involved regarding criminal acts. Not ethics violations.

Impeachment definition. Yes, Trump has been impeached. However, impeachment doe not mean removal from office. The official definition of impeachment per Merriam-Webster is: 1- to charge with a crime or misdemeanor. specifically To charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office. 2- To cast doubt on. especially to challenge the credibility or validity of. (Such as impeaching the credibility of a court witness.)

This strengthened Trump’s support. As I and many others have warned, the result of this debacle has had the effect of strengthening support for Trump. This is more true when it comes after 3 years of Russiagate, which was a miserable and foreseeable failure. This is even more true when the Democrats openly and blatantly resuscitated Russiagate in the opening arguments for impeachment, which had absolutely nothing to do with Russia. This made it crystal clear that the Democrats are still trying to use Russia to justify Hillary’s loss in 2016 by any means possible, regardless of how immense the risk is.

It would have been better to leave him alone. The literal fact of the matter is that if the Democrats simply left Trump unmolested, his own failures would cause a massive decline in his approval ratings. The more they attack him and the attacks they choose are globally visible failures displaying an obvious witch hunt attitude, the more his approval ratings increase. Not because of actual approval for him but disapproval for the “Resistance”.

Other charges could have worked. If the Dems had used charges of war crimes or human rights abuses, the impeachment would have had far more chance of succeeding. Especially after he ordered the outright assassination of a foreign military leader of a country we are not at war with. This action violating the sovereignty of an “allied” nation, nevertheless one that had ordered our military to leave before that happened. Then including the concurrent assassination of one of Iraq’s own military leaders. However, using such charges would entail the Democrats objecting to what has become standard US policy, which they do not oppose in the least. Trump could order the assassinations of Putin and they would still claim it was Putin’s idea. He could order the murders of Xi, Kim Jong Un, Maduro, Duterte and maybe Merkel and they would not file charges against him for any of it, long as they got to sell more bombs.

This ends the DNC platform. Perpetuating Russiagate and keeping the impeachment going all the way through 2020 was the DNC platform for this election year. They seem to literally have nothing else aside from rigging the primary in favor of Biden or Bloomberg. So this tactic has failed, which was highly predictable. Honestly, I did not expect it to happen this quickly but I am very happy it did. That does not mean it will change anything the Dems do for the rest of the year. I fully expect them to continue having nothing to discuss as a party for all of 2020 except “hate Trump” and “Russia, Russia, Russia”. Doing anything else would mean the DNC as a party would have to move leftward, which they have no intention of doing. For now, they have no more distractions to use for anyone that is conscious. For the far too many that are not conscious, they will go right along with talking about the impeachment for the rest of the year, with neoliberal MSM leading the way.

We Need A Warrior

So, The DNC has announced new rules for the convention which amount to election rigging. This will lead to a contested convention and use of superdelegates to determine the Democratic nominee. To enforce those rules, they are putting a rules committee in place comprised of neoliberal capitalist warmongers. In addition, there is allegedly talk on the sidelines of reversing the decision regarding superdelegates, allowing them to vote in the first round of voting to avoid even a contested convention.

Who could have seen this coming? Woe is me.

Now Bernie is speaking out. Really? Now? Even this response is weak tea and limp noodles. Hardly a Revolutionary response.

This has been my major complaint against Bernie for years. He has had 4 years to speak out against election rigging and has failed at every turn. He has had his chance 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for 4 years and remained silent through all of that time.

In 2016, Sanders had promised to contest the convention. He never did so. Instead, he surrendered and campaigned for Hillary.

During the 2016 primary, he did not object to the superdelegate system. Instead, he tried using it to his advantage, trying to swing superdelegate votes to his side and failed.

Since then he has gone on the DNC Unity Tour with Perez. When the DNC Fraud lawsuit came along, he was silent. He has never once commented publicly on the DNC defense in court that they were not obligated to offer a fair primary and could “select the nominee in a smoke filled back room”.

Russiagate has been used against Sanders. His response? He has stated that “Russia” helped his campaign in 2016 and he didn’t know about it. He uses the DNC-authorized language, always specifying “Russia” as a ghostly, fearful, malignant entity. He does not state the Russian government did anything. Just “Russia”. His most recent major statement proving he is still doing this was on 14 Jan 2020, when he released this statement:

In the last few months, Sanders has been silent on the arbitrary rules for inclusion in the debates because he has met the threshold for each one. Tulsi Gabbard has been excluded from multiple debates but Bernie says nothing about that. His response? To participate in the DNC Unity fundraising video.

When Hillary attacked Tulsi Gabbard, Sanders was silent for days. No doubt he finally responded weakly because his supporters demanded something from him and his advisers told him he better say something. If not for that, I expect he would still be silent. Notice he was not silent for days when Hillary said something less offensive about him. That got a response right away.

Now Tulsi has been excluded from the upcoming debate, yet candidates with less support will be included. Even billionaire Bloomberg will be included. Bernie’s response? Silence. Not a word. Obviously as long as he is included, that’s all that matters to him.

We need a warrior who will fight for us. Sanders has proven beyond doubt that he is not that warrior. Millions of votes can be discarded, superdelegates can decide who the nominee is before the campaign begins, the DNC can blame another country, increasing risk of confrontation with a nuclear power and Sanders will be silent. A popular candidate can be excluded from debates and town halls, replaced by neoliberals and billionaires and Sanders will be silent. A former SoS can make false claims that a female member of Congress and decorated war veteran is a Russian asset and he will remain silent. Though when the rules get changed to oppose him, he will speak out. That is not fighting for you, that is fighting for himself.

We need a warrior who will fight for us. Tulsi has shown clearly she will fight for us. She stepped down as DNC vice chair to protest election rigging and openly stated so. She suffered defunding and opposition by the DNC as a result, yet still won reelection in her district. She has voiced opposition to the arbitrary rules for inclusion in debates. She has confronted CNN while on CNN. She has confronted Hillary Clinton in public, gave Clinton a chance to retract her accusation and then, when that failed, filed a defamation lawsuit against Clinton. Tulsi has met with foreign leaders whom we do not agree with and states that is her foreign policy. In other words, diplomacy. She knows we have to end the conflicts first, cut “defense” spending as a result and direct that spending to our own people.

We need a warrior who has appeal across party lines. Tulsi has appeal and support across all party lines, Democrat, Independent, Republican, Green Party and Libertarian. She has support from veterans who oppose war, people of color, women, Progressive men and antiwar activists of all stripes. For those who are apprehensive about the age of a candidate, that anxiety does not exist with her. Which means she has support from younger voters.

We need a warrior who has policies, not rhetoric. One thing is certain, when Tulsi says she will fight, she fights. When she says she will do something, she explains how she will go about it. When she says she will end wars, she explains that she will meet with adversarial leaders. NOBODY else does that. When she says she will oppose political parties yet fight for unity across party lines, she has already proven she will do exactly that. She does not resort to name-calling and party loyalism, which only divides us.

We need a warrior who can face Trump. Trump will be able to use many things against most of his opponents, including Russiagate and this recent failed attempt at impeachment. In direct debate, anyone who has supported or been silent on election rigging will have to answer for it. If they are capitalists who have benefited from his tax cuts, they will answer for it. If they voted in favor of wars they will answer for it. If they have never suggested meeting adversarial leaders for diplomacy, they will answer for it. If a candidate has described themselves as a Socialist, that can be used against them for voters who still object to that label. For those who object to corruption, profiteering and nepotism, there is nothing in her record to object to. Absolutely none of that can be used as ammunition against Tulsi. She would be able to stand toe to toe against Tiny Hand Major Bone Spurs and attract support not only from his opposition but his own base who feel disappointed in Trump. Someone who could not be put on the defensive. NO other candidate could do that.

We need a warrior. We need someone who has not only emotional appeal but has reasonable policies that work for the people. Someone ready, willing and able to use diplomacy but who does not back down. Someone not enslaved to a party but who would serve the American people. Someone who recognizes the human rights of those in other countries. Who opposes regime change. Who follows the Constitution. Who conducts herself with dignity. Who thinks on her feet, is always informed and uses rational thought processes.

Anything less is surrender and settling for less. Anything less is sentencing not just the US but the world to suffering the consequences of our weakness, our oligarchy, our imperialism.

US Embassy Attack, Still Just A Warning.. For Now

On Sunday, 1/27/2020, the US embassy in Baghdad was struck by 3 rockets. One person suffered minor injuries. This attack came 2 days after more than one million Iraqis gathered to peacefully protest the ongoing US military presence in Iraq, which can no longer be considered anything but an illegal occupation.

One of the most interesting (sic) aspects of this is that our media barely mentioned the massive protest at all. The missile strike was all over every channel and source as leading news.

The US Embassy is located in the “Green Zone”, which is one of the most militarily fortified compounds in the world. That did not prevent the attack from happening and will not prevent future attacks.

The response of the US government matters to an extreme for our 5200 military members stationed throughout Iraq right now. If the fortifications of the embassy are strengthened, that could very well anger the Iraqi people even more. It would be seen as the US government “digging in” with no intention of ever leaving. No matter how much the embassy is fortified, the personnel must commute outside the Green Zone at times. Supplies must enter the compound. Plus the obvious fact that not all 5200 service members are in the one compound but in lesser secured locations in the country. The rising tensions place all of them in danger. The service members are spread across multiple locations across a nation roughly the size of Texas, with a population of over 38 million. Most of whom follow a cleric who has openly called for US forces to leave.

Increasing warnings. This attack came roughly one week after another attack, which allegedly did no significant damage and caused no injuries. I warned at that time that that attack was a warning with no intention of doing harm. This most recent attack on Sunday struck the dining hall of the compound during dinner time, so it appears that harm was intended but not severe harm with the limited scope of the attack.

They know the compound. Keep in mind that our military forces have been in Iraq for over 16 years. Therefore it can be no question that anti-US influences have access to full knowledge of the Green Zone compound, which was previously the palace compound of Saddam Hussein. They may have made some alterations but the basic layout is still the same as it has been, possibly for centuries. They have contact with Iraqi military and possibly civilian personnel who know the schedules, routines and most of the security precautions in place for the compound. To entertain any fantasy that this was a failed attack rather than a more emphatic warning is naive and foolish.

There were more than 3 rockets. The US military reports 5 rockets total were launched at the compound that day, which is an increase in the number of attacks being attempted. One cannot question that the number and severity of attacks being launched will escalate rapidly and we can expect to hear of casualties in the very near future.

Blame Iran? The US government and media are portraying these attacks as originating from Iran with no evidence offered. Yet these attacks are taking place in a country the US invaded illegally, has maintained a presence in for 16 years, where the US armed terrorist groups, where we were told to leave by the prime minister and then we assassinated the leader of the PMU along with Iranian general Soleimani, who is credited with turning the tide against ISIS. Followed by refusal to leave after being told conclusively by their parliament to get out and threatening to impose sanctions on the country after seizing 50% of the profits from oil sales out of Iraq for years. Meanwhile the Iraqi people struggle with unemployment and poverty as a result of the conditions we created.

Something tells me the claims accusing Iran don’t hold much water.

Fear of settling differences. Both Iraq and Iran are majority Shia Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia is mostly Sunni Muslim. However, there are growing whispers that Saudi Arabia is reaching out to Iran and Iraq to settle differences. If that happens, the conflict in Yemen will cease. Quite likely the terrorist attacks in Syria will cease as well. This is what the US militarists fear most of all. It is a possibility. Remember that there was a time when nobody believed Protestants and Catholics would ever learn to coexist. There was a time when nobody thought the IRA (Irish Republican Army) would ever lay down their arms. Yet those things happened. The settling of differences in the ME could happen very soon and quickly when all countries face an external threat that unifies them. The US/Israel alliance is just such a threat.

It is far beyond time for the US to withdraw our forces from countries where we never had a right to any presence in the first place. Our government and media claim that US forces and “interests” are attacked in these countries. Countries we invaded illegally, killed millions and armed proxy terrorists to kill more, plundered and pillaged resources which we have NO right to under any law. None of our people or “interests” would risk attack if they were not there. Even Iraq has said they don’t want Americans gone, just the American military.

None of these governments are going to threaten retaliation against the US on domestic US soil. However, we have empowered and then abandoned terrorist groups multiple times. We have only a few thousand troops in all of these countries combined right now. In one way or another our government has been instrumental in destroying huge portions of their countries. Meanwhile they have watched our military dominance fade and our economy retract. They realize that Israel and Saudi Arabia are far too dependent on the US. They have seen the recent increase in defense aid from the US to Israel, which could be the spark that lights the final fuse.

If we wait any longer for these countries to form an alliance, then we should all fear greatly for the US service personnel in Iraq and Syria.

We won’t get many more warnings. Each one should be considered the final warning.

3D Chess

I love the way so many people claim that candidates are playing 3D chess in their tactics. Meanwhile, that 3D chess is always some altruistic dedication to the believer, rather than obfuscation and deceit, construction of an illusion which strips you of your rights.

It’s also amusing how too often the claimants seemingly have no ability to grasp concepts any more complex than tic-tac-toe. Just try explaining why the Mueller report was a tragic comedy to them sometime. These are people who praise not the complexity of tactics being used by a candidate. Instead they praise the name (cultism) and then ascribe complexity beyond (their own) comprehension aligned with magical benevolence to the persona they so worship.

Because that works out so well.

Which brings me to my point. Election reform is anything but positive reform. Suggested reforms hold the potential to have very sharp edges which can cut numerous ways.

Too often, people see different parts of a puzzle and see them as separate images. I consider them more like chemical compounds. One alone may be benign or even beneficial. Yet when mixed together they become highly volatile.

Take for example the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Under this act which has been approved in 15 blue states so far, all electoral votes in the general election are meant to be cast in favor of the winner of the national popular vote. The intention is to overcome the effect of the Electoral College. Meaning no candidate could win the election via the EC vote when the popular vote is against them. What is actually does is force states to flip votes. Say you live in a state where candidate A won the popular vote. Yet candidate B wins the popular vote in the majority of states. The electoral votes for your state would automatically change to be in favor of candidate B, as though you never voted at all.

In addition, this virtually eliminates swing states. Under the NPVIC, a candidate would win the election with only a small handful of states. The most crucial would be CA, NY, FL and TX, which by themselves account for 30% of the US population. Toss in PA, OH and IL and there would be no need to campaign in any other states at all. This means candidate A could win 43 of 50 states yet candidate B would win the election.

It also happens that NY, FL, CA and TX account for over 90% of the 0.1% top earners in the US. They also comprise 100% of corporate media management, which controls at least 95% of all media in the country.

Next we have Democratic superdelegates. Note that there is no equivalent in the Republican party. Under new rules, the superdelegates no longer get to vote in the primary unless there is a second round of voting. The passage of this rule was followed immediately by roughly 20 candidates announcing campaigns for the DNC nomination, which pretty much guarantees there will be a second round of voting in the primary.

Then we have the DNC Loyalty Pledge. This declares that the DNC chairperson has the power to disqualify any candidate whom they subjectively claim is not “loyal enough” to the DNC. There are no written criteria to measure this opinion. The disqualification can occur even after a candidate wins the nomination by a landslide popular vote.

Next up we have censorship, brought to you by Russiagate. The proponents of Russiagate have been proposing nothing less than censorship of social media for some time now. To avoid claims of US state-sponsored censorship, that censorship is not being ordered by the government but corporate social media has been “encouraged” directly in front of Congress to engage in censorship. Thus handing control of all you see and hear to corporate interests. If anyone wants to talk about election interference, this is what should be discussed.

Distortion and distraction. For over 3 years we had Russiagate, now thoroughly debunked. Neither corporate media or the DNC have acknowledged that Mueller was defeated in US federal court by the Russian advertising agency which he, himself indicted. A federal judge determined there was insufficient evidence to claim that the Russian government was in any way tied to the advertising agency. The Mueller report itself stated there was no evidence of “collusion” (sic). Yet in the opening statements of the impeachment hearing, Adam Schiff claimed as evidence for impeachment that “Russia” interfered in the election. Nearly every Democratic candidate for president also propagates this fantasy. Once again, the only exception is Tulsi Gabbard.

Campaign finance reform farce. In all of the DNC campaign finance reform proposals, there is no suggestion for any limit to corporate donations to campaigns. Many people believe this to be the case because of the wording being used. In one case a proposal by Bernie Sanders suggests banning corporate donations for the DNC convention. That does not touch campaign contributions. In other cases, the Democrats have suggested matching federal dollars to equal small donor contributions. This costs taxpayer dollars and increases funding for campaigns but again places no limit on corporate donations. There is talk of funding elections federally. Elections, NOT campaigns. Elections are already funded through taxation, not donations of any kind.

There are many other factors which play into this. These are just examples. Yes, it is 3D chess and it is played against a public that pays little attention, distracted by tweets and impeachment, party loyalty and division, media sensationalism and cult mentalities.

When we put just the above factors together in one piece, we have corporate funded campaigns, government supported censorship by corporations, misleading reform proposals that nobody reads, claims of foreign interference which were proven false, party loyalty, voting compacts which nullify any third party victories in minority states, taxpayer money for campaigns with no limit to corporate funding, distractions and distortions by elected officials and MSM, consolidating the electoral power of 4 states and, most of all, avoidance of discussing the issues the people of this country want to talk about.

The problem is, most people just keep playing along. Still thinking their tic-tac-toe will win when they’re not even playing the right game.

Warning Shots

It is being reported that there have been rocket or missile strikes near but not striking the “Green Zone” in Afghanistan. This is an area encompassing US and other embassies in the country.

These no- and low-casualty strikes are intentional in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. They are meant to be warning shots to send a message to our government that our presence is not welcome.

The warnings are not going to continue for long. It is likely expected by our government and media that there will be a gradual escalation of warnings, followed by increasingly aggressive attacks. That is not what I expect to happen at all.

Our opposition in these countries understand something very clearly. That a gradual increase in aggression gives our military time to build a greater defense, import more weaponry, etc. Our military has been in their countries for many years and they have learned our tactics quite well. In many instances we trained them in our tactics. By the fact that our forces are still there, this indicates we have not learned their tactics nearly as well and even when we do, they adapt far more readily than our military is capable of.

Not only are these warnings but they are tests to see what our response will be. In Iraq, our bases suffered a minor attack. In response, our government is sending 3000 more soldiers into a country which we have been told to leave. Trump stated we have a right to claim their resources after destroying their country. Now they know how we will respond. Increased aggression and denial of sovereignty.

Maybe you still think this is just Trump. I will remind you that GWB ignored the UNSC and invaded Iraq. Obama asked Congress for approval to bomb Libya, was refused and bombed Libya, any way. Now the US is involving itself in talks about the future of Libya. We armed and funded Al Qaeda and ISIS.

I find it far more likely that the opposition in these countries will give little more warning and then strike our forces savagely. Completely overrun the US forces already in the region. They may take our forces prisoner or wipe them out entirely. Taking them hostage would make the most sense and what I would hope for. They may not see it that way in all cases.

In any case, removing those forces from action and seizing any armaments would strike a serious bow to any reinforcements we may attempt to introduce. Seizing the bases and all that is in them or destroying them would require that we send more heavy equipment. Personnel can be sent quickly. Large equipment and supplies takes more time. Days, weeks, even months.

Now consider if they should coordinate attacks across even one country, let alone alone 2, 3 countries or more, an area half the size of the US, what would this scenario look like?

Iraq has already taken their case to remove our forces to the UN General Assembly, knowing that the US controls the UNSC. It is not an appeal to use of force, it is an appeal for their own national sovereignty. Syria has tried the same and was basically denied that right but attempted their appeal through the UNSC. At this point, all nations are watching closely to see what happens. If Iraq is denied their own right to self determination, the answer for all these countries will be clear that they must take their fate into their own hands. Live enslaved or die fighting for their freedom. These warning shots have already told you what their choice will be.

I could be wrong or they could use a combination of approaches. Another choice could be that they could sever supply routes, order our forces to stand down in limited areas and disarm willingly. Still allowed food, water and shelter. Our entire military presence could be held prisoner on our own bases pending a more definitive decision on our part. Make the wrong decision and it would seal the fate of our forces already present. Remove the personnel and equipment already in the region as active components and becoming a hostage liability and the balance of power in our favor capsizes.

I’ve pointed out that the US has nothing to win in the Middle East when confronted with the array of sovereign nations increasingly aligning against us. Throw in the alliances with Russia and China with these nations and we would literally sacrifice all of our military forces along with the collapse of the petrodollar and hence the dollar by continuing to pursue the path of aggression we have been following for 18 years. The impending confrontation would obliterate our military and our economy and would be a useless blood bath, killing millions of human beings.

For what? So a few oil company CEO’s and investors can get richer? To sell more weapons? To avoid the shame of another military loss? We’ve been there before and survived it. Maybe it’s time we learned from the past and stopped substituting testosterone for brain cells. Maybe it’s time to admit this entire country has a case of Tiny Hand Syndrome.

How many lives are you willing to sacrifice? How much blood are you willing to spill? How much economic collapse can you withstand? The time has come to make that decision. Because our choice is now being made for us right now. We cannot chance how many warnings we will be allowed. This is not a Mexican standoff we are facing. This is a firing squad, fully locked and loaded. Should we throw our guns down and walk away? Or lift our weapon and die in a blaze of glory? That sounds a lot more romantic than it is.

This is not a movie and we have no heroic cause.

Asking For Help

Anyone that follows independent media knows it is a challenge for independent content producers to earn a living doing this. The vast majority of content producers have permanent requests at the end of each article or video they release, asking for donations and subscriptions.

This is something I have not been good at for a number of reasons. I work a full time job which has historically allowed me to do much of my writing during slow times at work. Unfortunately, this is completely unreliable. It’s obvious my content production has slowed down a lot for a while. That’s because there has been less time to devote to writing at work. None of this means I resent my regular work in the least. I am happy to have the time to write while at work and many of the circumstances detracting from writing time are unavoidable. I still love nursing and like most of my coworkers.

One advantage to maintaining regular employment is that I always strive to be as objective as possible. By not being chained to the whims of popular opinion, I can much better maintain that objectivity. No, my statements are not always popular but the one thing anyone can count on is that my observations are honest and truthful. It will never be my goal to be an advertising agency, propagandist, cult follower or cult leader.

Still, I find this to be one of the most important things I have ever done. Even more so this year, with the 2020 election coming up quickly.

While my content has slowed down for the past 2 months, prior to that I was releasing 20 or more articles per month. I would like to get back to that pace and also release more videos, which is something I cannot do while at work but videos are time consuming. Eventually, I’d like to include interviews and live chats as well.

If it does not show, there is a lot of research put into many of my articles. However, I am too reliant at times on the research done by other journalists, which is often biased and so means I have to check multiple sources to achieve an objective view. It’s my preference to do my own base research and calculations. Once again, that can be time consuming in itself. It is amusing when I write something and days, weeks or months later some study comes along and verifies my own observations.

So, I am asking for some help.

While many content providers ask for $5 a month or such, I am not asking for that much. I am asking for donations of only $1 a month. When I am able to produce 20 articles and videos per month, that comes out to only 5¢ per production per audience member.

I have no expectations of soon making enough money to stop nursing and would likely keep nursing at least part time even if I made enough from content. I am only trying to make enough from content to reduce the hours at regular employment and dedicate that time to writing and videos.

Right now I cannot offer any guarantees. I prefer quality over quantity but will say I typically have multiple articles in the works at one time, just lacking the time to complete them. I won’t be offering any subscriber-only content for now. That would be kind of.. capitalist of me, wouldn’t it? Maybe in the future, when I have the time. Of course, to date I have released a total of over 1000 articles and videos since late 2017 alone. I’d call it a safe bet that I will continue producing content.

So, please consider donating only $1 a month to help this effort. Any help at all is appreciated. Thank you for your time.

The best method for donating would be through PayPal at https://www.paypal.me/IssuesUnite

Or, if it is your preference, donate or subscribe on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/IssuesUnite

The End Of Hegemony

RT reported on 1–14–20 that when General Soleimani was meeting with the Iraqi PM, the Iraqi PM was acting as an intermediary for the Saudi government as well as Iraq itself in peaceful negotiations between the three nations.

A peace agreement between Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia would be entirely logical. They have had past trade agreements which extend long before the founding of America and all three nations were founding members of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), as was Venezuela.

Know who is NOT a member of OPEC, in spite of being the world leading oil exporter? The US. Don’t you find that a bit odd? Of course, if the US became an OPEC member, they would be bound by rules and decisions made by OPEC as a democratic structure. Rules which would include reducing or increasing production to maintain a fair oil market, something the US has no interest in maintaining.

Keep in mind that Russia has held discussions with each of these nations and Syria. With or without Russia, if these four countries achieve peaceful agreements, several things would happen-

Decreased terrorism. The support of terrorist organizations has had a definite economic effect on Saudi Arabia over years. With the US being less able to covertly fund and arm these groups, to keep them going has required more financial support from SA. As financial and weapons support has dwindled, we have seen increasing defeat and collapse of ISIS, Al Qaeda and associated groups across the entire Middle East. Their complete dissolution is within sight at this time.

War or peace? This leaves SA with one of two options- Mobilize their own military openly and actively declare war on multiple sovereign nations or begin seeking peaceful diplomatic agreements with their immediate neighboring nations. Declaring war would justify Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz and all other involved nations to respond militarily. Considering the sprawling nature of their oil industry on which most of the SA economy is based, SA is extremely vulnerable to attacks which would decimate their economy in short order. Militarily, they would be unable to face multiple war fronts against nations with hard-won battle experience far beyond anything the Saudi military has ever faced. These are nations with advanced military technology and no dependence on the US for their weaponry. As their proxies are defeated, SA is being forced to make some efforts at diplomacy.

Expanding coalition. Should any peaceful agreement be reached between Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, that agreement would very quickly include Syria and Afghanistan. Eventually, that agreement would grow to rope in Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. That is the short list. It is entirely possible even more nations would join that coalition out of choice or necessity.

Fall of the petrodollar. I have explained on numerous occasions that the days of the petrodollar are decidedly numbered and shrinking. Already Syria, Iran and Venezuela have ceased using the US dollar. Russia has been calling for the demise of the petrodollar for years due to the unfair influence of the petrodollar on world commerce. Russia, China and India have been rapidly decreasing their holdings of US Treasuries. Goldman Sachs has advised their major investors to divest from US Treasury holdings and instead invest in precious metals (especially gold) and increase holdings in foreign currencies, especially Eastern currencies. The trade war with China has decreased trade in dollars and increased trade in other currencies. At this point, it seems highly likely Iraq will drop use of the dollar. This would be an absolute certainty if the US seizes Iraqi financial resources. Even if not, they will gradually reduce any holdings in US banks to avoid that being used as a threat in the future. China, Russia, India and Europe have drastically increased trade in currencies other than the dollar. It is only a short time until the dollar falls in international dominance.

Other nations are watching. The actions and rhetoric of the US has sent a clear message to every other nation on earth. The threat of the US to impose sanctions on Iraq and seize their resources while maintaining a military presence in the country against the will of the Iraqi parliament is nothing short of a military occupation. Pompeo claims our purpose there now is to train the Iraqi military on how to fight ISIS. Our military cannot train the Iraqi military when their presence is unwanted, forced upon them and their agenda is not trusted. The seizure of financial resources was set in precedent by the seizure of the resources of Venezuela and Libya. Our government was instrumental in the overthrow of Morales in Bolivia, Zelaya in Honduras, Yanukovych in Ukraine, the assassination of Qaddafi in Libya, in addition to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the illegal invasion of Iraq and attempted overthrows of Assad in Syria and Maduro in Venezuela. Those are just mentioning actions in the 21st century. Military, economic and political threats, sanctions and tariffs have shown the US government to have no respect for human rights, justice, fairness, democracy, diplomacy, peace or sovereignty. At this point no other government can justifiably trust the US government.

Who is next? A direct result of all the above is that other governments and populations are asking themselves, “Is our country next?” for very good reason. That includes countries that are our alleged “allies”. It now seems that all it takes for the US to consider another country as adversarial is openly or even covertly stating they do not agree with our actions or policies. Then that country becomes an immediate target for some form of harm by the US government. While Trump is the most aggressive, uncouth and bombastic president we have had, he is merely a continuation of the foreign policies of previous administrations. As such, other nations see our foreign policy as a threat, no matter the administration. This leaves all other nations no choice but to form coalitions and diplomatic relations which completely omit the US and possibly directly oppose the US on all fronts- militarily, economically, politically, diplomatically and socially.

It really does not matter how nationalistic an American is, even the mainstream media can no longer hide the fact that the US no longer holds the hegemony we once had only a few years ago. This country now faces opposition and competition on all fronts from many directions. This is as it should be. It is amusing when a US nationalist lays claim to a “free market” and opposes socialism, yet then supports the idea of imposing rules, sanctions and tariffs on other nations. All while remaining silent on subsidies, tax breaks and even warfare which benefits the corporations. In other words, imposing rules and force on sovereign nations and our own citizens which amount to socialism for the wealthy in the US, oppression for everyone else.

Other nations are well aware of the condition of our economy, our education system, our military technology, our medical care, our social support structure,and our electoral system. They are aware of our violent crime rate and prison population. They are aware of our surveillance which spans the globe, including on our own people. They are aware of the violence and aggression this country uses to impose a superficial belief in our superiority on the rest of the planet. They are aware that our so-called “freedom” means their servitude and that it is absolutely not freedom.

It is only a matter of dwindling time before other nations choose diplomacy over conflict, as their options are depleted, burned and blown up by decades of warfare.

In the end, people tend to fight for one thing. Hope. When wars continue for years, especially over multiple generations, any hope of gain by conflict becomes lost. So what they hope for is peace. Just a normal existence without constant fear of injury and death. Mundane existence becomes a pipe dream.

In the US, we don’t understand this because the wars we have waged have left the general population, our cities and lands unscathed. It’s easy to rage for more warfare when someone else pays the most obvious price. It is those who have paid the highest price for our conflicts who will decide on peace, to stop being used as puppets. It is they who will eject us from their lands and never welcome us in again. Not in this lifetime, any way. It is we who will have to prove we can change our ways. If we refuse to leave, they will join together to remove us by any means necessary. They have begun that process.

Peace Talks Between Iran And Iraq Will Not Be Stopped

When General Soleimani was assassinated by the US, we know now that he was on his way to meet with the Iraqi Prime Minister, carrying a diplomatic message in the effort to further peace efforts between Iran and Iraq.

It would be naive and foolish to think that the public murder of one man, no matter how prestiged that man was, would stop the efforts at peace by two countries. Considering the US also attacked the PMU, a part of the Iraqi military and did all of this on sovereign Iraqi soil, followed by threats against both countries with crushing sanctions, the continuation of those peace efforts has been set, not in concrete but in solid titanium.

Any attempt to oppose the unification of the countries in the Middle East at this point is doomed to failure. At this point, we are facing opposition politically, economically and militarily which our threats have no possibility of overcoming. Take into consideration the following influences-

Ongoing talks. From this point forward I fully expect the government officials of Iran and Iraq to be holding frequent discussions regarding peaceful coordination between them and methods of fending off terrorist groups. The assassination of Soleimani will only serve to drive the level of these talks to higher officials and increase the velocity of those talks to near light speed. Basically, you can consider them finished, with only small details to be worked out.

Trade defiance. We can also expect Iraq to be drawn into the Iran/Russia/China/Syria defense alliance, most likely with China buying most or all of the oil produced by Syria, Iran and Iraq in direct opposition to US sanctions. This would benefit all countries involved financially. I would expect a dramatic increase in the volume of trade in other goods as well.

Military technology. Iran has military technology which rivals or defeats US military technology on many fronts. Note that in their recent missile attack on US bases, we did not hear of any missiles which did not reach the targets. Compare to US Patriot missiles fired on Syria in 2017 and 2018, 70% of which never reached the targets with no air defense raised against them. Iran has also shot down several US drones while flying in stealth mode. If those three countries begin sharing military technological advances, or merely selling military equipment to one another, US military tech will be left far behind.

Military tactics. While the US military likes to claim to have the most advanced tactics of all military organizations, the evidence proves otherwise. Our forces have been in Afghanistan for 18 years and, as we know from the report by the Washington Post, are still being defeated. Afghanistan is roughly the size of Texas and has only 34 million people. Our forces have been in Iraq 16 years, at least half of which has been allegedly fighting terrorists. They were losing to the terrorists until Iran mobilized in Iraq. In Syria we have had active forces and propping up proxies for 6 years and were losing until Iran and Russia stepped in. Iraq is roughly equal in size to Afghanistan while Iran is MUCH larger. If the tactics and capabilities of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia and China are combined in an area about 4 times the size of Texas, our military would stand no chance if we confronted them.

Environment. The countries we are facing have existed as cohesive cultures in some form for thousands of years longer than America has existed. Languages across the region are closely related enough that communication barriers can be resolved easily, where there is a wide gulf of difference between their languages and our own. In addition, the fighters of these countries have lived in the harsh environment since birth. They are accustomed to the heat, the arid climate, the rough terrain, the flora and fauna of the region. US forces imported into the region can take weeks or months to become acclimated, if they ever do. For US service members coming from colder northern states that adjustment can be difficult to impossible.

Logistics. Up to now, our forces have fought in regions where supply lines were fairly simplified affairs. Now consider the challenges and cost of supplying forces across such a vast region as mentioned above. Just supplying food and water across these areas would be formidable and more costly than anything in military history. Supplying weapons and equipment would be far more difficult. Our forces would not have a front line unless they attempted to invade from Saudi Arabia or the Arabian Sea. Their ability to platform from Turkey is now a constant question. However, no matter what direction the US would attempt to approach from would leave them vulnerable to having supply chains cut off once in the country.

Aerial opposition. Opposing all of these nations at once is not something which could be done entirely by air power. The fact is, we have not come up against adversarial air power since the initial Iraq invasion in 2003. Now imagine our air forces encountering hostile aerial opposition from Iraq, Iran, Syria and possibly Russia and China as well. Not only in the air but surface to air defense and electronic warfare from technologically competent enemies.

Monetary defiance. Again, look at a map. Iran stopped using the US dollar 2–3 years ago. Because of US offenses against them, Pakistan stopped using the US dollar over one year ago. Syria stopped using the US dollar a number of years ago for obvious reasons. China and Russia are depleting their holdings of US Securities. If things continue the way they are going, Iraq will drop the US dollar in short order. These countries have growing options available to them which bypass the dollar completely. As they do, this causes growing economic and political pressure on other Eastern countries to also ditch the dollar. With each oil producing country that does so, the petrodollar grows weaker.

NATO can only offer limited assistance. Remember what the alleged role of NATO was supposed to be? To defend Europe from invasion. That means if they abandoned their posts to invade the entire ME in a modern Crusade, they would reveal the entire purpose of their existence for the last 29 years to be a hoax. They would leave Europe completely open an an invasion. Once that would likely not happen at all, making them look as foolish as they are. Remember in 2016 there was a NATO-wide military exercise? It was tragically hilarious. Troops not prepared or properly trained, equipment which was non-functional, in many cases, not even mobile, cannons unable to fire. Europeans do not have the appetite for war in general that the US does. They still live with the visible scars of two World Wars across their continent and have no desire to revisit that horror.

What all of this means is that the US has backed ourselves into a corner. There is absolutely no reason for ME countries to trust the US regarding any form of treaty or agreement. They are fully justified in their belief that allowing the US to remain will cause only more war, more bloodshed, more pain, more conflict, more destruction.

Yet be absolutely clear on this point- They are NOT announcing any form of offensive against the US. Yet. That can change, depending on what our government does from this point forward. They are defending their nations, their continent the only way they can. They have lived with the atrocities forced upon them for two decades and want it to end. They want us out, they want terrorist groups defeated, they are reaching across ancient lines and resolving differences.

There are only two countries that oppose withdrawing our forces at this point- the US and Israel. Like it or not, we do not owe Israel anything at all. Unless we offer a stage for genuine peace talks between Israel and their opponents, who have offered many times and been lied to or ignored. Right now there is a bill in CONgress to give Israel another $3.3 BILLION a year in foreign aid. That would bring US aid to Israel to $7.1 BILLION a year, every year. With absolutely no requirement at peace efforts.

These peace talks will continue. These peace talks will advance. These peace talks will expand to country after country after country. At this point, nearly every nation on the planet is calling for peace.. except the US and Israel. It is time for us to stand aside, to allow peace to happen if we will not help it along. Bring our service members home. Stop spending our money on bombs. Stop causing death, start supporting life. Stop destroying, start building.

Because this is absolutely our last chance.

Back From The Brink.. What Next?

So, allegedly Trump has eased tensions with Iran. Allegedly.

Corporate US mainstream media is reporting on the fact that no injuries or fatalities occurred from the Iranian missile strikes. Yet they make it sound like this is because of some form of miracle or because we are such badasses that our military personnel can magically evade getting hit by missile fragments. What our media consistently fails to report is that Iran gave sufficient warning that the strikes were coming. It was their absolute intent to strike equipment, not people. Now that those strikes have occurred, Iran stated they had no intention of engaging in further strikes.

Nothing has changed. None of this changes the fact that a military leader has been assassinated. None of this changes the fact that we attacked the military of a supposed sovereign ally. None of this changes the fact that Iraq wants us gone, Afghanistan wants us gone, Syria wants us gone. None of this changes our illegal actions in numerous countries and still have an illegal presence in Syria. None of this changes the fact that the US is imposing sanctions, tariffs and/or threats of same on nearly every nation on earth.

Isolationism. We can bemoan the fact that trump withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council. From the UN Peace Council. From the International Criminal Court. From the JCPOA. From the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Range Nuclear Forces) Treaty.

No consequences. Then again, what consequences or opposition has he met with for any of this? What consequences has any past administration met with for creating the conditions and power structure which led to all of this? What is the “Resistance” doing to rectify any of these things? What have they suggested? Nothing. They are very much on board with every bit of it.

No punishments. How many people have gone to prison for torture? For invading countries on false “intelligence”? For millions dead in countries that posed no threat? For creating the largest refugee crisis in modern history? For arming and funding terrorist groups? For slave markets in the streets of Libya after we destroyed the country?

Very specific limitations. Right now the only opposition being displayed against Trump are theatrical pieces of legislation to ban funding for a war with Iran. This does not in any way include banning waging war against the 7 other nations we are bombing, to withdraw troops from any of those 7 or the 50 of 54 African nations where we have military forces. There is no legislation to restore funding to Venezuela. No censure on threats or suggestions of peace talks with Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran or North Korea. No withholding of funds to Israel to force them into peace talks entailing actual action with Palestine and Syria. No arms embargo on Saudi Arabia.

Higher chances of confrontation. In other words, we are not any closer to peace than we were last week. We are much closer to a major confrontation with countries that have the ability to fight back. We are closer by the minute to our allies turning our backs on us and our adversaries joining forces against us. Could you blame them?

So, what happens next?

More sanctions. Right now Trump is promising even stronger sanctions against Iran. He is threatening to impose even worse sanctions against Iraq if they practice their right to national sovereignty and force our military occupation to leave.

NATO involvement. Trump has asked for more involvement from NATO, to which the chief of NATO has agreed. However, that request has not yet been placed in front of the people or governments of the NATO member states. Once that happens, I have a feeling the picture will change drastically. The EU relies heavily on oil from ME countries.

Nothing to lose. With multiple ME countries wanting our forces out of the region and ISIS basically reduced to a large street gang with guns, these countries now have the chance to turn their attention toward invasive and belligerent occupying forces from the US and NATO. These countries have been at war for years. They have seen their families depart or die, their homes destroyed. Most of them see little left to lose which they have not already lost. Yet they can see clearly that western intent is to seize their resources for generations, meaning they never actually regain their countries. This means they have no reason to not turn on the western invaders who caused these conditions for them.

The coming response. It is imminent that at some point the countries being occupied against the will of the residents will choose to regain their true sovereignty, their resources, their freedom to choose their own destinies rather than have those destinies dictated, subjugated, darkened by debt they did not rightfully incur. They will, as Iraq is doing, try and peacefully instruct our forces to leave. If that fails, we can absolutely expect that a gradual increase in force will take place. Iraq has taken their plea in front of the UN General Assembly. Note: They intentionally took this before the General Assembly, NOT the Security Council, which the US controls too harshly. If that fails, expect other responses. Cutting off supply sources. Complete separation of their forces from ours. If all that fails, then expect military assaults on a small scale. If we respond militarily, they will respond with devastating force. If that happens, many thousands of US service members will perish very quickly.

Turning east. For some time, Russia and China have been making diplomatic efforts with ME governments. These efforts have seen gradually increasing success in spite of western opposition and threats. What you can rely on is that Russia and China have offered to supply and possibly assist these countries, meaning the ME countries do not have to be dependent on the US/UK for weapons and supplies. Between Russia and China, there is absolutely nothing we can offer which they cannot, without making imperialist claims on resources. Often what they offer also comes with higher efficiency, lower cost and less bureaucracy, making trade on all fronts more attractive when discounting or ignoring threats.

The imperialistic threats continuously escalating from the US have reached maximum density for most countries across the globe. Like any abusive relationship, that abuse can only continue and escalate so far before the victims fight back. At this point, every nation on the planet feels victimized by the US to varying degrees. It is no longer debatable that all will gradually respond in their own manner. Some will decrease trade and diplomatic efforts. Some will cut ties entirely. Others will form alliances and fight back. Those alliances will be highly successful because our military and weapons capability is stretched far too thin.

On multiple occasions we have run out of bombs to drop, meaning production is at capacity. That also means if more capacity is needed, we cannot supply other countries. That poses a problem in itself, as countries we have contracted with to supply weapons, if forced to defend themselves (like Saudi Arabia) and we cannot honor weapons contracts, will turn elsewhere. Chinese drone sales have increased significantly. The Russian S400 and other systems are being sold to many countries, including NATO members.

Sanctions and tariffs have done more damage to US consumers and businesses than the countries they are directed at. The responses have gradually been countries forming new trade deals which bypass the US or develop entirely new industries of their own. It was US sanctions which caused Russia to expand oil/gas production and become the world leading grain exporter. Our threats mean less and less and will continue meaning less as time goes on. The literal truth is that the entire world could probably survive extremely well if all other nations suspended trade with the US at this point. The dollar would plummet in value if that happened and it is happening gradually.

Now, I will say that there is always the possibility that my assessment is wrong. That depends on what happens next. There could be decisions made or circumstances which change which could cause a radical shift in direction. Considering US history of always increasing aggression, CIA manipulation and illegal intervention, I do not see such changes or circumstances happening without major consequences before we are absolutely forced to engage in peace efforts.