Fox News and the World

Fox News, which is the main media arm of Republican Party in USA, is deceiving American people about Global Warming and its consequences. It is feeding them false stories and facts and keeping them in dark about what will happen if the world didn't take solid actions against Global Warming.

Republican Party will lose majority of its voters if the Fox News disappears today. It will no longer be able to attract the large rural population with least education.

Fox News was the main driving force behind pulling USA out of Paris accord. Since USA and NASA are the major scientific contributors for our knowledge about Global Warming, its causes, and its consequences, this presents the biggest hurdle in facing the challenge.

Americans are rich, and they are one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita in the world, this might accelerate the greenhouse gas emissions and speed up the Global Warming. This also makes it very hard for the world to face the challenge of the Global Warming.

As long as the Fox News is dictating American politics, every measure the world takes on fixing the Global Warming will most likely to fail.

World against Republican Party in USA

Republican party is one of the main driving forces against any measure the world is taking for fixing the Global Warming and dealing with the associated problems. As long as the Republican Party in USA is in any position to project power in American politics, any work on Global Warming will most likely to fail.

If the world wants to fix the Global Warming and other Environmental problems, it should try its best to separate Republican Party from any position of power.

All big countries should consider establishing funds for campaigning during American politics and making American people aware of the fact that voting for Republican Party is bad for the world and for the USA itself.

If US Iran Nuclear Deal Fails

American politicians and media are trying their best to derail the US Iran Nuclear Deal. There are several reasons, but the sense of American superiority is playing a major role, the sense that Americans do anything they want.
When we look at the concerns in speeches of American politicians and talks on American media, we can easily see that the deal is between Americans and Iran. The P5 + 1 is only a show.
Americans are dragging around the other nations only to show that it is supported by others as well. But the other nations are silent.
If the deal fails, then the Iranian people will suffer, and the responsibility will be on extremist politicians of USA and irresponsible propagandist American media. At this point, Iranians are ready to reduce nuclear enrichment capability but then they will be forced to increase it as there will be no point. Iranians will suffer because they have rectified NPT and they are not allowed to benefit from it in any way.
Americans are shouting that the world should not trust Iranians who say that nuclear weapons unethical. But should the world trust Americans who were making a lot of noise about Iraqi WMD in 2003 and then attacked Iraq and found nothing? Americans know that the world has no other choice but to comply with Americans.
The world already distrust Americans after the Snowden spying scandal, and how Americans handled that. It has already started to affect American economy as the world no longer trusts American technology companies and products. The failure of US Iran nuclear deal will make the Americans even less likable and trustworthy to the world. And the world will try to come back on Americans in future in any way they find practical.
USA is giving the world an impression that it doesn't care about anyone and anything as long as its interests are involved. USA is losing its status as a champion of democracy and human rights. USA is also destroying its soft power by playing in hands of extremist politicians, religiously and racially motivated Israeli Jewish government, and religious extremist Saudi government. Americans are losing a lot by playing in wrong hands but they don't realize it and it is becoming very expensive to recover.

Power Projection is Aggression in Polite Words

I am reading a comment on an article by Armchair Officer who say:

The US military invading countries like Iraq and Afghanistan isn't deterrence, it's basically just power projection.

We can see that Power Projection is a very nice little technical term, with no bad connotative meanings. Does this means that aggression is not a bad concept anymore? Or is attacking weaker nations is no longer morally questionable by the technical-policy makers of the Western world?

Allegedly Sponsoring of Terrorism by Iran and USA

On the website of Republican Senator from Arkansas, Tom Cotton has released a statement on incoming US-Iran nuclear deal. The statement summary is here on his website.
In the statement, he calls Iran an adversary (enemy) while claiming: terror-sponsoring, Islamist Iranian regime. This statement seems to be far fetched when we see the role of Saudi-e-Arab, USE, and Qata in the region, all of which are very close allies of USA. They are the ones funding ISIS in Iraq which USA itself has described a terrorist organization. Even in Yemen, they are bombing Al-Houthis but are not touching Al-Qaeda there. And don't forget that Al-Qaeda was responsible for 911 attacks.
The Senator Tom Cotton is also presenting USA as an angel who has never supported any terrorist ever, or USA is currently not supporting any terrorists at this time either. It is USA who has been arming Syrian rebels against government which resulted in a bloody civil war. It was also USA who armed and supported Libyan rebels against government which has buried Libya in in a deep fog of civil war. And don't forget about dropped high-tech weapons to ISIS by US, Baloch rebels in Pakistan, and secret support of Jundallah against Iran, and open unconditional support of any Israeli action against Palestinians whether its new illegal settlements of foreign Jews or carpet bombing civilians.
On this point, the "honorable" Senator might say that every country has to support anyone for its interests. But when USA is doing it then it is ok, but when others are doing it while making USA unhappy, then it is not ok. This is called American logic. Anything that is good for Americans is ethical and anything that goes American interests is illegal.

Re-usability of Curiosity Landing Space Hardware

NASA landed Curiosity Rover on Mars on 6 August 2012. It has been still working with a long range of mission objectives.

Curiosity Hardware Locations. Photo taken from http://io9.com/5932592/see-all-the-landing-hardware-that-curiosity-scattered-on-the-surface-of-mars

During landing the Curiosity, first a heat-shield was used to slow it safely through thin Mars atmosphere, and then a parachute was used to low it further. Sky-Crane was then used to descend the Curiosity to Mars surface without blowing any dusts around.
The heat-shield and Sky-Crane are two very heavy equipments. They could be use to dig bigger holes in the Mars surface to be examined later by Curiosity.
The heat-shield has already done its double job, securing the Curiosity from intense heat and making a big fresh crater on Mars surface. Nothing special was needed in this case.
On the other hand, the Sky-Crane was a complex machinery with rockets involved. After descending the Curiosity to surface and going away to safe distance, it could be used to hit the Mars surface with a proper angle to dig a hole through the impact. The impact could be made more powerful by speeding the Sky-Crane through the remaining jet-fuel in its jets and making the impact point of the Sky Crane more like a sharper cone. This is very late to talk about the Sky Crane of Curiosity, but we still have Mars 2020 rover mission and changes can be made in that one.
The parachute can also act to collect dust particles for a long time to be examined later. More, it the Curiosity to visit it more than once after some time, to see how the parachute is changed with time. It can examine changes parachute material with time, through temperature and radiation.
Curiosity can be made to visit the impact points of the heat-shield and Sky-Crane on regular interval through its long life. As time goes by, the Curiosity speed can increase due to increased confidence about Mars surface.
 

China in Afghanistan after USA

I just read an article China’s power play in Afghanistan written by Ahmed Rashid.
Ahmad Rashid talks about the retreat of USA from and Chinese entry into Afghanistan.
It talks that China is trying to bring peace in Afghanistan by pulling different parties in the conflict together. The parties are Taliban, Afghan Government, and Pakistan. China wants to do investment in Afghanistan in minerals.

China is trying to bring peace to a region destroyed by USSR, and then again by USA. USA first came to Afghanistan with no homework about the Afghan culture and mindset and failed miserably.

This time, the Afghan discussion has parties of Taliban, Afghan Government, Pakistan who has influence on Taliban and a long spurious border with Afghanistan and has millions of Afghan refugees for more then three decades, and China.

In past USA tried bringing India into the equation and Pakistan out while knowing that India has even no border with Afghanistan, but failed. Its purpose was to reduce Pakistani influence. Now even USA is not in the Afghan discussions.

USA also refused to negotiate with Taliban, and tried to completely destroy them. They failed and now Taliban is still a force and USA is flying out. On the contrary, Chinese are considering Taliban as a major player and think that there will be no peace in Afghanistan and the region without Taliban agreement.
USA played the game of guns and refused to bring everybody to tables and now China is doing the table bringing.

USA focus was on security while economy and social issues were not in its main policy. On the other hand, China wants peace and security for economic and social well-being of everyone in the region. If China succeeds in bringing peace and prosperity to Afghanistan, then it will show that the world is going into a positive direction after USA decline as a super power.

Chinese approach for the region is very different from that of USA. China wants peace at its west and trade with the region, and a trade route to adjacent regions. On the other hand, USA wanted to show to the region its power and superiority. Chinese approach has good news for everyone in the region, while the American approach brought only misery and destruction.

One other point about Chinese approach is that it is not intervention in the internal issues of other countries. It is a dialog for asking others to get their things together and work for welfare of the people in the region. Chinese even don't care who rules the Afghanistan. On the other hand, USA approach was direct and indirect intervention in internal affairs of every country in the region. If any country talked against Americans actions in the region, bad consequences were waiting for them. Americans acted like bullies from outside. If anyone who Americans didn't like had government in a region, then Americans tried very hard to oust them, even if it meant military invasion and economic destruction in the region.

Lets hope that Chinese struggle in the region for peace are successful.

Friends at Gunpoint and Fair Game

Friends at Gunpoint and Fair Game

Americans are strange. They make friends at gun point and then expect a fair game. How can Americans expect Pakistanis to be their true friends when the only options for Pakistanis are to either comply or going to stone-age.

Photo modified after obtained from http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/05/22/restaurant-with-no-weapons-no-concealed-firearms-sign-robbed-at-gunpoint/

Pakistan agreed to comply with Americans and agreed to provide logistics, airspace, airbases, and other supports. Pakistanis demanded expenses in providing the supports as it was difficult to bear all the load on its own. Strangely, Americans called the expenses paid to Pakistan as aid.
Americans provided aid in past but the channels were not clear and the American aid money ended in American and European banks by corrupt administrators. And this is the case with almost all developing countries.
Americans were going to leave Afghanistan behind with all its problems and run away, like in all Americans wars after WWII. Pakistan was the country supporting several million Afghans for several decades and Pakistan is the country to deal with the future Afghanistan. Americans would run away and leave everything to Pakistan. Pakistan has to keep relations with all parties in Afghanistan intact in order to deal with them properly in future, when America is gone from Afghanistan.
Americans are asking Pakistan to deal with Afghans as Americans want, while Americans are not going to be here for long. They wanted Pakistan to stop negotiations with militants and blaming it for double game, while Americans were later trying to bring Taliban to negotiations table themselves in Qatar. Americans were asking Pakistan to forget about the past history and deal with Afghans as short-sighted Americans want.
Americans were in Afghanistan to finish Taliban and they failed. You can't completely destroy by weapons and wars a big organization motivated by ideology and possessing large support of local population. Americans were failed and they lost trillion dollars war. They had to blame someone for their failures. And they found Pakistan an easier scapegoat. That is why Pakistan was blamed as playing double game and is responsible for failed for American war in Afghanistan.

Contradicting own Ideologies

Separation between church and state: this means keeping religion as a private matter of a person and not involve the state in religious matter, and not letting religion involved in state matters.
USA constitution is very clear about this.
There are several measures to ensure this.
But when we look at the Israel and USA policies to each other, we see a stark contradiction in the policy of keeping state and religion separate.
The very existence of Israel is based on a combination of religion and racism.
Israeli policies to its neighbors and other minorities have a major impact from Judaism. 
The unconditional support of Israel by USA is solely based on care for religion and race.

But one can say that the above contradiction is due to the problematic politics in USA.
This explanation raises another question:
USA is a preacher of democracy and good governance and transparency.
When its own politics leads it against its own ideology, then how credible is the USA own democracy.
If its own democracy is not so good, then why preach to others and even trying to export the democratic system to other countries, like into Iraq and Afghanistan?

Losing Mojo in a Bad Way

Almost all USA allies joined China in development of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), despite intensive diplomatic pressure from USA. This event hints to some points:

• USA declares China as a rival and enemy openly.
• USA most allies don't like dictation from USA on most issues, particularly China issue.
• China is winning the game of attracting USA allies despite US struggle against it.
• When UK joined the AIIB, it was a very strange event, because it never took any major step or agreement without USA permission since the WWII.
• China apparently doesn't want to confront USA on any major issues, but USA wants and trying to find ways to engage China.
• China states that the AIIB is for development of infrastructure in developing countries, in which task the major USA led organizations like IMF, World Bank, and Asian Development Bank have failed.
• Unintentionally, USA also delivered a message to the developing world that it is not interested in development in other countries if it is not in support of direct US financial interests.
• The above point will damage the soft power of USA in all over the world.

To improve the soft power, USA needs to reverse the side-effects of its behavior regarding the Chinese AIIB. For this,

• USA can endorse the AIIB openly.
• USA can also provide some funding to AIIB, and some guidance and technical help for its proper operations.
• It can find out some scapegoats in its government and blame them on destroying the good image of USA in front of the whole world.

Natural Alliances

Natural and Perfect Alliance based on Genocide of Local Population

In thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, Europeans got into Americas and Australia.
They performed a perfect genocide of the local population.
The genocide was so perfect that within a two to three centuries, the indigenous people became a very weak minority.

Fast forward to current age:
Immediately after second world war, extremist and racist Jew (not all Jews) all around the world came together in Palestine in a very systematic way.
With the help of European powers, they established the state of Israel.
They tried to perform genocide of the local population, but geology and geopolitics didn't allow it.
The remaining local population escaped from the genocide to the neighboring countries.
After one decade of Israel creation, the European powers backed off a little.
USA from North America, which is the region of a perfect genocide, became an unconditional ally of the state of Israel.
USA is an unconditional ally of Israel, but Israel is not an unconditional ally of USA. Isn't it strange?
Now a days, in USA, the white supremacists, mostly Republicans, are the main supporters of Israel. One can say that the failed genocide of the local population by Israeli Jews attracts sympathy from the white supremacists of USA whose forefathers had performed a perfect genocide. And this makes USA and Israel natural and perfect allies.

Are Western Courts Free

Rule of Law in Civilized and Democratic USA and UK and Poor Pakistan

 
The Point: Most of the countries in the world have leaders and rulers who wrongfully exploit the power bestowed upon them. They violate the human rights of their own people and put their country in harm's way. In a few of these countries, the countrymen start a movement and try to remove the bad rulers. After succeeding in removal of the bad rulers, in a fewer cases, the judiciary system starts a trial of the past rulers for their bad behavior. If this happens in a country, then we can say that the judiciary and rule of law has some good prospects in that country.

More Info Here

One Example: Pakistan is a developing country with a long history of  dictatorship and weaker democratic governments. Pervez Musharraf removed elected Prime Minister Nawaz Shareef in 1999 from government and enforced a state of emergency. During his one decade of rule, he took several controversial decisions which were perceived to be against the interests of Pakistan and its people. He was then toppled down after a long peaceful struggle of Pakistani people. Now, Government of Pakistan and Judiciary are trying to charge him for treason and violation of constitution and the rights of Pakistani people.
Remember, Pakistan is not an advanced democracy and it is blamed to have a very weak rule of law.
Moral: Does Pakistan has a good future in rule of law and democracy?


A Double Not Example: In the start of 21st century, President of USA and Prime Minister of UK took several controversial decisions and deceived their own people and the whole world. They started wars in other countries based on lies which results in deaths of nearly one million people and thousands of their own soldiers. They both violated their countrymen constitutional rights and tainted the concept of their countries as democratic and civilized nations.
There is a little problem: Those two were not dictators. They were elected by their countrymen. So, one can say that they violated the trust of their voters.
Long after their removal from power, there is no significant criticism about their actions and the resultant bad consequences. There is no case in their courts against their lawless behavior and their deceptive actions. The American and British people are not even planing to drag those two elected-tyrants into courts and charge them for murder of about one million people.
Questions: Does the judiciary of USA and UK handle such cases?


The Irony: 
The Irony is that the Britain and USA are considered of the most civilized and lawful countries in the world. They are the leaders of civilized world and are trying to export their democracy and social advancement and rule of law to other countries all over the world.

Why does Iranian People not Matter to USA

USA had been helping its puppet Shah of Iran for decades as a tyrant in suppressing Iranian people while forwarding American interests. Iranian people were hating Shah of Iran and also USA for the atrocities. This is no secret.
After Iranian revolution, there was a harsh response which resulted in the American Embassy Crisis. Americans loath Iranians for the Embassy Crisis but they never acknowledge their own mistake of supporting a tyrant Shah of Iran against Iranian peoples wishes, rights, and interests.
I was talking with someone more familiar with American politics and foreign policy. He said that when USA was supporting Shah of Iran, it was because of American interests. In that matter, Iranian people didn't matter at all. Iranian people didn't matter to USA when it was supporting Shah of Iran. Because American financial and strategic interests were involved.
Iranian people didn't matter to Americans. Human rights of Iranian people didn't matter to Americans because American interests were involved. 
Even today, Americans don't care about Iranian people. They are forwarding their own agenda. In American capitalism and democracy, non-American people don't matter at all.

If USA government was a dictatorship or kingship, then it was an act and a policy of a few individuals. But USA was and still is a democracy. USA is a long-time and civilized democracy with one of the world's best constitutions and several democratic institutions. It has a free media for a long time.
Isn't this strange for a democracy like USA to violate human rights of another country for several decades?
Isn't it strange for a land-of-free to enslave people of other countries through dictators and tyrants? 
Isn't it strange for a civilized country to help a tyrant and dictator to suppress his countrymen for decades?
Isn't even more strange for a democratic country to not acknowledge its undemocratic and inhuman behavior against another country people even after several decades?

What a strange nation....

Pre and Post Iranian Revolution Perceptions

Before Iranian Revolution of late 1970s, Shah of Iran had complete authority over almost every aspect of Iranian government. He had suppressed the Iranian people in almost every aspect.
But USA and Iran were great allies. USA was major supporter of Shah of Iran, and rarely objected about his any undemocratic acts of suppression of Iranian people.
Shah of Iran had given several kinds of facilities to Americans to do whatever they wanted to do in Iran. In Shahs Iran, there were least number of problems for Americans, but Iranian people were facing all kinds of problems.
The Shah of Iran had subjected Iranian people through secret and securities agencies and Americans where happy with that. Americans where very dear friends of Shah.
In short, Americans were best and dearest friends of Shah of Iran, while the same Shah was the worst enemy in the eyes of Iranian people.
After revolution, the Iranian hostage crisis occurred. It was a very complicated and long event. This event made Americans very surprised and angry. Their anger was natural but their surprise and claiming a moral higher ground was strange.
As mentioned at the start about the dirty romance of Americans with Shah of Iran, similar event should have been expected by Americans. What Iranian people viewed of the American embassy was not of as a source of diplomacy but a gateway of strength of Shah of Iran and the gateway of troubles of Iranian people, and the home of Shahs dearest friends. And Iranian people hated Shah a lot for his cruelty, while Americans loved him just for his money and power. Naturally, Iranian people considered Americans has a major source of their suffering.
I am making a simpler assumption here: A democratic government is from the people, and its any acts put strong responsibility on the people.
So, when American government was a dearest friend of Shah of Iran in suppressing Iranian people in very cruel manner, then American people were also very  responsible for the suffering of Iranian people by hands of Shah.
After the crisis, American people didn't thought about their past behavior and romance with the Iranian Shah. They didn't transcend about their active support of undemocratic behavior of Shah of Iran. American people and American intellectuals and American media just blamed Iranians for everything and declared them their enemies.
If American people and intellectuals had thought about their past mistakes,and acknowledged them, then the intensity of the enmity with Iran would have been very low. Both parties might have recognized their own mistakes and very soon people of both countries might have been in good relations.
But Americans didn't do this. They didn't thought about their mistakes and didn't acknowledge their wrong behavior in dealing with Iranians from the beginning.They acted like psychos with no guilt and dead conscience.
We can say that Iranians were uneducated, religious extremists, so we can't expect the thinking from them.
But Americans were not like Iranians. They were educated and intellectuals and had free media and democratic government. Why didn't they think about and acknowledge their mistakes and try to compensate for them, while improving the situation with the Iranians?
This is a big why?

Several reasons and factors can be  presented. I have the following ones:

• There is a very powerful lobby of weapon manufacturers in American government. Declaring Iran as an enemy would brighten their prospects.
• They knew that Iranians were Shia and there were historical religious disputes with Arabs.So, they needed an enemy in the middle of Arabs to sell them weapons, a lot of weapons.
• Israeli Jews have a huge influence in American politics and policy making. They felt threatened by Iranians and they wanted Americans to contain it.
• The free median in American is not as free as it seems. When it comes to government plus money plus powerful lobbies of weapons manufacturers and Israeli Jews, they just go with in any direction they are directed.
• Some very few American intellectuals tried to talk about it, but median blocked them out, so no one got a clue of the matter at all.