If Trump Were Zelensky: From 2020 Russian Invasion of Ukraine Until Today

Timeline of Zelensky’s/Trump's Leadership From the 2022 Russian Invasion to the 2025 Oval Office Meeting

1. February 24, 2022 – Russia Invades Ukraine

• Zelensky's Response: Refused to flee Kyiv, rallied Ukrainians with defiant speeches, and secured international military aid.
• If Trump Were President of Ukraine: Likely would have tried to negotiate with Putin instead of resisting, possibly delaying military mobilization while claiming he could "make a deal."

2. March 2022 – Kyiv Under Siege

• Zelensky's Response: Walked the streets of Kyiv in defiance, rejected U.S. evacuation offers with "I need ammunition, not a ride."
• If Trump Were President: Would likely have fled to Western Ukraine or abroad while claiming the war would have never happened if he were in charge. Would have blamed NATO, the EU, or past Ukrainian leaders. He would have prioritized evacuation to ensure his personal safety, potentially accepting the "ride" offered.

3. April–May 2022 – War Crimes in Bucha, Defense of Mariupol

• Zelensky's Response: Exposed Russian atrocities, secured more weapons, and rallied Western nations.
• If Trump Were President: Likely would have downplayed war crimes, possibly saying "both sides have done bad things." Would have obsessed over who praised or criticized him, rather than military strategy.

4. September 2022 – Ukrainian Counteroffensive in Kharkiv

• Zelensky's Response: Oversaw one of the war’s most successful counterattacks, reclaiming occupied territory.
• If Trump Were President: Would have taken full credit for any success while attacking his own generals if anything went wrong.

5. December 2022 – Zelensky's Historic Speech to U.S. Congress

• Zelensky's Response: Addressed Congress in person, securing more military aid and strengthening U.S.-Ukraine ties.
• If Trump Were President: Would have demanded personal loyalty from Congress, attacked critics, and likely insulted allies who weren’t giving Ukraine “enough.”

6. 2023–2024 – Stalemate and Struggles for More U.S. Aid

• Zelensky's Response: Maintained global support, pressed Congress, and kept morale high despite heavy losses.
• If Trump Were President: Would have blamed NATO and Europe for not doing more, possibly considering deals with Russia to end the war on unfavorable terms.

7. February 2025 – Oval Office Meeting With Trump

• Zelensky's Reality: Berated and pressured while standing firm on Ukraine’s needs.
• If Trump Were in Zelensky’s Shoes: The meeting would have been a complete disaster:
• Trump would have taken everything personally, likely ranting about unfair treatment.
• He might have threatened to walk out, insulted Congress, or refused to take responsibility for Ukraine’s struggles.
• Instead of rallying support, he would have blamed allies and possibly hinted at withdrawing from the war altogether.

If the roles had been reversed—meaning Zelensky was in Trump's position as the U.S. president, and Trump was the leader of a nation at war facing Russian aggression—Zelensky would likely have handled the situation very differently.

Zelensky’s Likely Approach:

1. Respectful Diplomacy: Zelensky has consistently treated world leaders with diplomatic courtesy, even in difficult situations. Instead of berating Trump, he would have likely expressed firm support while encouraging a strong alliance.
2. Commitment to Aid: Given Zelensky’s track record, he would have reassured Trump that the U.S. remains committed to providing assistance, whether in military aid, humanitarian relief, or diplomatic efforts.
3. Clear Communication: Zelensky is direct but measured. He would have likely acknowledged Trump’s struggles while emphasizing the importance of international unity against Russian aggression.
4. Public Support: Rather than embarrassing Trump in front of the press, Zelensky would have reinforced a public show of unity, avoiding the kind of humiliation that Trump subjected him to in the real meeting.

In contrast, Trump’s actual behavior toward Zelensky was dismissive and condescending, showing little empathy for a wartime leader. Had the situation been reversed, Zelensky would have approached it with far more tact and leadership.

Final Takeaway

Zelensky has led with resilience, diplomacy, and unwavering focus on Ukraine’s survival. If Trump had been in his position, Ukraine might not have lasted this long, as his need for personal praise, deal-making tendencies, and lack of military strategy would have played into Putin’s hands.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

In the One Act Play, "Denude", Legacy and War Lay Bare the Struggle for Redemption

I came across a 2022 film, "Foxhole", it was pretty intriguing and entertaining. Where Over 36 hours in three different wars, a small group of soldiers grapples with mortality, futility, and an increasingly volatile combat situation. It reminded me of my play on a similar concept.

Perhaps I should have named my play that. But, perhaps not. Allow me to explain. Back in 1983 while at Western Washington University, I wrote a play about two soldiers in a foxhole (with supernatural overtones). It takes place between three very different wars: Vietnam, WWII, and the War of 1812, in that order.

Two soldiers, Trappist and Menses, are stuck in a foxhole during a war. Trappist tries to engage Menses in conversation, offering him some rations of fruitcake and peaches, but Menses is agitated and angry about having been sent there. The tension between them rises as they face the threat of enemy fire. Trappist tries to calm Menses, but the situation intensifies until Menses, in a fit of panic, ends up shooting and killing Trappist.

After Trappist's death, a surreal sequence occurs where Trappist appears as a ghost, revealing to Menses that they've been intertwined through multiple lives, with Menses repeatedly being the cause of Trappist's death in various previous wars. Trappist implies a cycle of reincarnation and their eternal connection.

Eventually, as Menses faces the brink of death himself, Trappist guides him into an ethereal realm, indicating they're both on the verge of departing. The play ends with Menses acknowledging his own death and Trappist urging him to follow into the afterlife, hinting at a reason to celebrate despite their demise.

How does that tie in with one's consideration of themself and their ancestors who served in those previous wars?

A person's understanding of their self-identity, as well as their view of their family lineage, can be deeply influenced by the legacy of ancestors who served in past wars like the War of 1812, WWII, and the Vietnam War. This connection to the past often impacts how they view duty, patriotism, resilience, and their place within their nation's history.

Here’s how these aspects might shape someone's perception of themselves in the context of these wars:

1. Sense of Duty and Patriotism

• If someone has ancestors who served in one or more of these wars, they may feel a heightened sense of duty or responsibility to carry on a family legacy of service and sacrifice. This can manifest as a strong patriotic sentiment, where they view their own life in the context of defending and upholding the values for which their ancestors fought.
• Knowing that a family member faced hardship and danger to protect sovereignty and national interests can deepen a person’s respect for their country and motivate them to contribute in their own way, whether through military service, civic engagement, or simply by embodying values like courage and dedication.

2. Personal Identity and Self-Worth

• The knowledge of an ancestor’s bravery, resilience, or sacrifices in wartime can enhance a person’s sense of self-worth. They may view these traits as part of their family identity, inspiring them to persevere through their challenges and to embody the resilience displayed by previous generations.
• For instance, a descendant of a WWII veteran might take pride in knowing their family contributed to defeating fascism and defending freedom on a global scale. Similarly, a descendant of a Vietnam War veteran might carry an understanding of the complexities of war, including the struggles soldiers face during and after service.

3. Connection to Broader Historical Themes

• People often feel a connection to history through their family stories, seeing their ancestors' participation as part of a larger narrative about freedom, justice, or ideological conflict. This sense of continuity with the past can lead to a deeper appreciation of the challenges their ancestors faced and how those challenges are relevant today.
• For example, understanding that an ancestor fought to defend American sovereignty in the War of 1812 might give someone a stronger appreciation for independence and self-determination. Learning about a WWII veteran ancestor might evoke a sense of responsibility to stand against injustice, while a Vietnam veteran ancestor might prompt a deeper understanding of the costs of war and the importance of questioning authority.

4. Reflection on Service and Sacrifice Across Generations

• For some, having family members who served in different wars with varied goals—protecting sovereignty, fighting ideologies, or containing threats—can highlight the changing nature of patriotism and service. It may lead them to reflect on what service means today, especially in a world with new and different types of challenges.
• They may also see each generation’s service as a testament to their family’s ongoing commitment to the values they hold dear, like bravery and sacrifice. This perspective often strengthens family bonds, fostering a sense of pride and a commitment to carry on those values, even if not through military service.

5. Ethical and Moral Reflection

• A person's view of their ancestors’ service can also involve ethical considerations, especially in wars like Vietnam, which raised questions about the morality of conflict and governmental decisions. Descendants of Vietnam veterans, in particular, may grapple with the moral complexity of that war, leading to nuanced views on service, authority, and foreign policy.
• This ethical reflection may result in a more complex form of patriotism, one that respects the sacrifices made by family members but also acknowledges the lessons learned from the consequences of these wars. Such reflections can prompt a desire for peace and responsible leadership, influencing the descendant's choices and beliefs.

In essence, an individual who is aware of their ancestors' service in these wars might see themselves as part of a continuum—a living link in a chain of history where ideals, sacrifices, and national struggles persist across generations. This connection can provide a foundation for their identity, values, and choices, blending personal pride with the lessons and legacies of their family's past.

The story in the play weaves together themes of fate, trauma, and the eternal bonds forged in conflict, all while exploring complex questions of identity and guilt. Here are some key interpretations and symbolic meanings in the context of the information provided:

1. Cycles of War and Trauma

• The recurring deaths of Trappist at the hands of Menses across multiple lifetimes suggest that the two are caught in a cycle of violence and tragedy. This echoes the generational repetition of war itself, where similar patterns of suffering and sacrifice recur across different conflicts and eras. Just as descendants of soldiers might see the same themes—sovereignty, ideology, and national duty—play out repeatedly, Menses and Trappist are symbols of those individuals trapped in an endless loop of conflict, with trauma continually passed down.
• Menses’s agitation reflects the disillusionment soldiers often feel in wartime, questioning the reasons behind their deployment. His panic mirrors the moral struggles many soldiers face when their sense of duty clashes with the reality of violence. Trappist’s calm and offering of food—fruitcake and peaches, items often shared as comforts in hard times—may represent an attempt to find humanity and shared purpose amid the chaos of war.

2. Reincarnation and Generational Karma

• The cycle of reincarnation between Trappist and Menses hints at karma, suggesting that Menses is doomed to confront and ultimately reconcile with his violent tendencies across lifetimes. This ties to the idea that wars, like personal conflicts, are cycles that humanity struggles to break free from.
• Their intertwined lives may serve as a metaphor for how each generation inherits the unresolved conflicts and traumas of the last. The idea that Menses is repeatedly responsible for Trappist’s death could represent how individuals, knowingly or unknowingly, perpetuate historical violence and trauma. Only by confronting and understanding this pattern can they hope to transcend it, symbolized by Menses’s journey into the afterlife guided by Trappist.

3. Acceptance of Mortality and Transformation

• As Menses faces his death with Trappist guiding him, there’s a shift from violence to acceptance. Trappist's ghostly presence serves as a reminder that death does not end their connection; rather, it offers a chance to confront their history and possibly find peace. This moment of acceptance transforms death from a feared enemy into a passage to a new understanding.
• The final scene, where Trappist urges Menses to "celebrate" despite their demise, could be interpreted as an embrace of life’s cycles, including the ending of those cycles. In acknowledging his own death, Menses may be symbolically breaking the pattern, suggesting that the only way to escape the violence of reincarnation is through acceptance and transcendence.

4. The Dual Nature of War as Both Binding and Destructive

• The foxhole setting forces the two characters into a close and claustrophobic bond, highlighting how war can create intense relationships under life-threatening circumstances. Trappist and Menses are bound by shared danger, but it also becomes their undoing. This dynamic reflects how soldiers in various wars develop lifelong connections with comrades, yet these relationships can be strained or tragically severed by violence.
• The ghostly revelation of their past lives serves as a metaphor for the shared traumas soldiers carry through life, as well as across generations. Each generation’s unresolved trauma perpetuates cycles of violence and suffering, a reminder that without healing, past conflicts may continue to haunt the present.

5. Celebrating Release and Finding Meaning in Tragedy

• The story’s ending implies that through death, Menses and Trappist might finally break their pattern. Their celebration may signify a release from the karmic ties of their past, freeing them from repeating this violent cycle in the future.
• This celebration can also be seen as a tribute to the perseverance and resilience of those who endured trauma in war. Despite the violence, the connection between the two characters represents a testament to shared humanity, a poignant reminder of the relationships and sacrifices made in the most challenging circumstances.

In sum, the story of Trappist and Menses speaks to the profound and often tragic connections forged in wartime. It reflects on how the legacies of past conflicts live on within individuals, affecting identity and behavior across generations. Their journey through death and reincarnation suggests that finding peace may require acknowledging and accepting past violence, ultimately leading to release and transformation.

But, what about that weird title: "Denude"?

The title Denude perfectly captures the play's core themes by suggesting a stripping away of layers, exposing raw truths, vulnerabilities, and the essence of each character beyond the facade of duty or anger. Here’s how it resonates with the play’s elements:

1. Stripping Down to Humanity: In the intense, close confines of the foxhole, the two soldiers are forced to confront not only the external war but also their own fears, beliefs, and mortality. Denude suggests this process of laying bare, as Trappist and Menses shed the societal and psychological armor they carry as soldiers. This reveals their raw humanity, flaws, and connections that transcend a single lifetime.

2. Revealing Cycles of Trauma and Violence: The title reflects the peeling back of time itself, exposing the repetitive cycles of conflict that these characters—and by extension, humanity—are trapped in. Through the surreal revelation of their reincarnation, Denude conveys how, stripped of superficial identities, they are left with only the core of their unresolved karmic bond.

3. Ancestral and Emotional Exposure: The play tackles heavy themes of inherited trauma and the weight of ancestral conflicts. Denude speaks to the exposure of these deep-seated wounds that each character carries, inviting audiences to consider the ways in which war and violence strip away innocence and leave behind scars that ripple through generations.

4. A Journey Toward Redemption and Truth: Finally, the act of “denuding” hints at a spiritual or existential uncovering—a stripping away of the cycles of violence until only truth remains. As Trappist leads Menses toward acceptance and, ultimately, peace, the title suggests a process of shedding illusions, perhaps even ego, to confront and understand their shared history.

Denude thus encapsulates themes of revelation, vulnerability, and the journey toward a profound understanding of self and others, central to the play’s exploration of reincarnation, war, and redemption.

So should I have titled it "Foxhole"? Maybe, maybe not. Is the play any good? Yeah, I think so. It's also, from a stage manager's and director's perspective, kind of a cool, and versatile play. And a bit spooky in the performance, making it interesting to act in.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

3 Amazing WWI Documentaries - JZ Murdock, Peter Jackson, Brian Henry Martin

My WWI documentary is a filmic poem and an antiwar film. I wrote a poem years ago and tried to get it published. I worked on it once in a while, got comment from a professional poet and he said to just keep working on it. And so I did. Until one day I stumbled into the idea of making a documentary, and then a WWI documentary, and then a documentary built around my fanciful poem, "Pvt. Ravel's Bolero" (trailer). To be clear, the title of this blog is in an order I would suggest to watch these three films and has nothing to do with any lack of knowing the great quality of the other two filmmakers!

I've written about the experience of making this film previously. I am working on a film companion book for this film, which is about half written. It took me six months of editing to finish the documentary with years of research under my belt in acquiring public domain media and information. Something I continued throughout the production of the film. I had for several years intended on turning the poem it is based on into a minimalist animation. But no animator would touch it without more money than I could come up with. The finished film itself I had hope of eventually reproducing it with much better resources. Seeing what Peter Jackson did with his film makes that prospect even more desirable. 

New Poster for ThrilzTV where it can be viewed

"Pvt. Ravel's Bolero" is a film that only came into existence because of having Long Covid acquired from COVID-19, for at least the second time. Having first acquired this miserable disease and first noticing its symptoms on February 9, 2020. I eventually wrote a book about it: "Suffering Long Covid".

What I'm writing about here today, is regarding what happened over this past week. I'm suggesting an order one might watch these films in. Even if you do not (yet) have access to view my film, it will still make it's point if you watch these other two. I'm sure there are many good WWI documentaries out there. But this blog here involves only three. Mine, Peter Jackson's and one from Double-Band Films about photographer/Lance Corporal George . I just finished watching that one.

About "The Man Who Shot the Great War" (2014), from Acorn TV:

"Premiering in North America December 19th. Among the thousands of men from Britain and Ireland who fought on the battlefields of the First World War was Lance Corporal George Hackney, who did something remarkable: he brought his camera with him to war. Described as a "photographic discovery of the century," the images he took captured the brutal realities of the front lines and fueled a moral quest that altered the course of his life." 

The other day I watched Peter Jackson's WWI documentary, "They Shall Not Grow Old" (2018). From Warner Brothers Pictures' Youtube channel:

"The acclaimed documentary is an extraordinary look at the soldiers and events of the Great War, using film footage captured at the time, now presented as the world has never seen. By utilizing state-of-the-art restoration, colorization and 3D technologies, and pulling from 600 hours of BBC archival interviews, Jackson puts forth an intensely gripping, immersive and authentic experience through the eyes and voices of the British soldiers who lived it."

Three films about WWI. The "Great War", the "War to End All Wars".

My film as I said, took me, alone with what small resources I have in filmmaking and editing, took me six months of editing as I was coming out of a rough winter with long covid. My son got me playing a video game on my desktop video editing workstation and I did that for months. Part of an hour the first time until I was playing all day long after a few weeks (months?) and then realized I was not only able to get out of my living room recliner chair I'd spent most of the winter in just watching TV, dozing off and on and not feeling well, but I was actively engaged in this Fall Out 4 game. I'd put 700 hours into it. 

It was time to actually do something. Unable still to be able to handle a production with actors (and a schedule), the idea came to me to make a film of some sort that I could handle doing all by myself, on my schedule, if and when I could, whenever. In considering what to do, I landed upon the project I eventually finished. Twice after months of editing I wanted to quit, give up as it is exacting work of digitally splice media together, AI colorization, multiple layers and tracks and sophisticated audio work in syncing music and sounds and creatively doing Folly work, making sounds that come from one source being made to sound like another. But finally, I finished it.

I sent it to a few festivals and immediately that week got an "Official Selection" from one. Shortly thereafter, the next week, it won an award for "Best Documentary". I entered more festivals. Then it won "Best Experimental Film" at another festival. I entered more and continued winning, not all festivals, but more than I had ever expected. Far more than my previous and narrative film, "Gumdrop", a short horror. Yes, from horror film (really more of a film noir), to the horrors of our perhaps our greatest horror in wars in human history.

As I indicated above, I detail this all elsewhere as I had to hire voice actors and a poet to translate my poem, a center point to the project, for the voice actors to read. At one point I hired a sound engineer to clean up what I could not in digitizing Ravel's "Bolero from an original Polydor double record set from 1930 I bought online from a seller in Paris.

I used some visual media in the film that were never seen before like this because they were not of pristine or perfect quality or focus, all of which played into the "poetic" nature of the film as not just documentary but fantasy and visual poetry. That is important, because it has a lot to do with why I'm writing today about this and the other two documentaries. 

In my film you can notice the French always face and move to the right, which the Germans, their opponents in Verdun, France in this film, always facing and moving toward the enemy, the French, to the left. From the perspective of the French in the film, when they are headed to the right of screen they are moving toward, entering the war. When to the left, they are moving away from, leaving the war. When the visuals are blurry, the poem visuals are referring poetically to the "fog of war" and such metaphorical elements and considerations. 

In moving from my film therefore to Peter Jackson's tour de force of his, "They Shall Not Grow Old", documentary, the effect is intense. With all that Jackson has available to him, the money, the team/teams, the quality of media he could acquire, the legal team for handling all that, and his special effects professionals, what he could produce is truly, as I've said elsewhere... awe inspiring. I'm not here to review his film.

However, Rotten Tomatoes said: 

"An impressive technical achievement with a walloping emotional impact, They Shall Not Grow Old pays brilliant cinematic tribute to the sacrifice of a generation. Read critic reviews"

I was stunned at the amazing quality Peter Jackson turned out in this film. I deeply and intricately know what it takes to do what he did in that film. I'm speechless, to be clear. Watching probably any WWI documentary prior to Jackson's could most likely give you the same effect as seeing my film and then his. But the difference in the quality of experience and visuals, not to mention the high quality level of his Folly work and audio dubbing, are truly inspiring. And that is all outside of the effect of the subject matter itself.

 

On "The Man Who Shot The Great War", Film Affinity said about it:

"Revealing for the first time what has been described as 'the photographic discovery of the century', this documentary uncovers the remarkable story of the Belfast soldier who took his camera to war in 1915 and how his experiences were to have a dramatic and unexpected outcome many years later."

It is a touching film about an amazing find so long after WWI.

Watching these three films in this order, for me anyway, was a very rewarding experience. My film is likely, for most people anyway, a bit of history and imagery you have never seen or known about.That is mixed up with a humanist, antiwar message through the people that runs throughout it and read by a female French actor as Ravel's Truck, whom he had named "Adelaide". 

Ravel's imaginary actions in the film brings the fear and evolution of a trench soldier into sharp focus. the end of the film with its long scrolling list of all wars on earth is a stark reminder of who we are and what our history has been. Evoking the question, why should this continue and how to stop it.

Going then into the Jackson film, the realization of his film is very impactful. It's almost like he went back in time and shot these war moments with a film crew. His ADR (Automated dialogue replacement, voice dubbing), his Foley work (sound effects), and his colorization and visual enhancements are impeccable. It's a moving film, in ways beyond my own film, while a perfect adjunct to it.

Then moving on to the George Hackney film and what it uncovers is touching and amazing in entirely different ways and I highly recommend it. 

These are short films, offering us a bird's eye view, even closer, and in ways no bird and few humans have envisioned. It is a set of films from a time long forgotten, which is repeating itself every decades since. We are changing our ways of war. They are becoming more exactly, civilians are not often "collateral damage" as they used to be. So often today, victims due greatly to specifically targeting them on purpose.

Such as Putin from Russia has so often done in his illegal war in Ukraine. And we are becoming more "green" in war with a realization that every weapon discharged is costing humanity in damage to our environment. And all too often, to civilians years or decades later in unexploded and lost munitions and toxic chemicals.

But the one thing that remains is, the cost to the human psyche, the friends and families of those soldiers and the damages to our world and ongoing blemishes to our history of humanity. 

Cheers! Sláinte!

I wish us all the very best!

Films:

"Pvt. Ravel's Bolero", available exclusively on ThrilzTV.com

"They Shall Not Grow Old" 

"The Man Who Shot the Great War"

Trump, Soleimani Assassination and Reality

There's a lot to unpack in Pres. Donald John Trump's Qasem Soleimani assassination incident. One being that George W. Bush for two terms and Barack Obama for two terms BOTH decided it was more dangerous to kill this cretin. As it was with Sadman Insane, wiping him out was a huge mistake in his case because of the power vacuum it left. 

Yes, fine, kill Soleimani, or Hussein. But do it thoughtfully. Play the Chess game, or the Go game, but play it, don't just cut off someone's head. Have a plan. Have another to take over, one who will do the job we need, perhaps more so, the one that country needs.

Yes, Soleimani needed to go, but how we did it was important, that was the issue. Having not involved the CIA and the DNI in this decision is patently ludicrous, not allowing for truly assessing the repercussions and therefore acting without full consideration which is never advisable.

What conservatives think Dems are unsettled about is mostly not what they are actually unsettled about. We don't even have to go into the timing of the Trump impeachment or re-election situation or how such a distraction such as this was wholly expected. Or the desire for a war leading up to a damaged election on the administration's side is greatly desired.

Really, there's much more here than is superficially obvious.

One does not make decisions like this without the DNI and the CIA involved, and others like the NSA. they were not in the room in or involved when this decision was made.

Almost more importantly is this:

Trump's Soleimani assassination has taken an Iran with a fractured leadership and a citizenry becoming more united against them and turned that right about to the other direction.

What's not to know about that, we've been hearing it for weeks and months now. Then this happened and it reversed...not to mention Iraqis who saw him as a hero because when they were attacked by ISIS he was the first to show up and fight for them. This is much messier than the administration is trying to let on or those in full support of this action are realizing.


This is also the Middle East we're dealing with here. It's screwed up and interesting and educational to note that when Bush Sr. attacked Iraq, he left Saddam in power. For a reason. He didn't want to, he had to. He had been head of the CIA, which was why I voted for him, though it would be nice to have a POTUS who knew something for a change. He knew what he was dealing with. 

I voted for Reagan the first time, the year I started college. I knew him as a kid on TV and from movies. Then I saw on-campus protests against the Iran/Contra issue at Western Washington University, day after day. Why were they so against the guy I had finally voted for. See, when I turned 18 I voted that year. But that was it. 

Through the military and the Jimmy Carter years. I didn't know him, he seemed OK, but everyone in the military I knew at my based hated him, mostly because he was cutting bases, and closing them down. So after the USAF I thought I should vote next time and I did. 

So, I voted for, Reagan. Stupid? Yes. But. I didn't vote him for re-election, I didn't like things he did, or his view on the world, or his dumping government responsbilities for citizens onto Churches and charities. So very Republican, so very disingenuous. The "no debt because we sloughed it off to others", mentality. Lazy, ignorant, mean spirited, greedy, power grabbing, underhanded, all that has lasted until today and grown worse, in this current travesty of the GOP.

I'm fooliish at times, not stupid. But I did vote for Bush Sr. thinkinng it good to actually have a POTUS who knew the inside of intelligence and actual "Intelligence". I was proud of voting for who I thought was the best person for office, regardless of their party. I was raised in a Union household, a Democratic family. Liberal I suppose, progressive. 

Until recently when the GOP has taken a deep shite and a deep dive off the deep end of Reality. Literally denying reality, time and time again.

Sonny boy Pres. Baby Bush wasn't, didn't and so ignored dad and took Hussein out, with the nightmare that led to. But then W planned to do that even before he became POTUS anyway.

Nothing over there is easy, clean, or obvious. If it seems like that, there's something unknown lurking.

And now we have the same issue with Trump we had with Baby Bush.

Ignorance and satiation of one's beliefs desires and feelings over reality and associated issues. And of course, obfuscation, distraction, and redirection.

By the way, I learned my lesson with Bush Sr. Leaving Saddam in place left me very unsatisfied and upset with him for a decade until his son took him out. And then I learned how complicated things really are over there. You do what needs to be, not what you want or just think should be done. Just watch the near end of Lawrence of Arabia and know that it's all still going on.

Right and wrong are shaded with many colors, especially in the Middle East. And even when you're right at times you will suffer the consequences. This present situation will come back to bite us.

Kill Religion or the Religious to Protect the World?

Do we continue to put up with religious based violence in this new world of ours regardless of what they subject us to, be it their religious fictions and even murders? Do we continue to perpetuate acceptance and denial? Or do we start killing off religions and the religious in order to protect the world?

Is it just the media? Why do I constantly hear mostly of Muslim based violence around the world? It may be a nonviolent religion but if so, why is it spawning so many violent groups? Are they just political and cloaking their intentions in religious diatribe and worse? Is it just because the rest of the world finds their beliefs unacceptable. If that's the case, isn't it possible that it is they who need to change and not the world? Are they just kids on religion who have grown up with a defective mindset and so are simply looking for trouble and meaning in their lives because their lives are so miserable? Isn't it possible that their religion isn't serving up to them a way to live in peace? So isn't their religion then what is defective and not the rest of the world?

Surely America hasn't helped the situation in traditionally abusing international relationships and the poor around the world in taking resources and supporting dictators and repression. But do we really need to put up with this?

We tend to ignore Religion with, "it's their thing", and "we shouldn't interfere". But why? Because it's been around so long, obviously. But is that a good enough reason? Don't we avoid interference mostly because we don't want people to rain on our own weird little parades? Whatever those might be? But then, we don't go around pushing our beliefs on others. Or do we?

All I can say is that I do hope we won't find a violent backlash against the religious. Because a lot of people are getting sick of hearing about religion and their stupid reasons for killing those not of their belief system, but also are killing their own. And how does that make sense? But then their religious intolerance has always kind of asked for it as intolerance does seem to breed that, one way or another.

An organism will expel or kill what is not good for the host, for itself. Is that what we're starting to see with religion? Religion has been showing its growing demise over time. Are we at that point where there will soon be a backlash against it, partly I'm sure because many of those groups are so ridiculous in their claims and demands? Just look at American politics in recent years in their leaning to the religious right.

I see any religious based violence as unacceptable. Don't get me wrong, I see most any reason for violence as unacceptable, but in perpetrating violence in the name of invisible beliefs, invisible certainly to others not of your group, it really isn't something we should be allowing.

So do we crush that culture, or what? I see religious violence in this manner traditionally as a group being pressured with no outlet to release their frustration, no path to evoke positive changes for themselves, and so they act in a way to draw attention in the most notable ways possible. Terrorism used to be the act of last endeavor but it has turned into a way of life for far too many.

Do we (that is, non-violent opposition to this kind of thing) give them whatever they are asking for? Or do we become a party to creating yet more martyrs in putting them down?

I have no answer and I don't really think anyone does at this point. But we certainly need one. Repression (something religion is exemplary at) has shown to lead to aggressive retaliation. But then we don't have an imaginary all powerful being at the head of our side.

Check this out (see, China calls Xinjiang unrest a 'terrorist attack', ups death toll to 35):

"Xinjiang is home to a large Muslim Uighur community and violence focusing on its discontent had been confined recently to southern districts. The altercations in Shanshan county on Wednesday marked a return of unrest to Xinjiang's north.

"Many Uighurs, Muslims who speak a Turkic language, chafe at what they call Chinese government restrictions on their culture, language and religion. China says it grants Uighurs wide-ranging freedoms and accuses extremists of separatism.

"On Wednesday, gangs with knives attacked a police station and a government building and set fire to police cars. Twenty-four people died in clashes with police, including 16 Uighurs." - Chinese state news agency.

Living in China for these groups can't be easy even if China says they are allowed a wide range of allowable behaviors. Just compare what China thinks is liberal and what Americans think is liberal, then consider what Muslims consider to be such, and what Muslim extremists consider it to be. Personally I've had enough of extremists and intolerance. It seems most of it is religious based. White supremacists, Muslim terrorists, etc.

That "etcetera" however seems to be mostly coming from religions that grew out of the Middle East. Maybe I'm wrong here, but can you think of any other religions that are violent like that on a regular and ongoing basis? Speak up if you do. But if so, I suspect they are not as a big an issue as the world wide Islamic terror reign we've been experiencing now for decades.

So how much longer should we put up with this religious based violence? At some point, it is at the root of their belief system.

If these religions don't police their own believers, someone else is going to. It's strange how their religion is designed to have such strong beliefs, yet they can't control their own indiscriminate murderers. Someone said about the article above to pay attention to it, as it will not go away. Yet China is simply not known for allowing opposition to the State. Not a good combination.

What the answer is, is beyond me but I don't think it's more violence against the religious, lthough when I hear of this stupid ongoing violence, it does tend to make me want to be violent back at them. The "Kill Them All" urge starts to rise. But then, that's just what the problem is all about, isn't it? It's how the Islamic terrorists get started and perpetrated.

We need a better solution and frankly, the only one I can think of is long term. How about we give these people better lives and educate the living Hell out of them.

Because for the most part, good education seems to kill religion.

Those who still adhere to it even after post doctoral education, are simply lacking something by their own contentions. But I suspect that if we watch that family line it is something that will eventually go away in their own descendants.

If we need anything at this point in history, it's to grow beyond our ancient, tribal beliefs in spooky super beings. And education is the only answer we've got. How about we start producing less war and more education, more food, water and medical attention for those who desperately need it, bringing those third world backward cultures up into the future? It will take time but it may be the only hope we have to end this childish nonsense, the cowardly bombings, the lies and subversions that these terrorist groups perpetrate upon even their own people, all for satiating their addictive lust of killing more humans.

Our Next War

Where will our next war be? Now that Iraq is over and Afghanistan is wrapping up, we need to look at who to go kill next. Iran is an obvious contender for the Zionist war mongers among us. Those people, who were historically treated poorly and never given a chance or their own country to call their own, who are doing the same thing to Palestinians for whatever reasons, seem like the most promising next war. To stand with Israel and support them in their attacks on Iran, that is.

But the reality is probably less obvious. Considering China's change in leadership, their 500 year dominance of Japan, Japan's more modern overpowering of China earlier last century and their current status as a world power and world economy, the next war or "police" action" whatever you want to call it, could come over a dispute in the Senkaku Islands.

Traditionally these islands belonged to China. But so did Japan. Then when Japan took over China, they claimed and to this day have been in possession of, these islands. Now China is pushing for their historical possession of these islands and the Chinese and Japanese navies have been pretty contentious around these islands.

Our problem lies in our treaty with Japan. After the intensity of Japan in WWII, America wanted to cut Japan off at the knees and made an agreement to Japan to protect them if they ran into martial problems with another country in Asia. That meant we didn't have to be so concerned about Japan rebuilding their military force and once again take on their historically aggressive attitude and thus find ourselves in yet another conflict with them.

What we hadn't foreseen was their going up against the new strength and possible threat in Asia, China. If a conflict starts between these two countries and it is possible, we would have to go to the aide of Japan against the second most powerful nation in the world and to whom we owe a massive debt.

So first of all, who really should have possession of these island?

They say that possession is 9/10ths of the law. It is true that a current owner has greater claim over previous owners. But a bigger power can also take back or make a claim outright and simply occupy a place, thus having new, albeit possibly temporary ownership. Then it would take others to go in and reclaim that place through force, or agreement. Considering China's new economic and world situation, as well as their newly changed regime at this time and that new regime needing to assert their control, it is very possible they will find that they do want to push this issue to its ultimate conclusion so that they might reclaim ownership of the Senkaku islands.

Japan and China have had a long traditional opposition and neither has forgotten the last hundreds of years. Japan will not want to give up these islands. Partially because and both know this, there are some very wealthy oil reserves in this location and they both want them.

Here is my view. These islands belong to Japan. They are in possession of them. They have been in possession for many years and China has accepted that. So the possession issue in my mind is settled. China argues that they had historically had possession of these islands, which is also true, but what does that matter, really? I had historical possession of my car years ago, but I sold it, thereby accepting that I no longer owned it. Can I now go back with threat of force and reclaim it because I had historical possession of it? No.

Also, China had tried to take over Tibet for hundreds of years until a decisive battle settled who was sovereign:

"In 821 China-Tibet Peace Treaty: "Tibetans shall be happy in Tibet and Chinese shall be happy in China". The peace treaty was an acknowledgement of stalemate between the two countries after 200 years of Sino-Tibetan conflict. The treaty stated that the Chinese recognized Tibetans as equals and Tibet as a separate state with its own inviolable territory. The treaty was engraved on a stone pillar in front of the Jokhang temple in Lhasa."

1910-12 A Qing army led by General Zhao Erfeng invades and occupies Tibet, causing the Dalai Lama and Tibetan government officials to flee.

1918 Tibetan army, led by British-trained officers, defeats Chinese army. Tibet and China sign a peace treaty; China refuses to ratify treaty.

So, if China's argument on the Senkaku Islands is to be accepted, then they need to move out of Tibet. If their claim on Tibet is true and valid, they do not get the Senkaku Islands back.

We therefore are obligated to follow through to defend Japan's claims on the islands and the wealth therein, against China no matter what the consequences. China, if Tibet is any kind of example, will most likely not back down without some kind of remunerative benefit, either by way of taking possession of the islands, or in some other way.

A conflict in those seas is highly possible and could potentially be our next war, in or around these islands. If we allow Israel to drag us into another Middle Eastern morass of killing with Iran, we might once again find ourselves in conflict with two different countries, only on very different parts of the globe.

This won't be the same thing as Bush Jr. getting us into an Iraq war over a reason that didn't exist. This will be a war required by law, unless we can help them to find another way to resolve it. Perhaps they can share the islands? This isn't really acceptable as Japan's legal possession at this time in my mind is indisputable. But the reality of a military the size of China's brings along with it, an entirely different kind of reality. Not to mention our financial debt to them, where they could also potentially use it against us if we angered them enough, although that could easily backfire on them and they know it.

The world is not at peace yet and we need to get on that as soon as possible. Once people get used to peace, they get pretty unpleasant when forced back into war. But as long as we maintain any kind of a semblance of being at war, the possibility of starting a new war is always a more easy possibility.

We need to start paying more attention to what is important. Peace, climate change, our economy, (that is, paying for what we want and not charging it for future administrations to worry about), and forging a truly peaceful world into being.

9/11 Was Not Just A Terrorist Attack - The Return of America the Great

9/11 was not just a terrorist attack. At very least, its effects were much more far reaching.

9/11 was an injection of poison that no one seemed to notice. That was the damage that was done, not just the lives lost. America was poisoned with a shot injected into the largest city of this once great country by those deluded with hate, by those who grew to hate us in part from our own actions over the past hundred years of our paying no attention whatsoever to what our actions were doing to those then third world nations of the world. We were injected with a poison that spread out rapidly, reaching across our country, and then spreading out to the world.

In modern pop culture terms it was like we were bit by a zombie and then we bit others conveying the poison to the world. The infection spread partly from fear of terrorism, but also from our own words and actions. America is rather new to the need to protect our homelands from terrorism and sadly, we reacted to it like children.

Fear is contagious and we helped to spread it. This was what FDR meant when he said, "Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself."

After 9/11 we were turned into a Zombie country. We were infectious, WE then were dangerous. We went to war against the nearest country that fit our need to kill; someone, anyone We did what was right before we were attacked. We should have cleaned up in Iraq in the 80s, not in 2003. We rightly went into Afghanistan in 2002 and attacked our attackers, Al Qaeda and their associates the Taliban. We nearly devastated them and the Taliban. But then we let Bin Laden escape to Pakistan. Why? Because, we weren't through satiating our revenge. You can blame the Bush Administration, they were the head of the pimple at that time that was America.

What other country has two million people in thousands of prisons and jails in its own country? Who had secret prisons around the world? In Romania, in Poland, in Guantanamo? That poison we were injected with on 9/11 made us go crazy. Our own past with nonsense like our "War on Drugs", a war on many of our own citizenry, gave us a mindset that allowed us to be led into a "War on Terror". So we went into the longest war in our history in Afghanistan, a "war" that spread against a rag tag global group of terrorists and wannabees. We found a way to allow ourselves to torture prisoners, to terrorize individuals in a confined setting. We used things like "extraordinary rendition" to kidnap and torture and when that became too difficult to do, we found other countries who had brutal natures and we allowed them to do those things in our name.

The Bush Administration kept these things going for many of those years. Those secret prisons were shut down in 2006 and in 2009 it became official policy that we do not do that anymore, under a different administration. For years the flag draped coffins at Dover were banned to be photographed when America's children, killed in war, were brought home to their final resting place. The worst thing we can ever do, is to force ourselves away from facing that we are indeed at war. When at war you need it to be painfully obvious. Let that be a lesson to us.

Labeling so many things as "war" allowed us to think as you do in a war. In war we do things that are not normally allowed. Murder, is legal and not even called, "murder". The "Fog of War" includes killing the lame, women, old people, and children. It allows us to kill our own citizens, something that should never happen without due process and judicial interference. And we did that. We killed an American citizen with a missile in another country by first labeling him as traitor. His father even went to court to sue the country to keep it from happening, asking instead that he captured, to bring his son back, give him a trial as he was guaranteed by having been through all his life, a great thing, an American citizen. But in killing him we devalued what we are as Americans.

One of the great things about our Country, about being an American citizen, is the protection of our own country and in having due process, not presidential dictate leading to capital punishment. After we killed that American, we then killed his sixteen year old son, shortly thereafter and in the same manner, using a bomb delivered on the end of a missile.

Is this who we are now?

Is that America? Does that sound like America to you? Is this, what our once "Great Nation" is about now? All this because we were afraid? Because of Fear? When we are afraid does that give us the right to throw our long standing ethical principles, right out the window?

President Obama, as soon as he took office on January 22, 2009, put a stop to our torturing people around the world, on principle. Some people complain a lot about Pres. Obama and what he has done since coming into office. They have various considerations on how we should be rebuilding our economy, treating our citizens, and fighting (or even being in) a war. But the one thing the Obama Administration has been and is doing, is helping our country to heal itself after ten years of our longest war ever (other than our "War" on drugs and the American citizen).

Healing is difficult, it can be painful, but it is necessary.

Look, having a "War" on things is dangerous. That attitude alone is dangerous and we need to stop doing it. Legalizing Marijuana strangely enough, is one way to help end that mindset of having a "war" on something because it means an end to extraordinary actions against something that some only some people don't like. When it leads our own country into rationalizing actions against our own citizens, then we really have gone astray. Whether it is arresting someone in our own country for possessing even small amounts of Cannabis, or in blowing an American up in another country for terrorism and being a traitor, we need to make up our minds who we are and what we are allowed to do, in any circumstance.

As it helped lead us into our, out of context, "War on Terrorism", something that sounds good, feels good but counter-intuitively isn't good, it also led us into something else. Things like the "Tea Party", extremism in our country, the Republican Right taking over to the detriment of our country and even the GOP, their own party. But as things go these types of things tend to be cyclical and the pendulum can only swing so far to one extreme or the other before it either swings back, or simply breaks the mechanism. And we have been far too close to that for far too long now.

Being an American means something. It should mean something, anyway. It should mean something extraordinary and these last ten years and more we have diluted what it means to be an American. We need to stop that. We need to get back on the path and we need to heal. Not only ourselves within our own country, but also in how others view our country and its citizens. We need to get back to the business of being "Great" and not saying it. It's not just about our military power or our economy. It's also about our principles, our existence, our being a leader in doing things around the world, and within our own country. We need to decide what is "right" and stick to it.

Sometimes being that kind of a country is difficult, it can be painful. Lives can be lost over it. But we have in the past been the kind of country that can "take it on the chin" and continue on, even through difficult times, and continue doing what is right.

Which kind of country do you want us to be?

During these past ten years we have at times been, in contemporary parlance a, "chicken shit" country. Literally, we have been scared of our own shadows. Remember the colored, "Shades of Danger" alerts that we stopped using in 2011? As it turned out, we only needed them for feeling all fuzzy safe. The Bush administration had pushed us into an old fashioned Texas style retribution and we all know that revenge destroys both the deserving and the undeserving. It can also make one into the other.

But now we are painfully trying to leave that juvenile opiate of war and the mindset of retribution behind. Shouldn't we now finally go back to being the kind of country we were once again? Shouldn't we allow this healing process that the Obama Administration is trying to help us with, happen? To return to being once again that great nation that we once were?

We have evolved during this process. We are a different country now than we were in 2000. We have entered the 21st Century as a country at war and we need to stop that and become a country that is on the forefront of delivering peace. Of advocating Peace. If we want to be at war then we need to be at war against those who are fighting a war against us. But it is not toward our own citizens. It is not toward those who use recreational drugs. It is not toward terrorists. Terrorists require police actions, intelligence operations, not full scale war actions. Going to war in Iraq when any "war action" was really in Afghanistan, was simply ludicrous.

War against terrorism is a concept that may very will never end. Those wannabees who wish to be terrorists can simply do so. But do they deserve a war? Maybe so, but do WE deserve it? No. Surely we can handle them with smaller, less devastating actions that will not destroy those innocents nearby them as "collateral damage" and create new terrorists in their wake because of our killing their relatives and loved ones, as inadvertently as it may be.

Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department's General Counsel, the head Lawyer for the Defense Department, went out this past week for the Obama Administration to say just this. He spoke at Oxford University in Britain and said that wars against something like terrorism can go on forever and we need to find an end to it. He said that we are fighting against a new kind of thing and that at some point we need to call an end to the "war" actions.

"How will this conflict end. It is an unconventional conflict against an unconventional enemy, and will not end in conventional terms." - Jeh Johnson

At some point he said, this will have to be turned over to police and intelligence agencies, and the sooner the better.

America is finally coming back into its own. We are striving to return to being the once great nation we had been and perhaps in the end, we will become an even greater nation than before.

A lot of what I'm talking about here falls under a single word: Honor. War gives a wink and a nod to acting in dishonorable ways, and that has to stop. We have to acknowledge our past actions but then we have to move on to heal from them.

But we have to allow it to happen, we have to let it happen, and we have to support those who are trying to do this hard work. We have to want it and embrace the change as well as a embrace a different, more mature way of being and looking at things. We have to be brave, to persevere through adversity and no matter what, we have to not allow those fear mongers who have spoken out for so long and have led us astray, to influence us, ever again.

In the end, we have to be Honorable. We have to face it, to admit it, that we were not at some points in these past ten years. And then we have to move on to build ourselves a better way of being, under any situation.

This, is America.

Make that mean something once again. Allow America to again come into its own and to remain so from here forward, no matter what.