The Rise of the Chinese Dragon and Decline of the United States

Somehow its seems appropriate that the Chinese astrological symbol for 2025 is the Snake, specifically the wooden snake, The Snake is sometimes referred to as the "Little Dragon" which follows the Dragon symbol in the Chinese astrology, and is associated with Earth (it's also occasionally called the "Serpent") and is the sixth of the twelve zodiac signs. The Snake, it is said, is intelligent, cunning, and patient. At the same time it can be narrow minded, judgmental, vain, sneaky, and petty. Why is that significant?

Well, in the world of mythology, which not so surprisingly, still exerts a influence, albeit mostly symbolic, on our lives. We name pieces of technology, procedures, and even name planets after mythological gods and goddesses. Many of us still read our horoscope with at least a passing curiosity. Even when we go out on dates we often get asked "what's your sign" in the hopes that it will reveal a possible compatibility. 

As anyone who follows politics, economics, or current events should know, China has become a major economic power. In 2022, we imported $536.3 billion dollars worth of goods from China. That represents 16.5% of all U.S. imports. Most of that ranges from cheap toys, tools, and miscellaneous items to sophisticated technical hardware, computer chips and processors, computers, batteries (especially lithium), display monitors, and video games. 

Meanwhile, we ship some $195.5 billion dollars in goods back to China, accounting for 7.5% of China's total imports.  We are indebted to China to the tune of just over $1 trillion dollars. That's roughly 7% of our national debt. Still, the United States still has the largest economy in the world, larger than China's by nearly a third. However, among the top industrial nations, China has the fastest growing economy, and may surpass the U.S. in ten or so years.

 Our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is currently $30.4 trillion compared to China's with $19.6 trillion. While much is made of Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland, in fact China owns just under 1% of American farmland (Canada owns the most). That accounts for about 380,000 acres.  

However, there's another key factor to be considered. Along with having the fastest growing economy in the world among the top industrialized nations, China is also rapidly expanding its economic reach. China has been aggressively buying up control of natural resources around the world, exceeding that of the United States. 

China has been acquiring rights not just to farmland, but mineral rights as well, especially strategic minerals used in computer and missile technology like cobalt and platinum.  However, perhaps one of the most essential of resources, potable water, has been high on China's "buy" list. With 20% of the world's population, it has just 6% of its drinking water. In addition, because of its rapid "hellbent" economic growth, minimizing pollution has not been high on the government's list of things to do. 

According to a study done by the Lowy Institute, somewhere around 85% of China's groundwater is not fit for consumption (over 40% of the groundwater in Beijing is unusable). Worse still, nearly half of China's groundwater isn't safe to be used in the production of crops. On the upside (if there is one) is that China's water pollution isn't the worse. India's is.  What this means is that the two most populous countries on the planet have critical need for scarce usable water, making it perhaps the single most critical natural resource. Many military strategists believe that useable water may become valuable than gold or oil, and thus making its control of primary importance, especially given climate change. What cannot be bought or bartered for will be taken by force as a matter of national survival.   

Another serious factor has been China's growing aggressiveness over control of the South China Sea, which has traditionally been used as a international shipping lane. However, China is now claiming territorial control of the channel, and threatening to use force to hinder or stop all international shipping, including the passage of U.S. military ships. China has even threatened to fire on or seized any vessels traversing the channel. Why the sudden interest in control of a waterway which has long be seen as open?

One possible explanation could be China's recent growth in its navy and its ability to protect whatever it claims. By the end of 2025, China is expected to have 395 ships, including three aircraft carriers, and 435 by 2030. as of 2024, China possessed 234 warships compared to 219 belonging to the U.S. Navy, which makes the Chinese navy this largest---and most modern---in the world. It's should be noted that not only are China's navy newer, it has more shipyards and drydocks than the U.S.. In addition, several recent wargame scenarios have shown China's navy as the victor. This is due to both the newness and quantity of their ships (meaning China's navy can afford to lose more than the U.S. can). 

China has been making use of its new found naval power not only in the South China Sea, but also reenforcing its claim of expanded territorial fishing rights in areas once considered international waters, as well as impinging on waters now claimed by South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, and even India. China has also been stepping up it claim of national sovereignty over the island nation of Taiwan in addition to strengthening its ties with North Korea and Iran. 

A Pentagon report on U.S. military readiness didn't help. According to the report provided to the Department of Defense, the United States military was in serious need of a general overhaul, running the gambit from rifles and bullets to tanks, personnel carriers, artillery to aircraft, combat and support ships. In its present condition, according to the Pentagon, the military wasn't capable of fighting a sustained conflict on multiple fronts. 

Thanks to the 20 year war in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as propping up the Zelensky regime in Ukraine and U.S. support of Israel, the U.S. military is also running critically low levels on spare parts, and technicians to maintain and operate various systems. This is due to the massive hemorrhage of personnel getting out of the military (many of whom have done numerous deployments). For instance, in 2022, the Army missed its infantry recruitment goal by 50%. 

Since 2013, the number of males enlisting has dropped 38%. Enlistment from 1980 through 2020 dropped 59%. To make matters worse, according to the DoD, 77% of individuals of military age (17 - 24) are unfit to serve due to issues like obesity, drug use, mental or other physical reasons. As of November 2023, the Navy was 20% of it annual recruitment goal. The Army was 23% short, and the Air Force was 11% shy of its recruitment goal. Only the Marines and Space Force reached their recruitment numbers.  

Another issue facing the military is the Defense industry's focus on weapon systems that are either not wanted or needed. Following Nazi Germany's example toward the end of WWII, many of the weapons systems have become overly complex and prohibitively expensive (the Wehrmacht adopted equipment which were so complex, they were difficult to maintain such as the "King Tiger" tank or V2 rocket, plus the expense resulted in the production of relatively few numbers).

Per the "2024 Index of U.S. Military Strength"  published by the Heritage Foundation, China is listed as a "formable" threat in Asia  along with Russia. North Korea is considered worth watching. So, how does our military stack up? Again, according to the "Index", the U.S. Army's capacity for waging war is categorized as "weak".   Its capability is listed as "marginal", while its readiness is excellent. Overall, it's rated as "marginal". The Air Force faces similar problems. Its capacity and capability are both "marginal" while its readiness is "very weak" as is its overall rating. 

The U.S. Navy, facing reduction in the number of ships and shipyards, had a capacity rating of "very weak". It capability is rating is "marginal". As for its readiness and overall ratings, both are "weak". As an aside, its projected that with the growth of the Chinese navy, the U.S. Navy will likely not recover its previous naval dominance for at least the next decade. The Marine Corps has a  "weak" capacity rating, while capacity, readiness, and overall score were all "strong".  

The newest member of the military services, the U.S. Space Force, is still looking for its mission. It has yet to establish its fighting credentials (perhaps if aliens invade...). Nevertheless, it maintains satellites, drones, and related technology which are still emerging as unique military systems. But, they're not quite there yet. The U.S. Space Force was rated "marginal" across the board.   Next is our nuclear abilities. In terms of stockpile, delivery modernization, and "allied assurance" the rating was "very strong". 

When it came to delivery platform reliability, warhead modernization (heck, slap a coat of paint on there. Truth me, it won't matter), lab technicians, and weapons complex, the score was "marginal" as was the overall rating.  So, when we add it all up, the U.S. military came out with a overall score of "weak". The question then, is this good enough of a deterrent to stop China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, or a outside player, such as ISIS or Al Qaeda?   

There's no question China is playing the long game. While its economy is growing rapidly, it has also been promoting the Yuan as the alternative currency to the U.S. dollar (or even a possible replacement) which is unlikely, at least in the near future. It has joined Russia, India, South Africa, and Brazil as one of the principal members of "BRICS", which is poised to become a serious competitor to the U.S. dominated "New World Order". While BRICS has aways to go yet, its already showing promise as the number of applicants, especially among less developed countries, continues to grow.  

China's military, like its economy, has been growing and exerting its influence ever wider. With a weakening United States internally and externally, there is a quiet but growing question starting to be asked in serious but hushed tones throughout the nations of Asia, Africa, and even South America, and that question is whether they should continue to place all their political and economic eggs into one "Made in America" basket or is it time to accept the new role of the Chinese "Dragon" as we being the year of "Snake", or as it's also known, the "Little Dragon"?  

 

 Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you found our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free thinking individuals. We do ask, however, that you be sure to "like" us on whatever site you found us on in order to keep our articles available for others, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

China's Ownership of US Federal Debt

 

China's dominance of strategic resources

How Much U.S. Farmland Does China Really Own? More Than Bill Gates ---And Less Than 17 Other Countries

The Top Ten Largest Economies in the World in 2025

The Global Impact of China's Water and Related Environmental Problems

How Does Water Security Affect China's Development? 

Executive Summary of the 2024 Index of  U.S. Military Strength

CFR: What Is the BRICS Group and Why Is It Expanding?

Is military enlistment down?

Our Military Is in a Dangerous Decline and This Is the Reason Why

With the 2024 Presidential Election Approaching, Is Biden Trying To Pick A Fight With Iran?

Americans like a strong leader. Something no one has ever accused Biden of being. It's not surprising then that as we go into the 2024 Presidential Election, Joe Biden is  perhaps the weakest incumbent in recent U.S. history. His approval ratings are the lowest of any president over the past 15 years. Even former president, Donald Trump, has an approval rating of 75% among Republicans, despite the bipartisan Establishment's best (or worst) efforts to destroy his character.  So, what's Biden to do?

Traditionally, America has never liked  to "switch horses mid-stream"  during a war or other national crisis, and that's what Mr. Biden is hoping for. In fact, he's counting on it. Biden has intentionally put U.S. military forces directly in harm's way in order to virtually guarantee to provoke a crisis with the radical Houthi in Yemen. The Houthi, along with other terrorist groups including ISIS/ISIL, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Taliban, Boko Harem, and others are believed to be actively supported by America's arch-nemesis, Iran

It's worth mentioning that there are approximately 100,000 members of the Houthi. They control roughly two thirds of  the most populated areas in Yemen. Hezbollah, which is most active in southern Lebanon, numbers to about 100,000 as well with roughly 60,000 full time and part time  fighters.  Boko Harem, which operates mainly in Nigeria, Chad, northern Cameroon, and Mali, is much smaller with roughly 15,000  followers.

No one knows for sure how many members of Al Qaeda are left. During the 20 year war in Afghanistan, thousands of so-called "freedom fighters" came from surrounding areas to take part in fight against the "Great Satan" (aka the U.S.). Best estimates indicate that as many as 20,000 of these "freedom fighters" were killed or seriously wounded. Currently it's believed that Al Qaeda/Al Nusra have about 3000 members.  

ISIS/ISIL came into being as a spinoff of Al Qaeda which they saw as too moderate. The United Nations has previously reported that volunteers from as many as 80 countries have ventured from their homeland to join ISIS (many were self recruited via the internet. ISIS has been unique among the terrorist organizations in its technological sophistication).

According to UN and U.S. intelligence reports, ISIS/ISIL may have had as many as 200,000 followers at one point. While many have killed, wounded, or simply drifted away, ISIS/ISIL still remains a potent force, especially in Afghanistan and parts of Syria which it has declared to be part of the "Islamic State". Nevertheless, best estimates put the number of active fighters at around 15,000 - 20,000.   

Behind all these organizations stands Iran, the archenemy of the United States since the Hostage Crisis of 1979 and the overthrow of the Shah. America, via the CIA, had previously overthrown the center-left government of Mohammad Mosaddegh, in 1953 and replaced it with Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, a secular, pro-Western and very conservative autocratic.  

However, in 1979, the Shah, as he was known, was overthrown by the followers of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Out went the Shah and a secular Iran and in its place Iran became an extreme theocratic country. All traces of equality and secular democracy went out the door. During the takeover, the radical Revolutionary Guard seized 52 U.S. embassy workers. They were constantly threatened with being murdered.

President Jimmy Carter authorized a rescue attempt which was poorly planned, poorly executed, and ultimately failed.  After 444 days, the hostages were finally freed as soon as Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president. Ever since, the United States has been trying to pick a fight with Iran.  Iran, on the other hand, has been attempting to exert its influence throughout the region, and has made repeated threats to destroy Israel (aka "the little Satan). To help accomplish this, Iran has sponsored  terrorists groups throughout the Middle East and beyond.       

All of these various terrorist groups have tend to subscribe to a intense hatred of the United States, Israel, and the West. This includes our democratic ideals such as religious and gender equality, free speech, free choice, and so forth. Some of these groups would love to prohibit music of all genres, dancing, singing, alcohol and drugs all types, smoking, or swimming just as an example.

Women may not be uncovered, nor can they vote, speak out, go anywhere without a male escort, drive, or even be educated. Gays in all their varieties are considered an "abomination". As such, they are to be killed without hesitation.  

President Biden previously sent two U.S. naval carrier strike forces, led by the USS Gerald Ford and USS Dwight Eisenhower, to the eastern Mediterranean and parked them off the coast of Gaza (the British dispatched a carrier strike force as well as part of the united show of force).  Officially, our presence was to "monitor" the situation between the Israelis and its ongoing operations in Gaza against the terrorist group Hamas.   

However, that role almost immediately changed from one of neutral monitoring to active participation as the U.S. has repeatedly intercepted missiles and attack drones sent by the Houthi in Yemen. Thus far about a dozen missiles and around 21 armed drones have been intercepted.

On Biden's orders, planes from the U.S. carriers made several strikes on Houthi compounds in Yemen,  resulting in several Houthi rebels and Yemeni civilians being killed and six wounded. That action has provoked a series of massive protests throughout Yemen as a violation of Yemeni territorial sovereignty.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced in early January that the USS Gerald Ford strike group would be returning home. It will be replaced by the USS Bataan, an amphibious assault ship and centerpiece of a Marine centered Amphibious Assault Group capable of delivering 1,687 Marines anywhere they're needed. In this case, Israel.  It also has a impressive complement of attack helicopters and short-hop attack aircraft such as the F35B Lightning II and the AV-8B Harrier II.

The USS Mesa Verda, a amphibious transport ship with a complement of 700 officers and enlisted personnel (of which 550 are Marines) , and USS Carter Hall, a amphibious dock landing ship with a crew of 24 officers, 397 enlisted sailors and about 500 Marines, make up the remaining complement of replacement ships. 

As an aside, the USS Bataan was used in the 2020 targeted killing of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and commander of the Quds Force, which I'm sure hasn't go unnoticed by Tehran's military leadership. In addition, in 2008/9, the Bataan and Peleliu  were secretly used as prison ships to hold suspected terrorists.

As if intentionally trying to makes matters worse, Biden sent a private message to Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi advising that the U.S. was "prepared" for any actions the Iranian government cared to undertake, in what can only be characterized as a clear and unambiguous threat designed to provoke the Iranians. But what of Biden's assertion that the U.S. was prepared? It turned out, he lied.

According to a Department of Defense "Fact Sheet", our military faces shortages on practically every front.  Equipment, spare parts, and resources from secondary or even non-military sources are having to be diverted to meet demand by the military. U.S. naval ships are in serious need of a general overhaul while aircraft in the Air Force and Navy need a complete update amid critical spare part shortages.

The U.S. Department of Defense also raised the question as to whether our armed forces would be able to adequately engage in a multi-front conflict on a sustained level. The report went on to provide an analysis of the readiness of each of the military branches.

First was the U.S. Army which was characterized as "marginal" by the DoD with having only 62% of the total manpower needed to meet its minimum operational goals. The Army lacks adequately trained personnel to deal with the modern high tech battlefield. The Army is aging at a rapid rate, making it less combat effective. That's because fewer young people are enlisting and/or staying in.

The Navy's capabilities are rated as "weak to very weak". To be effective, the Navy needs a battle ready fleet of at least 400 ships. It currently has 298, and the majority of those need overhauling. The fleet is expected to shrink further to 280 ships by 2037. Meanwhile, China has been aggressively increasing its regional fleet which could mean defending Taiwan from a Chinese invasion may be problematic at best.

The fighting capability of the Air Force is listed by the DOD as "very weak" which is dangerous since control of the air is the single key deciding factor in most every battle. The USAF is currently at 86% of its minimum strength and facing a shortage of around 650 pilots.  Most planes are at least 32 years old and because of a lack of spare parts, pilots are barely getting in adequate flight time to meet minimum standards to retain peak performance.

The Space Force is seen as a "weak" with its role still not clearly defined. However, like all the other military branches, it has to cope with aging equipment, a lack of properly trained personnel, and few spare parts.

Finally, the Marine Corp. Out of all the military branches, only the Marines were viewed by the DOD as being "combat ready" despite facing the same issues when it came to having ample aircraft and military equipment, spare parts, and adequately trained individuals.

As an aside, the Department of Defense report also mentioned our nuclear capabilities. There's no question that we are living in a far more dangerous world as rouge nations such as North Korea and Iran press ahead with their nuclear weapons programs and delivery capabilities. North Korea has been acting like a spoilt kid the way it's been lobbing missiles in the direction of South Korea, Japan, and even Hawaii just to see what kind of reaction they can provoke.

Iran has been actively developing its nuclear capabilities amid its incessant threats that once developed, they intend to use them against Israel even if it means their own destruction. What kind of country dedicates itself to its own national genocide?  Of course, we face the ever present possibility of a "dirty bomb" being used by some fanatic against a ill-defined "infidel" country. Of course, top on that list would be the United States (aka "the Big Satan"), particularly given our porous southern border.

Biden's recent taunt of Iran or stirring the hornet's nest in Yemen aren't the smartest moves a president could make, but that's what he's done. There's no question that Biden's moves are politically motivated. He's trying desperately to boost his ratings and project the image of a strong leader.

Sadly for Biden is that he has never been seen as a strong leader. Of what can be said about it him historically, much of it isn't complementary.  Worse still is that what the world sees is a tired old partisan politician who is quickly losing his grip on reality.

The worse thing that can happen right now is for Biden to get us embroiled in a war, either directly or indirectly with Iran. Despite his empty bravado, we are not prepared and our enemies know it. It really just a matter of whether they want war or peace. Meanwhile, we need to avoid stoking a fire in the Middle East which could spill over into a invasion of Taiwan by China and a move by North Korea against the Seoul in the south.  

In Europe, the situation in Ukraine shows no signs of ending anytime soon and the EU is facing a mounting crisis over the unchecked mass influx of migrants from Africa and the Middle East. At home we're seeing our nation balkanize over political correctness, "wokeness", rekindled racism, rising crime, a fundamentally unstable economy as the invasion along our southern border goes unchecked.

While we do need a strong leader, Biden has clearly demonstrated for all to see that he is no longer competent enough for the job of President and Commander in Chief.  However, the Right needs to accept the fact that Trump's credibility may have been irreparably damaged by this point as to be no longer effective, which leaves us with a serious national dilemma.  With both parties potentially having a lame duck candidate, is there anyone capable of unifying and leading the nation at this critical juncture in our history? 

   If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

DOD Fact Sheet: Sequestration's Impact to Regain Readiness

Executive Summary of the 2023 Index of U.S. MilitaryStrength

The USS Gerald R Ford aircraft carrier is returning homeafter extended deployment defending Israel

5 killed in U.S.-led strikes in Yemen, Houthi rebels say

The Evolution of Islamic Terrorism: An Overview

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Do So Many Countries Hate Trump? A Global Perspective

Here we are, at the end of 2019, and what a year it's been. Like most everyone else I thought about doing a retrospective; taking a look back at perhaps the top stories we did for A/O or maybe a look at the year's leading stories, but that wouldn't be very original would it? So, instead I decided to look at how President Trump stacks up among some of our allies.

While they don't have a direct impact on our elections, their opinions do impact us through the perceptions they create. It also has an impact on our trade relations since their impressions reflect their confidence in the presidency and the government. Besides, Trump's Presidency began with the absurdity that somehow Russian President Vladimir Putin influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election which kept Hillary Clinton from her coronation. So, let's take a look shall we?

In tenth place is Japan. An important economic partner of the U.S. which doesn't seem to like Trump. Since the beginning of the Trump Presidency, Japanese opinion has dropped 54 points. In addition, their opinion of Americans in general has fallen 15 points as well. The Japanese seem to equate Trump with their largely unpopular Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, who they see as having no sense of humor, a big ego, and militaristic. Additionally, like Trump, Abe was born wealthy and appears out of touch with most Japanese. At least Trump hasn't thrown up on Japanese PM yet unlike another certain U.S. President!

The ninth spot is our friends down under, Australia. Although 75% of Australians have a positive opinion of Americans, only 45% can say the same thing about Trump. The Aussies don't seem to be particularly confident of Trump being able to do the "right thing" when it comes to his foreign policy, especially on the topic of refugees or ability to comprehend the complexity of the situation on Nanru and Manus and ship based human smuggling.

Next is perhaps our closest ally, the United Kingdom. Trump's approval is down 57% from what it was under Obama. In fact, some of their media goes as far as to say that the Brits "really really hate" Donald Trump, but that's not all. Just 50% have a positive opinion about America and Americans in general.

The reason most cited was Trump's promise to minimize Muslim immigration into the US. Of course, the UK has been inundated by Muslim "migrants" as has Europe, much to their detriment I might add. In fact, several large cities in the UK, including London, Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds, have substantial Muslim populations, not to mention Sharia courts and "No-Go" zones, albeit unofficially.

Our northern neighbor, Canada, is next. So could those obnoxiously polite Canadians dislike about "The Donald"? Well, apparently everything. According to Pew Research, they regard the President as arrogant (92%), intolerant (78%), and dangerous (72%). 84% doubt he's qualified to be the president. They dislike his policies just as much as him personally, and for the first time since Pew began tracking opinions in Canada has Canadians polled over 50% in their dislike of Americans.

According to the survey, 57% of Canadians have a negative opinion of the U.S. while the remaining 43% apologized profusely (just kidding). As an aside, Mexico, our neighbor to the south, came in 14th with a 44% disapproval rating of Trump (mostly due to illegal immigration). Thus while Trump and America are viewed rather poorly by our two closest neighbors, it's Canada which has the worse opinion of us.

Spain is sixth on the list. Spain, which has become a major entry point for "migrants" entering Europe from Africa and the Middle East, not only strongly dislikes President Trump, they don't care much for Americans either. According to Pew, Trump is down 68% from former President Obama. The majority don't believe that President is capable or willing to do the "right thing" when it came to his policies.

They also believe that Trump doesn't understand the international situation well enough to be president. Regarding Americans, a whopping 60% of Spaniards had a unfavorable opinion of Americans while 23% had a very unfavorable opinion of the U.S.. The previous high has never exceeded 7%.

Next on the list shouldn't come as much of a surprise. After all, it's France, which has had something of a national "Napoleonic Complex" toward the U.S. since the end of World War II (you're welcome again by the way) and presidency of Charles De Gaulle. That's not to say the French People don't like Americans, they do...well, mostly. 73% of those polled had a favorable opinion though they admitted to getting a bit miffed when tourists show up and expect everyone else to speak their language. Trust me when I say that most Americans these days can relate!

Nevertheless, President Trump is down 70 points from Obama! To put it another way, the French hate Donald Trump more than Russian President Vladimir Putin, China's Xi Jinping, or even Germany's Angela Merkel (who is partly responsible for Europe's decline thanks to the importation of the "migrants"). France's current president, Emmanuel Macron (the other person most responsible for Europe's decline) has even tried to bill himself as the "Anti-Trump".

As for why the French hate Trump so much, it really covers about every one of his policies, from trade to terrorism to the environment, human rights and the global economy. They dislike his personality and just about everything else about him. The only thing they seem to like is his wife, Melania Trump (the French do love class and style and she exudes it).

Interestingly South Korea is fourth. Now with a nut job with possible nukes just a few dozen miles to the north, you'd think they would have a more favorable opinion of Trump. After all, he has been one of the few American presidents who hasn't been bullied into backing down every time Kim Jong Un throws a tantrum.

In fact, very few world leaders have actually stood up to Kim in the past, including presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama. In addition, the presence of U.S. troops in South Korea, as well as our strong trading partnership, are major reasons South Korea is still there.

Nevertheless, 71% of South Koreans have an unfavorable opinion of Trump compared to Obama. Many fear that Trump is using South Korea as a pawn in his dealings with Kim Jong Un. They also believe that Trump is "indifferent" about South Korea's role as an ally. If that was case, I doubt that Trump would have gone to bat for them as often as he has in the past. By the way, 75% of South Koreans still have a good opinion of America and Americans.

Now for Germany. Is anyone actually surprised? The only thing I found more surprising was that Germany wasn't higher than third on the list. Pew's poll showed a 75% decline in favorability from Obama to Trump; a drop which cuts across all of Germany's political lines.

Perhaps it's because Trump has been a vocal critic of Angela Merkel's disastrous policy of "open borders" of the so-called "migrants" into Europe (many Germans feel the same way except that "war guilt" seems to keep getting in the way of Germans doing the right thing for Germany and Europe). Merkel's immigration policies smacks of national suicide; a desire to destroy Germany's culture, traditions, and sense of national identity, even if that means taking Europe down with her.

Like Germany, the Netherlands has an equal distain for President Trump and like Germany, it's favorability toward the American President has dropped 75 points. Like the Germans, the Dutch believe that Trump is intolerant, arrogant, and lacks the practical experience of a world leader. They too, as others on this list have expressed, believe that Trump lacks the moral character to "do the right thing", be it pertaining to immigration, human rights, the environment, the Middle East, or just about anything else. On the plus side, 71% of the Dutch still have a positive opinion of Americans.

Finally, the number one spot. The country which hates President Trump more than anyone else is (drum roll please)...Sweden. Yelp, that ultra polite "Canada of Europe" dislikes Trump more than any other country in the whole wide world. It's hard to believe actually. Sweden is, after all, so damn polite. They are consistently listed as being among the happiest and healthiest people in the world. They are routinely ranked among the best educated people in the world. Sweden has one of the world's best social safety nets, top government infrastructure and environmentally friendly countries in the world.

Of late Sweden has been suffering from the influx of "migrants" coming into the country; many of whom are poorly educated and lack few, if any, transferable work skills. They've proven to be a huge drain on Sweden's economy, especially its once renown social safety net. Additionally, crime, particularly violent crime, has skyrocketed throughout Sweden, particularly in major cities like Stockholm.

In addition, there has been increased demands by these "migrants" for the implementation of Sharia law (including Sharia courts) as well as curtailing Sweden's traditionally liberal social standards. Many political scientists have proclaimed that Sweden, as a solidly liberal society, may be the first large country lost to the "demographic replacement" of Europeans along with Holland and Belgium.

As a result, we have a nation caught in the grips of a transitional crisis. Nevertheless, their opinion of Trump puts them at the top with an 83% disapproval rating, though the American People retain a 80% approval rating. The principal reason, they claim, is Trump's failure to "fact-check" before speaking (or tweeting). They believe Trump is too intolerant (especially toward Muslims), and lacks the intellect as well as personality to be president.

Could the Swedes be right? For that matter, could everyone else on the list be right? Is Donald Trump the wrong person for the job? Would someone like Hillary Clinton have done a better job as president? If her record as Secretary of State or as a candidate are any indication (including her attempt, along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazille to rig the Democratic Primary against Bernie Sanders, illegally obtain questions in the final presidential debate, Benghazi, or the Clinton "pay to play" Foundation), the answer is no. Hillary fails, if for no other reason, than on moral grounds.

We also need to remind ourselves that almost every country on this list has a politically Left government. A few, such as Sweden, have a long tradition of socially and economically liberal policies. Some were part of empires or were the nexus of the empire itself. Many too have had brutal Far Right juntas imposed on them with the help of the U.S. Government. All have had a close economic relationship with the United States. A few are heavily dependent of American economic aid.

To them Trump perhaps represents a threat. He is not just tightening the borders, preventing illegal immigration into this country, but as a result, restricting money from going back to these countries which has become an informal form of economic aid; something which props up small communities. It has also helped to relieve local poverty thanks to the illegal exodus, providing education and healthcare which would have otherwise been unavailable.

Along the same lines, they may be concerned about the cutback of official aid or military support, forcing them to pick up the slack instead on relying on "Uncle Sugar" to do it for them. Of the countries in Europe, they are suffering under the crushing burden of these "migrants"; many of whom are Muslim. No doubt they'd like to see more redirected to the U.S. America has been viewed for decades as the breadbasket, policeman, and bank to the world. As long as the money flows, they love us.

They worry that America may decide to turn its attention inward and start taking care of Americans first. Many would like to see America drop its border restrictions and turn itself into n open "feed trough"; doing for the world what their own governments won't thanks to their greed. Instead of removing their own tyrants and incompetent government officials, they turn to America for free handouts. This, I believe, is what they're afraid of, and Trump is just the outsider who would do it.



These Are The Countries Which Really Hate Trump


Making America Grate Again

Where Countries Stand With Donald Trump: A Crib Sheet

Ensuring the Flow of Oil: Coping with an Increasingly Belligerent Iran

As you may noticed (in between hoopla over Trump's phone call the Ukrainian President or the increased calls for Trump's impeachment by the Democrats) that things are heating up---again---in the Middle East. This time it was an alleged attack by the Houthi rebels, a radical Muslim group, in Yemen. This time it was an attack on Saudi oil production. The attack came by way of armed drones and was directed at the world's largest oil processing plant.

The plant, owned by Armaco and is located in Abquiaq, was hit by ten drones which resulted in taking out half of Saudi Arabia oil processing capabilities (the plant is also responsible for 5% of the world's total production). Although the drones were said to have come from Yemen and was launched by the Houthi rebels, Saudi officials were quick to point the finger at Iran, which has had a long and often violent history with the Saudi government (a second, smaller, oil facility was also attacked).

Saudi officials stated that the attacks were too well planned and implemented, as well as too technical, to have been carried out by the Houthis alone. In addition, the drones appeared to be based on Iranian models which are produced in North Korea. The drones have an approximate range of 186 miles, which means that besides being able to targets in Saudi Arabia, they could also hit locations in Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and other countries in the region (as an aside, while these were short range models, other similar drones have a ranges up to 930 miles).

In addition, Iran is believed to have been a solid sponsor of the Houthis, along with other extremists groups in the region such as the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, not to mention Boko Haram in Nigeria and the remnants of Al Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL. As for the Houthi, who are officially called "Ansar Allah" or "Supporters of Allah", they are mostly Sunni Muslims and have been active since around 2014 (interestingly, thought while mainly Sunni, they follow the Shia "Zaidi" philosophy, which demands that they take an active role in opposing what they see as "social injustice" against fundamentalist Islam). As of 1994, Zaidi Muslims made up just 0.05% of the Muslim population worldwide.

They also claim to be anti-Imperialist (meaning the U.S. and the West), anti-Zionist (anti-Israel), and Muslim revisionist (ie: party like it's 724!). They are also nationalist and believe they have a divine right to reclaim lands lost in the past---real or imagined. Finally, they claim allies throughout the entire Middle East, including Syria, Oman, Iran, as well as Eritrea and North Korea. In addition to the recent attacks by the Houthi rebels, with possible aid from Iran and North Korea, there has been the more direct actions taken by the Iranians themselves.

In May and June of this year, six ships were attacked by the Iranian's Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN). Four attacks occurred in May just north of the UAE while two tankers, one British and the other Japanese, were rocked by Iranian mines just east of the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf of Oman. Surveillance footage showed an Iranian naval patrol boat attempting to recover an unexploded mine from one of the damaged ships. Just prior to the attacks, Iran naval forces attempted to shoot down a U.S. Navy drone patrolling the area.

As if that wasn't bad enough, the IRGCN has been doing its best to harass U.S. naval warships in the Gulf; the presence of American and other warships in the region is to keep the shipping lanes open and safe and the oil flowing. In June, the IRGCN fired several missiles at the USS Maddox (DD-731) and the USS Turner Joy (DD-951) as the operated in the Gulf of Tonkin, off the coast of Vietnam (neither ship was hit). While the Iranians have long been demanding that the U.S. and other "imperialist" nations stay out of the Gulf waters, lest they face attack by the IRGCN, the attempted attacks off the coast of Vietnam came as something of a bemused surprised. Apparently the Iranians now believe they control the waters in and around the South China Sea! I wonder what the Vietnamese government thinks of their uninvited "protectors"?

Meanwhile, the Iranian government has promised to send ships (up to four) to the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic Coast with further promises to make possible ports of call; perhaps in Cuba and Venezuela. The move is likely an effort to try and intimidate Washington in a "see how it feels" grade school move. Whether the Iranian Navy pays a visit to this side of the globe is really irrelevant.

However, what is more disconcerting is not whether Iran sends ships to the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Coast, it's the fact that Iran has been doing everything possible to provoke the U.S. and its allies at nearly every turn. They've repeatedly found reasons---excuses---to resume the develop of their nuclear reactors (or, as most of the world believes, its nuclear warhead capability, just like its buddy North Korea has been doing).

Its long standing support of Hezbollah and Hamas has proved to be a serious threat to Israel's security. Its support of terrorists groups in Africa and throughout the Middle East are just as dangerous. It's even thought that the Iranians have helped trained and possibly fund terrorist cells crossing our southern border. In fact, several individuals have been caught, in El Salvador and in Mexico. So what's at play here? Why would a little piss ant country like Iran want to pick a fight with the U.S., Great Britain, Israel, or for that matter, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf State countries?

Iran has had a chip on its shoulder since the Iran Revolution and the hostage crisis of 1979. I can't say that I blame them. The U.S. and Great Britain had long played politics in Iran, and for that matter, the entire region. We've overthrown their governments, manipulated control over their oil productions, and treated them more as subject than economic partners. The overthrow of the Shah was meant as a message that enough was enough; the answer to all their problems they were told was the return to Islamic fundamentalism.

Since then, Iran was has been trying to exert itself as power unto itself. They totally broke from their dependence on the West. They fought the U.S. backed Iraqis, under another dictator we supported, Saddam Hussein, to a standstill. What's more is that they decided that the U.S. and Israel were the two big evils in the world; the forces most capable of stopping them from a revived Islamic Caliphate (they even nicknamed America and Israel "Big Satan" and "Little Satan" respectively). They repeatedly promised to wipe Israel off the face of the map and destroy America's power and influence. As far-fetched as it seems, these are not intended to be idle threats.

Iran allied itself with the former Soviet Union (and now Russia), as well as China and North Korea. They have found common cause with nearly every anti-American, British, or Western nation they could find. They have sponsored terrorist groups wherever possible. The objective is not a full-on assault on American or Western forces. Despite their espoused willingness to die for Allah, they intend to get some mileage with those threats first.

The idea is to needle the Americans and its allies; to inflict as many small wounds as possible to weaken the West. It's also to intimidate the West and to try to make themselves seem more powerful than they are in reality. Of course, they'll strike hard whenever the opportunity presents itself. Their hope is that if America or Great Britain for instance, do respond, that they can turn this into a "Islam vs. the Infidels" battle. That's one reason they sponsor groups willing to attack countries like Saudi Arabia who are generally pro-Western. In addition, most Saudis adhere to a competing and larger Islamic sect---Sunni. The Iranians are Shiite, which brings me to a seemingly unrelated issue---oil production.

While the United States is the world's top oil producing nation (and the top consumer of oil and gas), Saudi Arabia is the second largest, and as I previously said, it's most Sunni, except in the Al Hasa region, which has a large Shiite population and produces the majority of the country's oil and gas. Russia is third (and a major supplier of oil and gas to Europe). While modern Russia is largely Christian (Eastern Orthodox), it has large minorities of Muslims, mainly in the south (about 6.5% of Russia's total population is Muslim. The majority are Sunni while about 10% are Shiite).

Next comes Canada followed by China. While officially an atheist nation, China does have a several provinces which are home to large Muslim populations (approximately 1.8% of China's population is Muslim); the largest of which is located in the Uyghur province in the northwest. Of China's 55 "officially" recognized minorities, ten of them are Sunni Muslim groups. As an aside, despite being a top producer of oil and gas, China and India are also the largest importers of oil and gas after the U.S due to their growing economies.

Following China, Iraq is the sixth largest producer of oil and gas. It hold the world's fifth total reserves, which represent 18% of the total reserves in the Middle East and 9% of the world's total reserves. It's worth noting that 67% of the Iraqis are also Shiite. However, the Sunnis have dominated the historically pro-Western governments (Saddam Hussein was a Sunni). Iran, which is about 95% Shiite, is the seventh largest producer with the fourth largest proven oil and gas reserves.

In eight place is the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It hold the seventh largest proven oil and gas reserves in the world. 85% of its citizens are Sunni. Brazil is ninth, but expect that ranking to rise as its ability to develop access to its reserves grows along with its economy. Finally, in tenth place is Kuwait. While 95% of its exports are oil and gas, its production level has been decreasing over the last couple of years. Nevertheless, it still has ample reserves to draw on. About 65% of its population is Sunni.

Other key players of note include Nigeria, which accounts for 6% of the world's production; Libya and Algeria with 3% each, Angola with 5% and Venezuela with 4%. Of these only Venezuela doesn't have a Muslim population, and of those who do, they also all have an Iranian presence in one form or another (remember, for instance, that Boko Harem has been very active in Nigeria as well as the Islamic Fighting Movement in Libya). It's also worth nothing that the majority of the major oil and gas producers---30 in all---are members of OPEC. Also, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Russia are the world's largest net exporters of oil and gas. Other regional populations to consider include the Kurds, of whom 85% are Sunni while 78% of Turks identify as Sunnis.

So, what does all this mean? Simply this, Iran intends to exert its influence by affecting the safe flow of oil and gas in the Gulf region. This, in turn, will cause the price to fluctuate and ultimately increase as tensions rise and ebb due to the uncertainty factor. This will obviously affect the world's economies, especially in the West. A weaken economic West means a more vulnerable West, and a West less willing or perhaps unable of protecting its allies.

It also means an increasingly politically unstable West as government attempt to find ways to satisfy their oil/gas needs, fund its militaries, and meet domestic demands amid rising prices for not just heating oil and gas, but for food as well, and taxes (a particularly bad winter for instance could be catastrophic). Plus the increased pressure on governments in the Gulf region will also affect the stability of their governments amid increased terrorists attacks and declining trade with the West.

Of course a direct confrontation with Iran could produce the same results as well as create a banner to rally various Muslim extremists under and also provide opportunity for anti-Western powers to join together to take down the "Big Satan" while wiping the "Little Satan" off the map as promised.




Attack on the Saudi oil field a game changer in Gulf confrontation

The World's Top Oil Producing Countries


Houthi Movement

An Old Fashion Show Down: Will Trump or Kim Blink First?

You know, I just don't get it. It makes absolutely no sense to me. What am I talking about? North Korea. Kim Jong Un. Donald Trump. Congress. For decades now, it seems that every time there is a new president, the North Korean government has to go and poke the bear as they say. They have to say or do something that's completely over the top just to gage a reaction. In the past, the North Koreans were simply content with making overtures about invading South Korea. They'd call up their military and conduct maneuvers near the border. They'd do flyovers into South Korean airspace and scurry back across. Every now and again, a tunnel will be found with its exit in some house or warehouse after conducting seismic scans based on noise detection monitors.

Apparently the entrance was in some North Korean building large enough to shelter a small advance force of maybe 100 or so individuals. Of course, they'd never actually catch anyone in one of these tunnels. These scans bounce sound waves into the ground. If what's below the surface hasn't been disturbed, the sound waves return with a solid wave image. However, if what's below the surface has been disturbed in some ways, the sound wave bounces back with a wider signal. This can not only confirm a disturbance under the surface, but also an approximate depth. By following along the path of the abnormality, a possible pattern may appear. This "pattern" or image can indicate that something is possibly amiss below the surface. That's when bulldozers, picks and shovel, and old fashion hard work and sweat comes into play. If there's something there, it's explored---allegedly up to the border with North Korea---mapped, and then destroyed. The Israelis have become experts at doing this. South Korea isn't too far behind.

However, more recently, North Korea's government has discovered a new way to annoy the US, Seoul, and their allies. For several decades now, North Korea has been "threatening" to develop nuclear weapons at just about every step of the way. At the same time, the West (and the US in particular) demand that research or whatever stage has been allegedly reached, stop. After the usual saber rattling by both sides, North Korea agrees to stop whatever its currently doing in exchange for massive amounts of crops, materials or billions in credit, which it can use for additional purchases, be it for agricultural products or technology. Meanwhile, it continues to received economic assistance China and Russia (assistance from Russia has been reduced since the collapse of the USSR). As just about any casual observer would likely note, North Korea's foreign policy is closely tied to its domestic economic policy which consists of pushing the West's buttons and using extortion to prop up its economy, and by extension, its government.

The latest move by North Korea's "dictator-in-short-pants", Kim Jong Un, has been to proclaim that its military has developed a few nuclear warheads along with a delivery system that's capable of delivering them. At first, Kim threatened South Korea as expected. When that failed to provide the desired reaction, a series of threats were leveled at Japan. Japan, as some of you may know, does not have any nukes of its own. In fact, Japan has the dubious distinction of being the only country to have been on the receiving end of a nuclear attack (which resulted in Japan's surrender and bringing World War II to an end). In addition, Japan does not have a military. Instead of its once mighty navy, it adopted a much smaller coastal defense naval force. In lieu of and despite a brilliant military tradition, Japan now has what passes for a home or national guard which act more in the capacity of safety monitor in the event of earthquakes, tsunami, or exceptionally large radiated reptiles and flying moth-like creatures.

Although that did stir up a hornets' nest with their historical enemy, that too didn't provoke the response Kim wanted. Besides, China was already challenging Japan for possession of several small islands and deep sea fishing areas which were also claimed by South Korea and the Philippines (which, apparently has decided that the best part of valor was to kiss up to the biggest bully on the block, which is China. Maybe they will throw some crumbs their way). So, what's a tin pan tyrant to do for attention? Well, apparently Kim decided that the best way to get the attention of the US, was to threaten the US itself, but not in a generic way as it had done in the past. Nope. No sir-ree! This time, instead of sending missiles in the direction of Japan or its nemesis, South Korea, Kim decided to send..not one...not two...but four Hwasong-12 missiles over Japanese airspace (where's Rodan when you need him? Oh well, there are still dozens of US bases throughout Japan) and have them splashdown near (18 to 24 miles) the island of Guam, which is a protectorate of the US as well as strategic navy base. What's more, these four missiles will (allegedly) be each tipped with a small nuclear warhead have a distance of 2,796 miles; well within range of Guam.

As an aside, Guam, which is the largest island in the Mariana Island chain at 210 square miles, was acquired from the Spanish in 1898 during the Spanish-American War. During WWII, it was attacked and captured by the Japanese just after the attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines on December 8, 1941. It was finally liberated in July of 1944 (the Battle of Guam lasted from July 10, 1944 to August 10, 1944). Currently there is approximately 162,000 people on the island, included some 7000 Naval and Marine personnel, along with Air Force B52 bombers, fighter jets, and support personnel. Recently, the US Army added a long range missile defense system. This system , named "THAAD", stands for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. THAAD is designed to shoot down all manner of short, intermediate, and long range ballistic missiles. Guam also is also home to four nuclear powered fast attack submarines and two submarine tenders.

From a military perspective, it's likely that any launch by North Korea toward US bases or allies would be shot down and crash harmlessly in the Pacific. In some ways, I can understand Kim. First, he's has seen how his grandfather, Kim ll Sung and father, Kim Jong ll, were able to manipulate the leaders of other nations simply by threatening to rekindle the war with its neighbor to the south. Most people don't realize that the Korean War is still technically still on. All of the nations involved signed a temporary cease fire in order to continue with peace talks. Over the years, this cease fire has become more or less accepted as a "peace", though the North clearly doesn't see it this way and hence its justification for its actions.

Since taking power following the death of his father, Kim Jong Un has continued with the same strategy, and it has largely worked to date, but that may be changing. In dealing with George W. Bush, and especially Barrack Obama, Kim has had little trouble getting what he wanted and in actuality, risking little. It seems that a little "saber rattling" combined with the offer of a nuclear scale back "carrot" was all it took to get the groceries he needed to prop up his regime for a bit longer. Now he has to deal with Trump, who considers himself a non-bluffing master of the "Art of the Deal". Besides, with the corporate controlled media routinely going after him, and members of his own party challenging him at every turn, Trump could use an opportunity to flex his muscles, especially when his predecessors usually failed when it came to North Korea "stick and carrot" foreign policy tactics.

If Kim thinks Trump will blink first like everyone else had, he's in for a rude surprise. In fact, it looks like Kim's best friends right now might just be the US media and members of the US Congress. Why? The corporate media sees Trump as a usurper; as someone who denied Hillary Clinton her coronation, and more importantly, as someone who wasn't properly vetted and would play the game. Trump is a true outsider and will act on his own (when Trump said "fire and fury" would descend on Kim, his National Security Adviser quipped to some in the media that Trump was not "pre-approved" to make that statement, which give you an idea as to how things happen in Washington and how the government actually functions now that we're an Oligarchy.

While Trump has refused to blink thus far, I suspect Kim is hoping that enough pressure can be brought to bear on Trump to persuade him to back down and simply payoff Kim as everyone else has done. But what if they don't? What if they fail and Trump stands his ground? I wonder what would happen then---would the military ignore his order? Would Congress seek to remove Trump from office on grounds that Trump is mentally unbalanced? There are already calls to impeach Trump, although he really hasn't done anything impeachable (besides, how could anyone serious want to impeach Trump while Hillary Clinton is still free? She is guilty of numerous felony crimes). Would Trump's key cabinet members all resign at the same time, creating a domestic crisis? Trump and several key Republicans aren't exactly friends such as John McCain, Mitch McConnell, or Paul Ryan.

There are a lot of possibilities to consider. What if his comments about Kim and North Korea are to be taken at face value? Given the Trump "hate-fest", the corporate media, and members of his own party as well as the Democratic Party and others have painted Trump into a corner. That's a place where "The Donald" does not perform particularly well (nor do most people, including yours truly). Thus, Trump can be expected to come out swinging. He has to. Trump has been harassed, berated, insulted and ignored from the get-go. He has been made to feel that he has no place in the White House; that he is a fluke or aberration. Others want him just to show up with his pre-written speeches, kiss some babies, and leave; let the professionals handling everything else (as McConnell implied just a few days ago).

Nevertheless, if Trump continues to be "The Donald", he will hit North Korea hard. As soon as a missile launch is detected, Seoul's military along with Japan's Self-Defense Force will be notified. At the same instant, US military senior command in both countries and Guam will go on immediate high alert. I suspect that senior operation commanders have been given pre-approval launch missile interceptors as soon as they've received confirmation of the launch and missile type, and verified that they are cleared of all population centers. Guam will also be put in high alert and scramble their fighters and readied their anti-missile system (the THAAD system mentioned above). My guess would be that they'd be engaged as soon as they've passed safely over Japan. Meanwhile, air traffic control would be rerouting commercial and private flights away from the area while commercial ships will be ordered away from the area. After the missiles are successfully intercepted and the threat is removed, what will Trump do next? That's the billion dollar question. Will he "lay waste" to North Korea? Maybe, but then there's China to consider. They has the largest military in the world and one of the most modern fleets and aircraft out there. In addition, it has a lot of missiles of their own, not to mention nukes. They are also close allies with North Korea, although of late that relationship seems a bit strained. Russia, while an ally, isn't especially close to Kim or Korea.

Recently, Vladimir Putin said the Kim is bluffing. They have no nukes. He claims that Kim is just putting on a show like he's done in the past, except that he has overreached this time. I think that if we strike first, China will come to Kim's aid. Russia may if it looks like Kim's government is about to fall. If Kim acts first, China will do what it did in 1954. They will intervene if US or its allies get too close to its border (During the Korean War, China repeatedly warned the US led coalition to stay well south of its border with North Korea. When the US failed to do so, China responded aggressively and overran all US and allied positions before withdrawing). Finally, there's one other factor that needs to be mentioned.

North Korea, along with China and Russia have military and economic packages with Pakistan and Iran. Pakistan is supposed to be an ally, don't forget that they protected Ben Laden and his cadre of leaders. The fact that we caught Pakistan in a case of betrayal and lies, they don't exactly like us much. In addition, Pakistan's military and to an extent, its government, are increasingly coming under the influence of strict Islamists. The situation with Iran really doesn't need any explanation. I think they would use the occasion to order its two proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, to attack Israel. How much support they get will depend heavily on whether Kim or Trump blinks first. I guess it comes down to who feels lucky.


Guam: America's military base in the western Pacific



North Korea threatens strike on Guam



Trump's Threat to North Korea Was Improvised

Bureau 121: The Sony Hack Fallout

This really wasn't the article I was planning on writing. Actually, I thinking about a summary of the year's major events---more than ample material there! As some of you may know, I'm a big movie buff, especially when it comes to Mel Brooks or those great movies from the 30's and 40's. In fact, Americans in general love their movies. We've had a love affair with Hollywood since the days of Mary Pickford, Lillian Gish, and Tom Mix, which brings me to the subject of this article. Last year, in 2013, some 1.34 billion movie tickets were sold, generating just under $11 billion dollars in revenue.

Movies have always allowed us the opportunity for escape. It magically allows us enter another time and place; to voyeuristically participate in the lives of characters we long to be or of those we love to hate. Movies have helped us transport ourselves from the everyday drudgery of our ordinary lives into a realms of enchantment, if only for a few hours. Movies have also brought us together, be it a couple on their first date or a nation during a time of war, a national tragedy or economic depression. A key part of this, perhaps an essential part, has been the leeway we've given moviemakers to tell their stories. It is imperative that the actors, as well as the writers and directors be allowed to explore their creativity; to push the boundaries as far they can go.

Naturally, they sometimes go too far; beyond the bounds of good taste or credibility. But we've never tried to restrict their creative licenses. Sure, we've censored them. We've rated them. We've edited them, We've toned them down, but all for content based on the audiences or perceived morals of the time but rarely have we prohibited them solely because of the subject matter (though some were not made due to the political or alleged political leanings of a writer, director, or producer during the mid 1950's during the "Red Scare"). I would say that's because we place such a high value on our freedom of speech as guaranteed by our Founding Fathers, but that would only be half true since the same sense of artistic freedom of expression can be found in Europe and in most other countries throughout the world; perhaps even to a far greater extent than our own, though they too have faced their own censorship due to political or religious intolerance.

But, now we have a new wrinkle we must consider. In today's interconnected world, amid all the tension, are there some topics that are simply out of bounds? We all remember what happened when author Salman Rushie wrote his 1988 book "The Satanic Verses", which enflamed some in the Moslem community and resulted in a price being placed on his head. Or when a few newspapers published cartoons which some Moslems felt were insulting to their Prophet Mohammed, resulting again in threats of violence against the various cartoonists as well as any newspaper which dared to run these allegedly "anti-Mohammed" cartoons (yet cartoons, TV shows, movies insulting Israel, Jews, America, or even Hindus and Buddhist were deemed perfectly acceptable to the same Moslem community).

Recently, Sony Pictures Entertainment produced a movie---a supposed comedy---about a bumbling talk show host and his producer who are hired by the CIA to killed the leader of North Korea entitled "The Interview". I guess someone at Sony thought this would be a hoot. Apparently, North Korea wasn't amused. Using a covert military cyber-hacking unit called "Bureau 121", operating under the euphemistic name of "Guardians of Peace", launched a hack attack on Sony, first hacking the movie studio's emails and releasing some embarrassing emails written some of the studio's senior executives about a few popular actors, producers, directors, and others. The emails rattled some cages; doubtlessly upset a few very powerful people in Tinseltown. Aside from some red faces and several groveling apologies, no serious or lasting damage was done. However, that was just beginning. The Guardians of Peace demanded that "The Interview" not be released. Any theater that did so would apparently be targeted for some sort of attack. The warning extended to anyone living near the offending theater, so one would naturally assume a bomb of some sort was implied.

As a result, five of the major film distribution outlets and at least three theaters chains announced they would not show the movie, scheduled for release this Christmas. Sony followed by stating that the movie would be withdrawn and not shown in any format at any time. Game over. Sony took quite a financial hit in the process. But the impact is really more than just about money. For the first time a foreign government has, through a military operation, attacked a US corporation; in this case to prevent release of a movie which its find objectionable. Now, I'm no fan of big corporations in general, and I certainly would not go see this movie for several (and hopefully obvious) reasons. But should a foreign government have the ability to dictate the release of a film, or a song, or a book, outside of its own domestic market?

During WWII, there were numerous propaganda films produced worldwide, although the US produced the lion's share by far, followed by the British while 90% of the films produced by Nazi Germany for instance contained no political content. Russia produced a few while the Italians and Japanese produced little of any consequence. During the Vietnam War, Hollywood released several anti-war films (including several about the Korea War, and by extension, Vietnam) while only one movie presented the war in a positive light (John Wayne's "The Green Beret" which was a box office dud). Still, there was no attempt by any side to prevent to production, release, or distribution of a film such as threatening to blow up studios or theaters. China is believed to have a similar military cyber-hacking unit as well and is thought to have been responsible for several attacks on US government agencies as well as financial institutions, yet not a peep out of them about any anti-Communist Chinese movie ("The Manchurian Candidate" comes to mind), book, or script.

I do have to sympathize with the North Koreans though on one point. This movie, even though it's billed as comedy (questionably given the previews I've seen), was about the assassination of their current head of state, their "Beloved Leader" Kim Jong-un. I wonder how Americans would feel about a North Korean or Chinese movie or book portraying the assassination of the President (ok, feel free to substitute Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton for Obama to put it in the proper context)? How would the Russians feel about a movie, even a knee slapping comedy, about bumping off Vladimir Putin? Somehow, I don't they'd care too much for it. See my point?

The question remains, as much as we in the US and in the West value our freedom of expression; as much artistic license as we believe we should allow, is there now a line that shouldn't be crossed given the connectedness of the world today? Where once a country could have poked fun at a culture, or a race, or even a religion, now to find that same content dangerously unacceptable? We have become far more sensitive for instance in how we portray Native Americans. Should this be extended to other nations and cultures as well? If so, shouldn't that be reciprocated? No more anti-Israel or anti-Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist movies by the Islamic countries for instance? No more negative portrayals of Hispanics, blacks, Asians or whites? No more Irish or German or French or Italian jokes or caricatures? How would this be enforced? Would it include songs? What about books or standup comedy routines? What about previously issued material? We can certainly buy most of the Nazi propaganda films, such as "Jud Suss" or "The Eternal Jew "online.

Or alternatively, was this attack by the North Koreans simply a new weapon in their arsenal? They have made it abundantly clear they would attack us, South Korea, the Japanese, or anyone else they pleased anytime they wanted too with full impunity. Is pulling this movie merely giving in---surrendering---to their demands, and if so, what do we do the next time (and there will be a next time) they demand something else? Many in Moslem community have been offended---perhaps rightly so---by what some in West and in Asia have said, written or drawn, but have made it clear that they are well within their bounds to portray Jews, Hindus, Buddhist, Christians, or any non-Moslem as they please. Should we or Israel or India then follow North Korea's lead? That just doesn't seem quite equitable to me.

We also need to consider whether pulling this movie is a surrender our freedom, in this case our freedom of speech. If so, what's the difference between this and bowing to terrorism in any of its other forms? What freedom will they, or someone else like them, demand next? At what point does freedom of expression give way to respect and tolerance or face down threats to those same freedoms? It is a brave new world indeed, but are we brave enough?

Sony cancels December 25th premiere of 'The Interview' after terror threat



Sony email hack: what we learned about greed, racism and sexism



The Sony hack: how it happened, who is responsible and what we've learned