By
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
I voted for Obama last November because he was the better of the two candidates: he understands multiculturalism; he can visualize problems and figure out alternative solutions to them; he understands that no government can obscure reality forever; he understands that our power stands for good and not for evil; he believes (I guess) as I do that God is a God of good and evil is His enemy; he understands that the weak needs the strong to defend him and preserve his rights; the respect of others is not a gift for good behavior, it must be part of our nature, and part of our values. We respect both and talk to both: those who like us and those who do not like us but earnest about peaceful exchanges.
He went to Cairo, Egypt, and talked to the Arabs and Muslims; he went to Ankara and Istambole, Turkey, before that, and talked about the same things. He talked in Europe too, and mobilized the World to work (as I see it) for peace and love among nations. He talked about democracy and freedom, and he talked about the sacrifices that need to be made to achive these and all value related goals. I have enjoyed reading his words, and rejoiced the poetry in them.
Speeches are nice and necessary, but actions ring louder: I want to see Israel stop desecrating the Palestinian land and the holy Christian and Muslim religious sites. I want to see them stop planting concrete while building settlements that transformed Israelis into militant settlers. I want to see Israel be realistic and start to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians the withdrawal and the security concerns of both peoples, not the security which Israel claims, and not the security which is an excuse for continued occupation, continued building settlements, and continued land grapping: The security that is achieved by peace treaties that are guaranteed by the United Nations and the big guns of the East and West. I want Israel to repatriate the Palestinians who had been scared out of their homes and lands.
Our previous policies have succeeded in dividing the Iraqis into religious sects and political factions. I want our government to disengage with Iraq and give the Iraqis the chance to reunite, like us in the United States, to protect their territories and their people. I want us to listen to the Iraqis and to be good friends to them. I want us help them heal the wounds and close the gushers that our previous polices had created that drained their blood.
Our policy in Afghanistan was wrong from the beginning. We completely ignored history. We also underestimated the difficulty of achieving the unrealistic goals. Our technology and our brave men and women in the armed forces did what they could do. But some of us wanted them to be supermen. They are human beings, and the technology they and others had created had its limits. Stop the operations of our troops inside Afghanistan, and demand from the government that we had created, to form a unity government that represents all the people. The government would be responsible for all activities on its soil. The government would prohibit the creation of militant groups to attack other people.
Our policy toward Pakistan destabilized an ally. The Pakistanis must be left alone to solve their own problems. They had delivered and they will deliver any person whom we think plotted or would plot military attacks against us. Do not ask the impossible from the people of Pakistan. Encourage them to unify and make peace with India. Encourage them to solve the poverty problems of their own people.
The recent history of Iran is vivid in the minds of the Iranians and their leaders. British petroleum companies discovered petroleum in Iran before its discovery in any of the neighboring Arab countries including Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In the early fifties of the last century the democratically elected government of Iran, lead by Prime Minister Musaddaq, nationalized the petroleum industry. The result of that action set the Western intelligence services to create street demonstrations and concocted schemes to disqualify the prime minister. The conspiracy succeeded. The prime minister was removed from office and the Shah was reinstalled as king. In 1979 when a real, albeit religious, revolution wanted to remove the same shah and establish democracy, the Western countries stood with the shah against the revolution.
Mistrust of the West is in the living memory of the Iranians. They see the West as deadset against their Islamic revolution. With this historic package in the background it will be extremely difficult for the Obama administration to make the Iranians trust him or trust any American or British government. The use of military force against Iran, as it has been promoted by local extremist groups and foreign governments will exacerbate the currently bad situation.
However, we can take the word of the Iranian government (we are strong to take that risk) that its nuclear power program is dedicated to peaceful applications only, such as generating electricity. Then we should work on the Israelis to dismantle their nuclear military program, because it would be the justification of the Iranian government to have a military program of its own, to balance the nuclear program of the Israelis. As Americans we must understand that as long as Israel is at war with the Palestinians and others, and as long as it has an active nuclear military program, some country sooner or later would take that as justification for developing its own military nuclear program.
I know that what I have suggested as desired actions are not easy to do. But I want us to declare in nice and committed words that we intend to do them, but in order to accomplish such feats we need to work through the labyrinth of politics. We are a democracy, we are the oldest working democracy in the world, imperfect as it is, it is a blessing which keeps reforming itself. In such democracy interest groups flourish. Some of them ignorantly or willingly seem to be working against our values, our global interests, and our leadership of the World.
Let us pray for the safety of our president, so that we may see how much of his enchanting words would deliver solid results.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
Gaza truce, death, destruction, then what?
By Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
On Saturday, December 27, 2008, Israel, outraged by the Palestinian rockets, and driven by electoral politics, took to the sky over the Gaza Strip and, in the manner of “shock and owe”, produced more dead, destruction, pain, bitterness, hate, and terror. The majority of the1.5 million Gazans were terrorized.
Also outraged by the Israeli air to ground smart missiles and artillery targeting schools filled with pupils and civilians seeking shelter, mosques filled with civilians seeking God’s protection, houses occupied by civilians.
Yielding to international pressure, and internal political environment, Israel accepted a truce on Saturday, January 19, 2009, and withdrew its troops and military equipment from the Gaza Strip. The Gaza government accept one week truce to give Israel time to withdraw and end the blockade.
Then what? A truce is a pause between wars, or an opening for conflict resolution, and peace. The GG and Israel had a six months truce that started in June 2008. The Palestinian GG had been able to reduce the number of rockets that were fired from GS to southern Israel from hundreds in May and June, 2008 to less than 20 during the subsequent four months—some of the Palestinian resistance groups refused the truce. The GG did manage to control most of them.
During the same truce, the Israelis stopped all major bombardments in GS, but they did not lift the land, see and air blockade of GS, and it did not stop the killing of prominent Palestinians civilians, including academicians. The blockade has crippled the G economy, and prevented any development of GS. It also suffocated and starved the people. Smuggling was the only means that kept them alive. The smuggling business flourished.
The killing and the destruction will not end the suffering of neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis. On the contrary, the dead left behind people who grief for the loss, and that grief will not go away.
Many Israelis and many Palestinians believe in the two-state solution as an end to the cycle of violence. But to achieve this end the commitment of the United States to it is essential. No other country can do it. Israel awes its strength to the generosity of citizens of the USA. Palestinians trust the US because they believe that, if committed, it can deliver. The Jimmy Carter, former president of the US, model is instructive. He was able to conclude peace agreement in 1979 between Begin, the hawkish prime minister of Israel, and Sadat, the dovish president of Egypt.
Can George Mitchell bring peace between the Syrians, the Lebanese, and the Palestinians on one side and Israel on the other side? Speaking in the name of president Obama, who charged him with the mission, he can do it. But the intervention of the President is crucial. I believe president Obama will do that, and he would be effective. However, the role of Obama would be most forceful during his second term as president. He would have had learned from Jimmy Carter who lost the election for a second term, mostly because of his dedication to the cause of peace in the Middle East and his involvement in the process of creating it.
Similar process could achieve peace between Israel on one side, and Syria and Lebanon on the other side.
But when it comes to Palestine, the story is different. Israelis believe that they can with their local superpower status grab the land of the unarmed Palestinians. At the same time, there are Palestinians who believe that they can establish a democratic state between the river (Jordan) and the sea, thus erasing the dream and the reality of more than sixty years, of Jews to live in their own State in Palestine.
Mr. Mitchell here is the first step you should try:
Peace without disavowing the dream of a larger Israel is not possible, and without accepting Israel as an independent Jewish state is not acceptable.
George Mitchell has these two desired goals to make them unwanted. They are impediment to peace. A document should be prepared which includes these two negative principles and all the positive principles and signed between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the president of the United States, and the other members of the quartet. The contents of this document should be publically announced.
the second step: You do not make peace with those whom you like, it is in the package. You make peace with those whom you do not like.
A warning: the easiest way to fail, Mr. mitchell, is to exclude major players in the politics in the area! Include Lekud and Hamas, but do not include the Neo Cons! these do not want peace, they want dominance.
On Saturday, December 27, 2008, Israel, outraged by the Palestinian rockets, and driven by electoral politics, took to the sky over the Gaza Strip and, in the manner of “shock and owe”, produced more dead, destruction, pain, bitterness, hate, and terror. The majority of the1.5 million Gazans were terrorized.
Also outraged by the Israeli air to ground smart missiles and artillery targeting schools filled with pupils and civilians seeking shelter, mosques filled with civilians seeking God’s protection, houses occupied by civilians.
Yielding to international pressure, and internal political environment, Israel accepted a truce on Saturday, January 19, 2009, and withdrew its troops and military equipment from the Gaza Strip. The Gaza government accept one week truce to give Israel time to withdraw and end the blockade.
Then what? A truce is a pause between wars, or an opening for conflict resolution, and peace. The GG and Israel had a six months truce that started in June 2008. The Palestinian GG had been able to reduce the number of rockets that were fired from GS to southern Israel from hundreds in May and June, 2008 to less than 20 during the subsequent four months—some of the Palestinian resistance groups refused the truce. The GG did manage to control most of them.
During the same truce, the Israelis stopped all major bombardments in GS, but they did not lift the land, see and air blockade of GS, and it did not stop the killing of prominent Palestinians civilians, including academicians. The blockade has crippled the G economy, and prevented any development of GS. It also suffocated and starved the people. Smuggling was the only means that kept them alive. The smuggling business flourished.
The killing and the destruction will not end the suffering of neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis. On the contrary, the dead left behind people who grief for the loss, and that grief will not go away.
Many Israelis and many Palestinians believe in the two-state solution as an end to the cycle of violence. But to achieve this end the commitment of the United States to it is essential. No other country can do it. Israel awes its strength to the generosity of citizens of the USA. Palestinians trust the US because they believe that, if committed, it can deliver. The Jimmy Carter, former president of the US, model is instructive. He was able to conclude peace agreement in 1979 between Begin, the hawkish prime minister of Israel, and Sadat, the dovish president of Egypt.
Can George Mitchell bring peace between the Syrians, the Lebanese, and the Palestinians on one side and Israel on the other side? Speaking in the name of president Obama, who charged him with the mission, he can do it. But the intervention of the President is crucial. I believe president Obama will do that, and he would be effective. However, the role of Obama would be most forceful during his second term as president. He would have had learned from Jimmy Carter who lost the election for a second term, mostly because of his dedication to the cause of peace in the Middle East and his involvement in the process of creating it.
Similar process could achieve peace between Israel on one side, and Syria and Lebanon on the other side.
But when it comes to Palestine, the story is different. Israelis believe that they can with their local superpower status grab the land of the unarmed Palestinians. At the same time, there are Palestinians who believe that they can establish a democratic state between the river (Jordan) and the sea, thus erasing the dream and the reality of more than sixty years, of Jews to live in their own State in Palestine.
Mr. Mitchell here is the first step you should try:
Peace without disavowing the dream of a larger Israel is not possible, and without accepting Israel as an independent Jewish state is not acceptable.
George Mitchell has these two desired goals to make them unwanted. They are impediment to peace. A document should be prepared which includes these two negative principles and all the positive principles and signed between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the president of the United States, and the other members of the quartet. The contents of this document should be publically announced.
the second step: You do not make peace with those whom you like, it is in the package. You make peace with those whom you do not like.
A warning: the easiest way to fail, Mr. mitchell, is to exclude major players in the politics in the area! Include Lekud and Hamas, but do not include the Neo Cons! these do not want peace, they want dominance.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
No! The conflict between the Arabs and the Jews does not go back centuries
(Also published in the Delaware County Daily Times, Thursday, January 15, 2009, p17)
By Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
Misguided or misinformed, journalists, TV news reporters and anchors, politicians, and innocent lay people, to dismiss the current egregious assault on Gaza as something not to be worried about, have been saying,that the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis “goes back centuries.” It does not. In fact, the Arabs and the Muslims, and the Jews had been the best of citizens of the Arab and the Muslim worlds, including the centuries they had lived together in peace and prosperity in Spain, where they had also suffered together the pains of the Inquisition.
Here, from memory, are some major chronological events and pointers to support the premise of this article:
• Both the Jews and the Arabs are the children of Abraham and they both belong to the same ethnic tribes, the Semites.
• When the Jews fled Egypt with Moses they invaded Palestine and established short lived kingdoms in the conquered land.
• When the Persians expanded their empire to the Mediterranean Sea, they dispersed the Jews away from Palestine. Some of them fled south into the Arabian Peninsula.
• As the Persian Empire weakened, some Jews returned to Palestine and lived in rebuilt and short lived kingdoms.
• During the first century A.D., the Romans dispersed the Jews from Palestine after they had conquered the land east of the Mediterranean Sea. These Jews have become the ancestors of the current European Jews, Arab Jews, Persian Jews, Indian Jews, and other Jews.
• At about seven hundred years after the birth of Jesus, Prophet Muhammad was called upon to carry the message of Islam from God to the world.
• Christian Arabs, Jewish Arabs, and pagan Arabs lived together in Yathrib (the current Saudi Arabian city: Medina). The three communities welcomed Prophet Muhammad when he and his followers fled their home town: Mecca, because his tribe and other Arab tribes refused to accept Islam and vowed to kill the Prophet and his followers. The pagans have converted to Islam, and most of the Christians and the Jews kept their religions; they have become the People of the Book.
• The Prophet of Islam wanted to establish alliances with the two communities to fend against the pagans of Mecca who might invade Medina, but the Jews wanted an exclusive pact with the Prophet and he yielded. However, soon afterwards conspiracies against the young religion started to spawn. They were discovered and eliminated. But they continued. This led the Prophet to declare that there would be no place for the Jews and the Christians in the city. Some of the Arab Jews and the Arab Christians went to what is now known as Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq.
• Later when the Muslim Empire spread throughout the land, the Jews and the Christians went wherever their Muslim cousins and brothers went. They had become among the elite of the Muslim world. Many of them became leading artisans and intellectuals.
• In later centuries the Jews of Europe had become the objects of persecuted in their own countries. They had been despised and put to trial in Christian countries from Russia in the east to France and Spain in the west. They had also been despised in Christian America.
• There were highly publicized trials of Jews in Christian Russia and in Christian France in the nineteen century. That led to a conference of prominent Jewish leaders in Switzerland. The conclusion of the conference was the establishment of Zionism, a political movement, in 1898. The grand goal of the movement is the establishing of the Kingdom of Israel from Egypt to Iraq.
• That year, that conference, and that decision put the Arabs and the Zionists on a collision course that continues to produce violence in that area and in the world.
By Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
Misguided or misinformed, journalists, TV news reporters and anchors, politicians, and innocent lay people, to dismiss the current egregious assault on Gaza as something not to be worried about, have been saying,that the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis “goes back centuries.” It does not. In fact, the Arabs and the Muslims, and the Jews had been the best of citizens of the Arab and the Muslim worlds, including the centuries they had lived together in peace and prosperity in Spain, where they had also suffered together the pains of the Inquisition.
Here, from memory, are some major chronological events and pointers to support the premise of this article:
• Both the Jews and the Arabs are the children of Abraham and they both belong to the same ethnic tribes, the Semites.
• When the Jews fled Egypt with Moses they invaded Palestine and established short lived kingdoms in the conquered land.
• When the Persians expanded their empire to the Mediterranean Sea, they dispersed the Jews away from Palestine. Some of them fled south into the Arabian Peninsula.
• As the Persian Empire weakened, some Jews returned to Palestine and lived in rebuilt and short lived kingdoms.
• During the first century A.D., the Romans dispersed the Jews from Palestine after they had conquered the land east of the Mediterranean Sea. These Jews have become the ancestors of the current European Jews, Arab Jews, Persian Jews, Indian Jews, and other Jews.
• At about seven hundred years after the birth of Jesus, Prophet Muhammad was called upon to carry the message of Islam from God to the world.
• Christian Arabs, Jewish Arabs, and pagan Arabs lived together in Yathrib (the current Saudi Arabian city: Medina). The three communities welcomed Prophet Muhammad when he and his followers fled their home town: Mecca, because his tribe and other Arab tribes refused to accept Islam and vowed to kill the Prophet and his followers. The pagans have converted to Islam, and most of the Christians and the Jews kept their religions; they have become the People of the Book.
• The Prophet of Islam wanted to establish alliances with the two communities to fend against the pagans of Mecca who might invade Medina, but the Jews wanted an exclusive pact with the Prophet and he yielded. However, soon afterwards conspiracies against the young religion started to spawn. They were discovered and eliminated. But they continued. This led the Prophet to declare that there would be no place for the Jews and the Christians in the city. Some of the Arab Jews and the Arab Christians went to what is now known as Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq.
• Later when the Muslim Empire spread throughout the land, the Jews and the Christians went wherever their Muslim cousins and brothers went. They had become among the elite of the Muslim world. Many of them became leading artisans and intellectuals.
• In later centuries the Jews of Europe had become the objects of persecuted in their own countries. They had been despised and put to trial in Christian countries from Russia in the east to France and Spain in the west. They had also been despised in Christian America.
• There were highly publicized trials of Jews in Christian Russia and in Christian France in the nineteen century. That led to a conference of prominent Jewish leaders in Switzerland. The conclusion of the conference was the establishment of Zionism, a political movement, in 1898. The grand goal of the movement is the establishing of the Kingdom of Israel from Egypt to Iraq.
• That year, that conference, and that decision put the Arabs and the Zionists on a collision course that continues to produce violence in that area and in the world.
Another Gaza Massacre as of Saturday, January 3, 2009 – Equivalent Statistics
Since Saturday 27 December 2008, the Israeli piloted F-16s has dropped hundreds of tons of explosives on Gaza, killing hundreds of men, women, and children without discrimination. The number killed is about 500--about 125 of them were civilians. The total killing is equivalent to 100,000 US citizens, and the civilians killed are equivalent to 25,000 US citizens. The 2000 Palestinians killed by the Israeli war machine is equivalent of about quarter million Americans.
Do you see the travesty, are you outraged? Cry out loud, assert your humanity, stand by the weak and feed the hungry. Cry loud enough,to let the President hear you.
Do you see the travesty, are you outraged? Cry out loud, assert your humanity, stand by the weak and feed the hungry. Cry loud enough,to let the President hear you.
The Suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza
The late Edward Said was a prominent Arab American. He was for decades a distinguished professor at Columbia University, New York. For a while he intellectually participated in framing the plight of the Palestinians. He was born in Palestine and spent most of his life in the USA. He recently died of cancer in New York City.
The suffering of the Palestinians and the current focus on slaughtering the Palestinians, destroying their homes, schools, mosques, in Gaza is not new. Edward Said wrote the following in August 2002, which I received via email from The Friends of Sabeel—North America. “Sabeel” is an Arabic word which means “The Way.” It is the voice of the Palestinian Christians. Sabeel has friends all over the world and they include Muslims and Jews.
"Every Palestinian has become a prisoner. Gaza is surrounded by an electrified fence on three sides: imprisoned like animals, Gazans are unable to move, unable to work, unable to sell their vegetables or fruit, unable to go to school. They are exposed from the air to
Israeli planes and helicopters and are gunned down like turkeys on the ground by tanks and machine guns. Impoverished and starved, Gaza is a human nightmare.
Hope has been eliminated from the Palestinian vocabulary so that only raw defiance remains.
Palestinians must die a slow death so that Israel can have its security, which is just around the corner but cannot be realized because of the special Israeli "insecurity." The whole world must sympathize, while the cries of Palestinian orphans, sick old women, bereaved communities, and tortured prisoners simply go unheard and unrecorded. Doubtless, we will be told, these horrors serve a larger purpose than mere sadistic cruelty. After all, "the two sides" are engaged in a "cycle of violence" that has to be stopped, sometime, somewhere. Once in a while we ought to pause and declare indignantly that there is only one side with an army and a country: the other is a stateless dispossessed population of people without rights or any present way of securing them. The language of suffering and concrete daily life has been either hijacked or so perverted as, in my opinion, to be useless except as pure fiction deployed as a screen for the purpose of more killing and painstaking torture - slowly, fastidiously, inexorably.
That is the truth of what Palestinians suffer."
Edward Said
August, 2002
The suffering of the Palestinians and the current focus on slaughtering the Palestinians, destroying their homes, schools, mosques, in Gaza is not new. Edward Said wrote the following in August 2002, which I received via email from The Friends of Sabeel—North America. “Sabeel” is an Arabic word which means “The Way.” It is the voice of the Palestinian Christians. Sabeel has friends all over the world and they include Muslims and Jews.
"Every Palestinian has become a prisoner. Gaza is surrounded by an electrified fence on three sides: imprisoned like animals, Gazans are unable to move, unable to work, unable to sell their vegetables or fruit, unable to go to school. They are exposed from the air to
Israeli planes and helicopters and are gunned down like turkeys on the ground by tanks and machine guns. Impoverished and starved, Gaza is a human nightmare.
Hope has been eliminated from the Palestinian vocabulary so that only raw defiance remains.
Palestinians must die a slow death so that Israel can have its security, which is just around the corner but cannot be realized because of the special Israeli "insecurity." The whole world must sympathize, while the cries of Palestinian orphans, sick old women, bereaved communities, and tortured prisoners simply go unheard and unrecorded. Doubtless, we will be told, these horrors serve a larger purpose than mere sadistic cruelty. After all, "the two sides" are engaged in a "cycle of violence" that has to be stopped, sometime, somewhere. Once in a while we ought to pause and declare indignantly that there is only one side with an army and a country: the other is a stateless dispossessed population of people without rights or any present way of securing them. The language of suffering and concrete daily life has been either hijacked or so perverted as, in my opinion, to be useless except as pure fiction deployed as a screen for the purpose of more killing and painstaking torture - slowly, fastidiously, inexorably.
That is the truth of what Palestinians suffer."
Edward Said
August, 2002
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Obama isn’t perfect, but what’s the alternative?
(Published in Delaware County Daily Times, on Saturday, October 25, 2008)
By Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
Times Guest Columnist
What does U. S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., mean when he says “My country first?”
Is he sincere, does he really mean it? Let us see. If one puts his country first, he would listen to his country. How does one listen to a country? Who represents a country? The answer is as clear as a full moon on a pitch-dark sky: The people talk for their country.
So the question that begs a quick and clear answer is, does McCain listen to the people? Hardly. McCain listens mostly to himself and revels in admiring what he hears. He is desperate to win and he makes enemies of his opponents in the process.
The glaring example of him not listening to our country is the Iraqi war. He hasn’t listened to the people of America, and he hasn’t listened to the Iraqis, and he hasn’t listened to our friends and allies. The people want us to pull out our troops from Iraq and spare the lives of our brave men and women in uniform, and the civilian victims of the war, and spare billions of dollars that have been bled from our economy. So his claim that he puts his country first is bogus!
In his current campaign for the presidency of America, he had focused, almost exclusively, on his opponent’s lack of experience and trashed him frequently with the “Not ready to lead” epithet until he selected his own nominee for vice president—a person whose credentials on answering questions are lacking, and whose idea of debate is not to debate, but to blurb whatever she had crammed during the night before the debate.
At his age (72), he can easily pass on at anytime, yet the person whom he had chosen to succeed him lacks real experience in governing much more so than his opponent. What do we call that? How about hypocrisy? His inconsistency and stubbornness is amazing. It seems to me McCain thinks that whatever he does or says is the right thing to do and to say, logic and reasoning could take a hike.
His demeanor and rudeness amaze me. During the first presidential debate he accused his opponent of being naïve. He also slugged him with “he does not understand,” and its derivatives many times. A polished politician does not do that. Instead he would let the listeners come to the conclusion, by putting his experience to action.
Who of the two candidates is better qualified to know the difference between the words "tactic" and "strategy?”McCain thought of these words as military terms only. His opponent must not be allowed to use them. In fact, his opponent was right.
Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy without further endangering our troops. In McCain’s case we can say we developed a strategy to win the war at any cost, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy.
Here is one more note about the debate. McCain never looked at his opponent (he was perhaps afraid to get charmed) and he never looked at the audience. Instead he looked at the moderator as if he was seeking his approval and his encouragement. That was a poor debating tactic to support a strategy of winning the debate!
Since my high school study of the history of Western Europe and my college freshman study of Western Civilization, I have admired Winston Churchill as the leader who saved Western Europe from the ambitions and travails Germany. But reading “Churchill, Hitler, and 'The Unnecessary War,' "by Patrick J. Buchanan, I came out with a different picture about Churchill.
Churchill was a racist and a White Supremacist. He had been the cause of all evil that beset the World during more than five decades of the 20th century. I know McCain is not racist, but he admires Churchill, and I hope he would not emulate him if he will become our president. The United States can always defend itself; unlike Britain who needed our help for its survival during two world wars. Yet his cry, “Victory at all cost,” worries me because of the language McCain uses when he talks about the war on Iraq, and the wars which he might wage if he becomes our president.
His age is not a problem unless he makes it one. People of his age are usually wise and less vindictive, calculating and less impulsive, steady and less erratic than younger candidates. Nevertheless, McCain, based on my observations, and from reading his book “Worth the Fighting For,” is driven by only one force: a desire to achieve the next higher goal for his life.
I am worried about his way of making decisions. He acts on the bases of instincts and hunches--no further consultation and assessment. Scientists use instincts and hunches too, but they use them as a first step. They move on to prove or disprove their guesses.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is far from perfect, but he seems more capable than his opponent of looking to the future rather than the past.
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi, a retired professor of engineering, lives in Clifton Heights
By Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
Times Guest Columnist
What does U. S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., mean when he says “My country first?”
Is he sincere, does he really mean it? Let us see. If one puts his country first, he would listen to his country. How does one listen to a country? Who represents a country? The answer is as clear as a full moon on a pitch-dark sky: The people talk for their country.
So the question that begs a quick and clear answer is, does McCain listen to the people? Hardly. McCain listens mostly to himself and revels in admiring what he hears. He is desperate to win and he makes enemies of his opponents in the process.
The glaring example of him not listening to our country is the Iraqi war. He hasn’t listened to the people of America, and he hasn’t listened to the Iraqis, and he hasn’t listened to our friends and allies. The people want us to pull out our troops from Iraq and spare the lives of our brave men and women in uniform, and the civilian victims of the war, and spare billions of dollars that have been bled from our economy. So his claim that he puts his country first is bogus!
In his current campaign for the presidency of America, he had focused, almost exclusively, on his opponent’s lack of experience and trashed him frequently with the “Not ready to lead” epithet until he selected his own nominee for vice president—a person whose credentials on answering questions are lacking, and whose idea of debate is not to debate, but to blurb whatever she had crammed during the night before the debate.
At his age (72), he can easily pass on at anytime, yet the person whom he had chosen to succeed him lacks real experience in governing much more so than his opponent. What do we call that? How about hypocrisy? His inconsistency and stubbornness is amazing. It seems to me McCain thinks that whatever he does or says is the right thing to do and to say, logic and reasoning could take a hike.
His demeanor and rudeness amaze me. During the first presidential debate he accused his opponent of being naïve. He also slugged him with “he does not understand,” and its derivatives many times. A polished politician does not do that. Instead he would let the listeners come to the conclusion, by putting his experience to action.
Who of the two candidates is better qualified to know the difference between the words "tactic" and "strategy?”McCain thought of these words as military terms only. His opponent must not be allowed to use them. In fact, his opponent was right.
Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy without further endangering our troops. In McCain’s case we can say we developed a strategy to win the war at any cost, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy.
Here is one more note about the debate. McCain never looked at his opponent (he was perhaps afraid to get charmed) and he never looked at the audience. Instead he looked at the moderator as if he was seeking his approval and his encouragement. That was a poor debating tactic to support a strategy of winning the debate!
Since my high school study of the history of Western Europe and my college freshman study of Western Civilization, I have admired Winston Churchill as the leader who saved Western Europe from the ambitions and travails Germany. But reading “Churchill, Hitler, and 'The Unnecessary War,' "by Patrick J. Buchanan, I came out with a different picture about Churchill.
Churchill was a racist and a White Supremacist. He had been the cause of all evil that beset the World during more than five decades of the 20th century. I know McCain is not racist, but he admires Churchill, and I hope he would not emulate him if he will become our president. The United States can always defend itself; unlike Britain who needed our help for its survival during two world wars. Yet his cry, “Victory at all cost,” worries me because of the language McCain uses when he talks about the war on Iraq, and the wars which he might wage if he becomes our president.
His age is not a problem unless he makes it one. People of his age are usually wise and less vindictive, calculating and less impulsive, steady and less erratic than younger candidates. Nevertheless, McCain, based on my observations, and from reading his book “Worth the Fighting For,” is driven by only one force: a desire to achieve the next higher goal for his life.
I am worried about his way of making decisions. He acts on the bases of instincts and hunches--no further consultation and assessment. Scientists use instincts and hunches too, but they use them as a first step. They move on to prove or disprove their guesses.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is far from perfect, but he seems more capable than his opponent of looking to the future rather than the past.
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi, a retired professor of engineering, lives in Clifton Heights
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Bankers as Sophisticated Beggars
The Quotation:
“Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. were told [by the US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson] they would each get $25 billion; Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., $20 billion each (plus an additional $5 billion for their recent acquisitions); the Goldman Sacks Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, $10 billion each, with the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. and State Street Corp. each receiving $2 to $3. Wells Fargo will get $5 billion for its acquisition of Wachovia Corp., and Bank of America the same amount for its purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc..”
--- The Philadelphia Inquirer, Tuesday October 14, 2008
(Based on report in The New York Times)
The Comment:
Let us say that Corporations run the world, and banks run corporations. Wall Street is the playgrounds of the banks. Then, the small business owners and the middle class folks are objects that are screwed on the playgrounds.
Let them fall back to what they had been before the monetary inventions: Bankers. Let them fall back to banking and eliminate the gambling aspect of Wall Street: no financial derivatives, no financial instruments, no manipulating innocent people out of their pants, and no nonsense.
The bankers invented these so called instruments to facilitate sucking it to uninitiated ordinary people. Let them give back the millions they have had collected in salaries and bonuses. The banks that are mentioned in the above stated quote are internationals: they are connected by the rays of the sun as it moves around earth (scientifically speaking the earth moves around the sun) from the morning to the next morning, and on again.
Let banks do banking, and let banking be banking, and not horse race on horse race runs.
As a tax paying concerned citizen of this generous country, I want to know when will the bankers pay us back our money, and what is the interest we would be collecting.
Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
10-14-2008
“Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. were told [by the US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson] they would each get $25 billion; Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., $20 billion each (plus an additional $5 billion for their recent acquisitions); the Goldman Sacks Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, $10 billion each, with the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. and State Street Corp. each receiving $2 to $3. Wells Fargo will get $5 billion for its acquisition of Wachovia Corp., and Bank of America the same amount for its purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc..”
--- The Philadelphia Inquirer, Tuesday October 14, 2008
(Based on report in The New York Times)
The Comment:
Let us say that Corporations run the world, and banks run corporations. Wall Street is the playgrounds of the banks. Then, the small business owners and the middle class folks are objects that are screwed on the playgrounds.
Let them fall back to what they had been before the monetary inventions: Bankers. Let them fall back to banking and eliminate the gambling aspect of Wall Street: no financial derivatives, no financial instruments, no manipulating innocent people out of their pants, and no nonsense.
The bankers invented these so called instruments to facilitate sucking it to uninitiated ordinary people. Let them give back the millions they have had collected in salaries and bonuses. The banks that are mentioned in the above stated quote are internationals: they are connected by the rays of the sun as it moves around earth (scientifically speaking the earth moves around the sun) from the morning to the next morning, and on again.
Let banks do banking, and let banking be banking, and not horse race on horse race runs.
As a tax paying concerned citizen of this generous country, I want to know when will the bankers pay us back our money, and what is the interest we would be collecting.
Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
10-14-2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
