War! Good God Y’all, What is it Good for? Friend Only to the Undertaker… Dissecting the Ukrainian and the Palestinian Questions – By Wayne Johnson


Recently, the U.S. has been stirring up the pot, finger pointing at Russia over a crashed Malaysian flight, flight MH17. The first question I asked is what idiot would fly or authorize a civilian passenger airplane to fly over a war zone?

Who are we to meddle in the affairs of the so-called Russian separatists, and who are we to encourage Israel?   What is at stake? Who are the players?

I am not at all convinced that we are concerned with peace or happiness, so it must be the money.


The likelihood that a missile downed a Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 has raised questions over whether the plane should have been flying over war-torn eastern Ukraine.


Within hours of Thursday’s disaster, those who are now supposedly in charge of the country shut down all airspace around eastern Ukraine. Experts say that Malaysian Fight MH17 was flying at 33,000 feet when disaster struck – well above the trajectory of missiles commonly used by militias in ground conflict, and high enough that its routing was approved by the airline’s flight planners, air traffic controllers and ultimately the pilots.


The United States immediately began accusing Russia of instigating the hostilities that led to this tragedy. Prepackaged, stiffened, plastic surgery looking, Secretary of State John Kerry claims that he would like to see Ukraine be the bridge between Russia and the West. Russia does not want such a bridge so close to its borders. I suppose it would be like Russia claiming it wants to see east-west border at Mexico.

He is also an advocate of Israel’s right to occupy, massacre, and to defend itself.   You know you are wrong when you have to continually justify killing hundreds of children. Maybe the children deserved to die. Who knows? Obviously, there is no right under those circumstances.

On the Ukrainian issue, if the militia is backed by Russia, a so-called super power, why would we assume they did not have a sophisticated aircraft defense system that could reach as high as a military bomber or military transport plane?


But some airlines had already been avoiding the area amid concerns over the deteriorating security. The United States claims that earlier the same week “pro-separatist rebels” shot down two low-flying Ukrainian aircraft, one a fighter jet and the other a military transport plane. Who knows what a pro-separatist rebel is? It sounds like a notch away from a terrorist, whatever, that is.   I suppose a pro-separatist rebel is a member of a faction that is backed by a super-power.


According to Norman Shanks, professor of aviation security at Britain’s Coventry University. “They chose the most direct and economic flight route possible, which keeps their fuel costs down and is something we expect as customers. I apologize, but what customer would opt to fly over an area where he or she maybe killed to save a few bucks?


“This incident is unprecedented really,” Greg Waldron, Asia managing editor Flight Global told the BBC. “A lot of the weapons used by separatists and other guerrilla groups simply don’t have the range to get [to 33,000 feet], they don’t have the accuracy to hit something like an airliner.”


Meanwhile, back at the ranch on the Gaza strip, we are up to our old tactics of supporting Israel in massacring and annihilating Palestinians under its asserted right to defend itself. If two men with rocks approach me, upset with me because they feel I cheated at cards, and throw them at me, should I pick up an AK assault rifle, possibly an attack helicopter, and spray them, and everybody who lives in their neighborhood?

Just because we feel we can do something, whether it is using sound judgment or not, should we? Is it right to blow up a hospital and kill children because we believe some people who shot far inferior rockets at me are hiding in or near there? Where is common sense? Let’s face it, when was the last time the Palestinians delivered a major blow to Israel.   Even in this last campaign, isn’t it Israel 800 kills to Palestine’s, 30?

More recently, Israel has bombed places designated as safe havens by the United Nations, killing more women, children, and United Nations workers.  These people are ruthless and have no regard for any lives except their own.  Why do they assume their lives are more precious than the lives of anyone else?  We are all made of the same particles, and in the end we shall all perish to ashes and dust.

Isn’t it fair to assume that the more people you kill, and the more lopsided the victory, the more difficult it will be to have a meaningful cessation of hostilities?

There are some mixed blood Jews who are part Russian and part other European who run Israel; however, the ethnic Jews and the ethnic Palestinians are of the same blood lineage. Is there some way they can think of to share some of this land that does not involve haves and have-nots? Has too much blood been spilled so that it is impossible to reach a humanitarian agreement? If there is, it is time for the international community to divide the sides and place a well-armed truly international peace keeping force between them.


It would appear that after the shellacking Hitler delivered the German Jews that they would be more sympathetic to the Palestinians who are seriously out financed and out gunned. After all, didn’t the German Jews hunt down as many Nazis as they could after the war was over? One day, this Israeli – Palestinian War may end, and the Jews who are advocating this massacre under the claimed right to defend itself may be on the other end of the hunt.  Maybe it will be Palestine who will assert a right to defend itself.



Malcolm X Statue2

After his spiritual awakening, Malcolm X struggled to get the message of justice to descendants of slaves in the United States. The facts he laid out about their lives were clear and incontrovertible. Descendants of slaves have been treated unjustly by both federal and state institutions from the inception of the United States Government.

Institutionalized social injustice is easy to identify. It is usually articulated in written form. It is when the law intentionally legitimates the practice of economic or educational discrimination against a class of people based upon one or more identifying characteristics like race, religion, national origin, or gender.

The legal remedy for institutionalized social injustice is addressed through the judicial system which includes the national Congress. A court may have state or federal jurisdiction whereas Congress and the Supreme Court have both state and federal jurisdiction under the Constitution. However, if either one or both judicial systems are corrupt then government is urged by a democratic process of voting to change the law but if it does not heed that urge then that government is brought down by political revolution.

The goal of both the democratic process and political revolution is to repeal discriminatory laws. If government responds in favor of justice for all its citizens then discriminatory laws are repealed. Those laws are then replaced by laws which prohibit economic and educational discrimination on the bases of race, religion, national origin, or gender.

Malcolm X addressed another kind of justice, too. He addressed the issue of moral justice. The origin of moral justice may or may not overlap with institutional justice.

Moral justice may be related to institutionalized injustice but moral injustice may also exist when there are no institutional issues at all. Put another way, governmental laws may not discriminate against a class of people based on class, race, national origin, or gender. Nevertheless, one or more groups may find that they are consistently on the short end of the stick when it comes to the distribution of goods in society. Or an individual or group may be singled out for ridicule and physical mistreatment but not as a result of government action.

Again the judicial system may afford any person a legal procedure by means of which he or she can bring a claim against a person in a civil court for a tortuous act committed against him or her. The court then can apply the law in its effort to restore a person or group to a condition of wholeness. But what if a person or group commits a wrongful act against herself or itself? What kind of justice applies in that situation?

That question should lead us to wonder whether there is a broader form of justice at work than what we normally think of. We should wonder whether it is true in our personal lives that our every act and thought trigger effects which come back to us multiplied hundreds of times and which either benefit us or harm us materially, emotionally, and spiritually.  

Many kinds of social problems which are faced by descendants of slaves cannot be addressed by judicial institutions because they are problems which arise from individual and family sentiment. Sentiment in turn is the product of collective fears and attractions and so the choices made within families and the community by individuals is more or less a mirror image of collective sentiments.

What is good for us has value for us in the short and long run. It is what benefits both an individual and his or her family and community. The three dimensions of our lives make up our moral world, a world which is held together by collective sentiments.

What drives collective sentiment and thus individual choices within a family and/or community is fear or attraction. Fear or attraction in relation to others around us and the conscientious application of the cost/benefit ratio in all decision making opportunities we are presented with.

Making choices is an opportunity for each of us to grow because choices present us with a challenge. We either lash out irrationally and retard our growth or are attracted to others and make stronger ties with those in social relation to us.

We make choices understanding that each choice causes some beneficial and some harmful side effects. There is no perfect decision. But there are good ones which add value to our lives.  In the short and/or long run we individually and collectively benefit more than we are harmed.   

In our personal lives, much of what we suffer is the effect of poor decision making within the context of our individual, family, and community relations. That kind of self inflicted harm cannot be remedied in any court of law because the judicial system has a limit to its reach. Beyond that limit it is superseded by a broader system of justice.

There is yet another scale of balance. It is set within each of us, our families, and in our communities. It is precise in its measurements of our actions and the benefit or harms which result from them.  It is indifferent to whether we benefit or are harmed. It is a measure of justice which seesaws up and down on the right pan in opposite relation to the up and down movement on the left pan. It is a scale which is tilted by our actions as well as by our inactions. Descendants of slaves should be very concerned about what harmful acts are being weighed against them today.

Intra-racial murder and disease are the leading causes of death among descendants of slaves in the United States, today. Those facts mean that our individual, family, and community sentiments and the actions which arise from them are more harmful than beneficial to us in the scale of justice. The growth or retardation challenge is tilted against growth and in favor of retardation for descendants of slave.  That is a social fact.

We are now faced with too many children of descendants of slaves who are generally untrained and increasingly irrational in their behavior. That is so because their sentiments have become hateful and their fears are directed toward one another. Yet those sentiments are shaped by the sentiments of the adults who raise them. Negative sentiments are like a contagious disease which is passed over from one generation to the next. Thus, over time we as a community describe in our moral motion a downward spiral with no end in sight.

Is this justice too impersonal, too indifferent to what we have suffered here in the United States that it would allow us to collapse? The answer is yes, it would because we are held solely responsible for our actions under its jurisdiction.  

Even though it seems unfair and cruel on the surface; we are therefore getting what we deserve. By the strict law of necessity, we are getting what we deserve even though many of our youth were in part made to be the monsters they have become not by choice but by conditioned reflex. Nevertheless, it is solely our actions which are counted in our scale of balance.


The wheels of justice turn mechanically throughout the entire universe. Unseen, like the inner gears of a clock, a scale of balance inheres in all things and tips the scales on both the left and the right sides. Thus justice is indifferent to whether or not we understood what we did at the time we committed an act or whether we meant to do a particular act. It simply measures the weight of every act both beneficial and harmful. Both intelligent and ignorant creatures and non-living things are held to the same standard of proportionate justice.

A seagull dives to catch a fish in a lake but it misjudges the depth of the lake. It breaks its neck and dies. Justice has exacted a cost proportionate to the misjudgment and circumstances of the seagull.

An exhausted mother falls asleep. She rolls over onto her newborn infant and smothers it to death. The mother’s intent is irrelevant. Justice will hear no plea for pity from her. No deal can be made with her that will circumvent the dispassionate movement of justice. Her baby is dead and will remain dead forever. Justice has exacted the proportionate costs for both the infant’s suffocation and the mother’s negligence under the circumstances.

One group does not hunt in season and that group starves to death while another group hunts in season and lives. Justice is indifferent to both the pleasurable and the painful consequences which one may gain or suffer. Justice has proportioned merit on the basis of their action and inaction.

One group learns the sentiments of fear, anger, jealousy, hate, and envy toward its family members and others in its community. They kill and steal from each other. That community dies even though they were forced to live impoverished lives in a ghetto because living in a ghetto does not make one act ghetto. Ghetto behavior is a mirror of one’s sentiments.

Another group learns sentiments of attraction and caring for one another and they survive and thrive even though they put the other group in the ghetto subjecting them to abject poverty. Committing wrong on an outside group does not make one act wrong to those in their own group. Their moral world may not collapse if it is held together by strong positive sentiment.

But justice is paradoxical in nature. The paradox is that while it is indifferent to all outcomes it simultaneously demands that you love one another to avoid harm. Love for self, family, and community therefore is the key to your individual, family, and community survival under the rule of proportionate justice.






Antagonists – Referees – Instigators – Arrogance = United States of America – By Wayne Johnson, Attorney, Political Economist

We have all been conditioned to believe in the United States of America’s ideas and notions of fair play, democracy, and justice. We have also been trained to believe in good guys and bad guys. News broadcasters, talk show hosts, and television, and radio personalities, inclusive, reinforce these notions.   These concepts are elusive, even here in the United States. Fair play, democracy, or justice for most people has never existed in this country, even for its citizens.  The truth is the concepts were never meant to apply to most people. The founders, who were educated landowners, intended that only the bourgeois or land baron class enjoy power.

Howard Moore, Jr. addresses some of these issues in his defender of civil rights acceptance speech. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmSo4xvK9qY

Corporations and corporate policies dictate this great democracy. Ironically, corporations have a hierarchical structure that dominates the political and the financial systems.   We praise corporations. We even allow them tax breaks, and we allow them to meddle into domestic and foreign matters. Below is a basic corporate structure:

The Basics Of Corporate Structure


There is a two-tier corporate hierarchy. On the first tier is the Board of Governors or Directors. The corporate shareholders elect the members of Board of Directors. On the second tier is the upper management. The board of directors hires upper management.
Board of Directors
The role of the board is to monitor a corporation’s managers, acting as an advocate for stockholders. In essence, the members of the board of directors try to make sure that shareholders’ interests are well served.

Board members can be divided into three categories:

  • Chairman
  • Inside Directors –
  • Outside Directors –


On the next level is the Management Team


Management Team


  • Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
  • Chief Operations Officer (COO)
  • Chief Financial Officer (CFO)


Under these are the Vice Presidents, and other managerial team members. The structure is not so different from a military organization, with the lower level Vice Presidents and lower level managerial employees subject to termination for any host of reasons.


When the United States invades a country it is not uncommon for major corporations like Chevron, Bechtel, or Halliburton to land contracts to extract the resources of the country without bidding on them and or to make decisions about rebuilding the infrastructure of the invaded country, as we saw in Iraq.


The Halliburton Company is an American multinational corporation, one of the world’s largest oil field services companies with operations in more than 80 countries.   The Bechtel Corporation is the largest construction and engineering company in the United States, ranking as the 4th-largest privately owned company in the United States.


Unfortunately, there are usually not any good guys on either side on of the international coin, and large multinational corporations usually have dealings with one another both before and after any military invasion or operation. Sometimes, this country installs the very so-called dictators it later plots to overthrow after the corrupt relationship has run its course.


However, we have been conditioned, or brain washed, if you will, into believing that everything this country does is fair and we are the good guys. We have been conditioned into believing that our national interests are the same as Chevron’s, Bechtel’s, and Halliburton’s.

I do not think Black people’s interests are the same as those of undocumented immigrants, gays, lesbians, transgenders, or bisexuals or any other group’s interests, for that matter.   I personally, do not think that any other groups are entitled to benefit from rights that Black people fought and died for since this country’s inception. I do think that they should be entitled to protection, just not under the civil rights’ act.  I do not think this country would tolerate undocumented immigrants if the wealthy could not use them to perform menial tasks for low wages.

I do realize that sometimes we have to form coalitions to get what we want; however, I am also mindful of what Elijah Muhammed taught Malcolm X about integrating the struggle.  If you have too many varied interests, no one will get any of the things they battle to obtain.  In the coffee versus cream analogy, when you integrate them the coffee that was once hot becomes cold.  It used to be dark, it becomes light.  It used be strong, it becomes weak.  It used to wake you up, now it will put you to sleep.

In this country, Jews faced miscegenation laws and land covenants that prohibited them from moving into certain neighborhoods.  Jews and darker Europeans like Sicilians could not cross certain racial lines.  Some joined with Blacks to knock down Jim Crow laws because it was in their interests to do so.  Once the racial barriers were breached, Jews and darker skinned Europeans could more fully integrate into the mainstream of this society.

Just like every person’s interests are not the same, every corporation’s interests are not the same, and our national interests seem to run parallel to those corporations who spend the most on lobbyists.  To the big dogs go the spoils.

If we examine World War II, we can see that the United States’ national interests were not the same as the Jews or the Europeans’ interests.  In fact, the United States did not enter the European stage until over 6 million Jews were purportedly massacred, most of Europe was in ruins, and Germany was on the verge of losing to Russia.  The United States saw entering the War at that late date as an opportunity to tip the balance of power in its favor.

The United States’ reasons for entering the Pacific stage were completely different.  It antagonized Japan into attacking its fleet by enforcing an embargo on Japan in the Pacific Ocean.

What if the people’s national interest run contrary to the corporate interests, whose interests do you think will prevail in Washington?  What is the old adage?  Politics make strange bed fellows.

We can see how the interests of the the so-called 99% was and continues to be a joke played upon the 99% by the so-called 1%. The 99% was and is so misguided and in such disarray that it could not even relay a clear message of what it actually wanted from the so-called 1%. In fairness, the groups were and are so varied that finding any common ground, even on real universal healthcare, would have been nearly impossible.  They could not even agree upon strategy, some wanting total peaceful protest, some active resistance, and some outright anarchy.  The groups found themselves turning on each other, and some even filming the anarchists for prosecution by the agents of the 1%.

Moreover, the police and military, who are by definition, part of the 99% will follow orders to crush any real movement of the so-called 99% should it become too unruly.  Do not be mistaken, the police and the military will kill on the orders of the 1%.

Moreover, the 99% did not shut down anything as those taking credit proclaimed. The Port was not shut down. Of course, some of the truckers refused to cross the protesters’ barricades. However, what the protesters failed to realize is there is more than one entrance into the Port and those were not disturbed.


Business was temporarily halted, and the 1% made up for the losses by the end of their fiscal year.  In fact, the next day it was business as usual and the 99% did not get anything but a feel good session. The cost of healthcare is still rising. Even under the Affordable Health Act, some providers are still refusing to accept the coverage. Homes are still foreclosed on to the extent the bank can make a profit. People are still underpaid. Even if the minimum wage rises for all, which it has not, if it is not tied to the cost of inflation, the rich will just raise prices and we will be back at square one the next day.  Unfortunately, the very poor will be worse off because they will not receive any raise at all.  They will be forced to pay the inflated prices without a raise.


Aside from the fact that even our President is not elected democratically, but instead through the Electoral College process, that most of us do not understand, it is not logical to expect to have a democracy when so many organizations with military chains of commands are so heavily involved in our democratic process.


It is not logical to expect to have a democracy when so many untruths are fostered. If we are asked to vote on an issue when we do not have all of the information at our disposal, we cannot make an intelligent or a true democratic decision. Implicit in democracy is the receiving of reliable information.


This is akin to your partner asking you if you want to be in a committed relationship, all the while misleading you as to his or her fidelity. If you believe that the person is being truthful you are more willing to enter into a committed relationship. If you know the person is a liar and a cheater you are less likely.


If you believe there are weapons of mass destruction or that your way of life is threatened you are more likely to vote to take military action.


Unfortunately, we have short memories. We forget the last lies we are told and when we are provided new lies we just go right along as though we have never been fed lies.  Only Jewish people are afforded the privilege of “[N]ever again!”  When Black people mention how bad they have had it on this soil, everyone complains that they should let the past go.

People tell me they do not like Saddam Hussein, or Muammar al-Gaddafi, or Kim Jong-un, Fidel Castro, or even Osama Bin Laden. I ask them how well do you know them. They tell me things like “come on. You know what those people do. You know how they treat women. You know they torture and kill their own people.”  I am not disputing this, it is just that the government feeds us so many untruths that I just do not know what to believe.  I ask from where do you get this information? They usually tell me something like… “[T]he media.”  From where does the media get its information?  Then they accuse me of being a conspiracist.   So I ask them when was the last time they crosschecked any of their sources. Unfortunately, they do not have adequate tools to crosscheck anything provided them by the media. They do not even know where to begin.

We are constantly being fed misinformation, and unfortunately, this sort of government because it is built upon such contradictory and hypocritical principles, it cannot exist without providing the public with anything less than misinformation.  How is it possible to have a democracy or enjoy freedom of speech and expression and simultaneously have secret police like Homeland Security and / or the FBI?  Even with the Freedom of Information Act, most of the information the government compiles is cloaked in secrecy.

How is it possible to not infringe on the right to bear arms and to have gun control at the same time?   Of course, a maniac, either a civilian on the streets, a person in the military, or on the police force should not be allowed to randomly shoot people.  However, generalized gun control on only and all civilians is not the appropriate response.  If that is the case, we should redraft the entire United States Constitution and our election process to bring it up to date with our supposed modern principles.


Some even become outwardly accusatory and suggest that one is not patriotic if one does not believe the lies placed forth by the media. I have even heard one person assert the phrase: “[L]ove it or leave it.” I have to remind them that we African Americans have a stake here unlike any other peoples.  Most of us have nowhere to return because this country’s slavers have erased most of our multicultural histories. I then remind them that this country is so great because it was built on the backs of slaves and we would not have the advantages and comforts if it did not have the wealth created by slavery.  Democracy exists in impoverished countries too; however, they still do not enjoy the fruits enjoyed here.  Moreover, where wealth exists in empires, such as Kuwait, the people enjoy more comforts of life than many of us in the United States.  When I am told to love it or leave it, I tell them that my ancestors paid for my seat with their blood sweat and tears.  I tell them they may have more success relocating back to their ancestral lands where they can trace their roots and may fit in a lot better.


I sometimes become outright indignant and demand that those whose families benefited from slavery and took advantage of us during Jim Crow to reimburse me for all the insults and the free land, labor, and capital, they stole from my ancestors, and to provide me with a down payment on the child support and inheritance the slave holders failed to pay for their illegitimate so-called half breed or mulatto children, and I will be glad to relocate and relocate to my own private island.


Of course, no one wants to talk about those injustices. They are more interested in capturing and housing so-called enemy combatants whom most likely have not committed any definable crime and for that reason the government refuses to try them in a true court of law. The worst crime of all is our refusal to release some of those jailed as enemy combatants fearing they may do us harm later because we mistreated them so badly.  They fear if we release them, they will most likely join some so-called terrorist organization even if they were not originally connected to one.


It is our arrogance that is most troublesome. We have the audacity to invade other countries under the pretext of introducing democratic principles and we install regimes, puppets, if you might, and claim to be doing good deeds.   Well, George W. Bush, put it best when he proclaimed, “mission accomplished” when he invaded Iraq. His mission was to secure the oil in Iraq for his own purposes. His mission was not to democratize or stabilize Iraq, as he misled us all to believe. He could have cared less about Iraq or the people. After all, we saw how he bombed the Hell out of the people.


We have the audacity to mention law and order, and bringing people to justice for crimes allegedly committed against United States citizens here and in foreign countries. What is justice? Who is in charge of justice? If you believe in God, then only God knows justice. If justice was the goal we should look internally first at our own misdeeds. We never ask our leaders why we are in certain countries, like Libya. We were not invited by any governing body or by a majority into Libya.   I even heard one United States commentator refer to the United States forces in Libya as “law enforcement.” If you are not lawfully in a country, how do you get to call yourself law enforcement?   We had no right to invade Libya for the crime of allegedly killing its own citizens. If that were the case, the United States should have been invaded during the 1900s every time the law misused its force against unarmed civil rights protesters.


We bombed the Hell out of the majority in Libya under the guise of preventing the assumed leader from bombing defenseless civilians. In reality, there were no defenseless citizens. Everybody in Libya possessed some sort of arms. They may have been ill equipped to deal with the more sophisticated weapons of the government, but they were armed. Moreover, once they had Muammar al-Gaddafi on the run, why did they continue to bomb him and aid in his death? What gives the United States the right to tip the balance? Obviously, the goal all along was to destabilize the country and give the military edge to a minority in another region of the country so we could manipulate the resources.


Libya’s leadership underestimated the United States. So did Saddam Hussein. So did the Taliban in Afghanistan.


We are still all to ready to blame everyone save our government for the events of September 11, 2001. All the government has to utter is 911 and we are become willing to surrender our Constitutional Rights or invade another country. Fear sells better than sex.


The first word in a democracy should be honesty for without honesty our entire relationship is built on lies. For example, if they lie to us and tell us that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and Congress votes to invade based upon that lie, then that is not a democratic decision. That is a decision based upon one party having superior knowledge and feeding it to us to get us to make a decision that favors the one with the superior knowledge.


We cannot buy, in a democracy, that the government has our best interests at heart. We cannot rely upon faith in a democracy. One can only rely upon faith in a religion or in an intimate relationship, and neither one of those operate on democratic principles. We cannot hold a fascist regime to the same standards as a so-called democracy for a true fascist regime is built upon a hierarchical leadership wherein the participants blindly follow orders or face consequences. Remember President Bush threatened Congress with the famous quote… “Either you are with me or against me?” Those are not the words uttered in a true democracy.


In a true democracy, there should be no consequences for exposing the truth or for challenging authority. Ironically, truth telling is one of the beautiful flaws of a real democracy.


We judge other people through our eyes and we assume that everyone has a similar barometer for morals. That is the farthest thing from the truth.  We are even hypocritical when it comes to our own so-called morals.   Because this country has the biggest stick and most sophisticated technology other people look to this country for guidance, no matter how twisted we may be. In Saudi Arabia they behead people for not following someone’s interpretation of the Quran. In this country, we execute people for not following someone’s interpretation of the Christian Bible. However, one is a supposed democracy while the other is an empire. I am sometimes confused as to which is which.


For example, we are involved in domestic matters of countries that are more than halfway around the globe.  The United States military, the Central Intelligence Agency, and Multinational corporations are involved in Iraq, Iran, Syria, The Ukraine, Egypt, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Libya, and a host of countries in South America. We decide what weapons other countries can buy or manufacture. We manufacture and sell military arms to other countries. We decide who can generate nuclear power, who can sell energy, and to whom. We decide who is a terrorist, and what actions are terrorist actions. We interpret the intentions of other countries, and decide whether they are peaceful or aggressive. We decide who can travel, and for what purpose.   We decide who is an enemy combatant. We even topple governments and set up puppet governments that we call democracies and we pretend the government is duly elected. Sometimes, we kill off the opposition so that the other side simply cannot win an election and our puppets can claim victory. We do these things in the name of our “so-called” national interests.

We instigate fights between foreign countries. We instigate domestic fights between factions inside other countries. We sometimes provide arms to all sides in a conflict.

Once the participants are at war, we sometimes pretend to act as the referee between the parties.  That way, they will never have a lasting peace.

Even in the conflict in what some call Israel, the United States supplies arms to Israel and makes certain that the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinians is never resolved.

The United States is antagonistic to peace on the globe and it has a financial interest in making sure many of these World conflicts continue. It can stop the Israeli – Palestinian conflict today. All it need do is map out the territories and stop sending arms to Israel or place a few battalions or legions between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The fighting would cease tomorrow.