Syria

No Republican candidate for president understands there is no real solution to Syria and fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (IS). That’s because there is no unified view by all the nations of who supports or fights who. Here’s why in a nutshell.

The government of Iraq doesn’t care about Syria, only IS in Iraq. They don’t want the Kurds to fight IS but not be independent. They don’t want Turkey in Iraq but they have invited Iran into their country. They tolerate the US presence because we write big checks, but they won’t allow a greater US presence, especially ground forces. That’s in the agreement Presidents Bush and Obama signed.

Turkey supports the militias fighting the government of Syria but they’re fighting the Kurds in both Syria and Iraq. They also don’t want the Kurds to have independence. This is why they closed the border to Kurds but not IS or other militias.

Turkey allows our use of bases in Turkey because we write checks and will turn a blind eye to anything they do against the Kurds in Turkey, just not the Kurds in Iraq or Syria, and we won’t push them to close the border to IS or fight the IS in Syria. We’ll be quiet.

Russia supports the government of Syria, and are fighting the militias fighting against that government, not the IS. Russia won’t care about the IS until the IS begins attacking the Russians or Syria forces.

Iran supports both the government and miltary of Iraq and the government of Syria along with Hezbollah in Lebonan who are fighting the militias fighting the government of Syria.

Saudi Arabi, Diubai, Qatar, UAE, etal, supports the militias fighting the government of Syria and they tolerate the IS because they don’t want the IS conducting attacks against them or in their country.

The NATO countries supports the US attacking the IS but they’re not suporting the militias fighting the government of Syria nor the government of Iraq unless the government there requests the help, which they haven’t.

Sounds confusing, it is due one factor. It’s about the politics of Islam, Sunni and Shite. This is why the US policy supporting the Kurds, the militias fighting the government of Syria, and the government of Iraq is politically and diplomatically problematic. 

And it’s why no Republican candidate has offered a good answer about Syria and Iraq. They wouldn’t do anything more than President Obama is doing without creating new, and worse, problems in Syria and with the government of Iraq.

This is why President Obama isn’t doing more, because that would entail more problems and create new problems militarily, politically or diplomatically. It’s also why Congress won’t debate, let alone pass, a AUMF for fighting the IS.

It’s why it’s good campaign and political debate. Just talk and no action. That’s what politicans like to do, talk a lot, but the President have to decide and act

2016 campaign

I'll make my bad 2016 presidential campaign predictions. First, the obvious, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate for president, but I think Martin O'Malley will the be vice president. Despite both from eastern states, Mr. O'Malley has the experience, intelligence and poise to similar to, but with a different personality, Vice President Joe Biden.

For the Republicans, the convention with be a fight between Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Jeb Bush will have some pull but republicans are tired of the Bush family in politics. For vice president, don't be surprised who gets the node, but it depends on who wins between the two senators. That said, I would expect either to pick a woman, such as Carly Fiorina.

Really, she's out of the race for president but offers better chances for the republicans than Sarah Palin did, although not much considered her resume is much better and her views are way to the right for many moderates. I can't think of other republican women, but I'm sure names will appear.

Well, just a thought and we have the year to find out, but then I'm only the occasional watcher of election news.

Scrutiny

Dr. Ben Carson, the current candidate in the republican primary (no elections yet) according to the polls, and he is complaining - I'd say whining but all candidates whine about the media - about the media fact-checking his life story which he has written about in several books.

Well, Dr. Carson, there are good reasons your whining is misplaced, and is just what it is, whining.

First, you're the front runner and that attracts more attention and scrutiny from the media. That's a given in political campaigns.

Second, you have made character and your life story the reason you should be elected president, less the issues which you say very little, but yourself as shown by your life.

And that's where things are going wrong for you because you have not just exaggerated your life but you in fact lied about the events, if not actually made up some events. That's worth verifying your facts and asking you about them when they aren't true.

Third, you have made faith and prayer issues in your campaign, and if anything faith teaches someone is honesty and humility, and you, when the truth is told, are not an example of either. You lied in your books and you lie on the campaign, and now you're whining gettting caught.

You have said it's time for the media to move on about your life, all the while you continue to promote yourself and your life story on the campaign. You can't have it both ways, you can't use your life and they forbid others questioning your telling of your life.

What we are seeing is that your life story isn't what you have written, but your exaggeration or maybe even your imagination of it. Granted you're an exemplary individual without the fabrication, but that only shows you envision yourself more than the reality of your accomplishments.

And for all that, the media is correct in examining your life and reporting the truth behind what you say, especially if the truth proves you exaggerated if not imagined parts of and events in it. You can't hide from it, and blaming the media doesn't show character but cowardice about facing the facts.

And for that you deserve all the scrutiny the media does about you.

Orthorexia

Reading the Sunday newspapers - reading three Sunday newspapers is my Sunday morning ritual - I read an article about orthorexia, and how it's now a medical condition, supported by some psychiartrists and psychologists, but not in the DSM IV, yet anyway.

It's defined as the "unhealthy obsession with avoiding what the person perceives as unhealthy foods and focusing on only eating healthy foods." And there are antedotal stories from people who like the term to define themselves.

Well, to me it's a crock. Yeah, simply put, it's just people deciding they want only healthy foods, and while I might see for some it becomes an obsession, it doesn't merit a mental (medical) condition necessitating therapy to change.

I say this because I have a overly sensitive digestive system from decades of taking antibiotics, mostly universal ones like amoxicillin, for a lifelong medical condition (Rheumatic Fever as a child). That has destroyed any reasonable sense of balance with the bacteria in my digestive system.

This has resulted in most foods becoming the enemy of my body, as well as my system sensitive to digestive disorders, one which I'm living with now (unknown bacteria overgrowth or imbalance). And so under guidence from gastroenterologists 4 years ago I reduced my diet to foods which work with my disgestive system.

This required reducing foods to a minimum and then adding, and sometimes subtracting, foods from what I call food experiments, meals where I fix something to test one food. This resulted in eliminating 95+% of available foods, spices, meals, etc.

This means I can write the foods I can eat on a Postit Note and still have room for doodles. And so I have to pay attention to the ingredients in all processed and prepared foods, whether in grocery stores or restaurants. So it's not an obsession, but living with reality.

And while some might call my food habits orthorexia, it's what keeps me healthy as best I can, and if that means spending a lot of time selecting and watching what I eat, then so be it, but it's not a mental or medical condition, it's my life.

BLM

I thought Black Lives Matter (BLM) promised to disrupt Republican candidate speeches. So why do they still keep disruptiing Democratic candidates' speeches when they've made their point with those candidates and the public?

So why aren't they doing what they promised? Where are the news stories of them disrupting Republican candidates' speeches? Where? Or does BLM not think we're not watching and waiting for them to do what they promised?

The Democrats already have heard the message and know the stories, so BLM is preaching to the choir. It's time BLM did what they promised, or else they're showing they're not up to challenging the Republicans and the republican voters about the importance of black lives.

So, how about it BLM?