Tag Archives: Osama bin Laden

HARRY AND MEGHAN DOWN UNDER

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA – OCTOBER 16: Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex meet a koala during a visit to Taronga Zoo on October 16, 2018 in Sydney, Australia. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are on their official 16-day Autumn tour visiting cities in Australia, Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand. (Photo by Pool/Samir Hussein/WireImage)

One of my earliest memories is of a trip with a friend and his father to the shore of the River Humber in England.   It was twilight and, along with thousands of other people, we tried to position ourselves comfortably on the rocks so that we could watch the famous yacht go by.

The yacht was the Royal Yacht Britannia.   On board were the Queen and Prince Philip who were returning from a royal tour.   Those tours were frequent back then – often to faraway places like Australia and New Zealand or one of the islands in the South Pacific.   I don’t remember where they were returning from on this evening, or why they were sailing up the River Humber.   I remember having a brief look through binoculars, but the yacht was just too far away.

There’s been hundreds of royal tours since then.   The latest in the news is actually the first tour of the new Duke and Duchess of Sussex, formerly known as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, before their marriage five months ago.   They are now on an 18-day tour of Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga, during which they have 76 engagements.

The tour comes at an interesting time.   In five months time, the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union.   Almost fifty years ago, the country turned its back on the Commonwealth of former British territories; now, it hopes to revive the commercial and other ties it once had with these nations.

At the same time as the British are focused on Brexit, Australians are preparing for a plebiscite on the future of the monarchy in their country.   With an election next year, the Labor (socialist) party is planning an immediate vote on whether to turn the country into a republic, not a republic American style but one where the titular head of state will no longer be a monarch who lives 10,000 miles away, but an Australian figurehead likely chosen by parliament.   The American model is not likely to be adopted as it’s too expensive and politicians don’t like it as it’s too weak.   One member of the Australian parliament warned against adopting the US system lest they, too, have a President Trump!

Even republicans admit the change will lead to some confusion and political instability as 63 laws have to be changed, if the people vote for a republic.   Any change will also be more expensive.

Immediately prior to the arrival of the prince and duchess, the new Australian prime minister, Liberal (in Australia, that’s conservative) Scott Morrison, declared he is a monarchist and had the monarch’s portrait returned to the PM’s official office.   His expressed view is that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”   Australia’s founders chose to remain loyal to the Crown after achieving independence at the turn of the twentieth century.

Australia’s constitutional monarchy and parliamentary system has been the envy of the world. It has attracted immigrants from all over the world, mostly, in recent decades, from failed states that happen to be republics; it’s likely that most of these immigrants, not knowing the past, will vote for a republic, setting Australia on the path to yet another dysfunctional state run by politicians for politicians.

Before casting their vote, they would do well to watch the Australian documentary, “When the Queen came to town,” a record of the monarch’s first royal tour of Australia in 1954, with many interviews of those who remember the tour, in which 75% of Australians saw the monarch at least once.   She was the first reigning monarch to set foot in the country.   It was a highly successful visit.

After the queen returned to England, Robert Menzies, Prime Minister of Australia, wrote an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, in which he wrote:

“It is a basic truth that for our Queen we have within us, sometimes unrealized until the moment of expression, the most profound and passionate feelings of loyalty and devotion.   It does not require much imagination to realize that when eight million people spontaneously pour out this feeling they are engaging in a great act of common allegiance and common joy which brings them closer together and is one of the most powerful elements converting them from a mass of individuals to a great cohesive nation.   In brief, the common devotion to the Throne is a part of the very cement of the whole social structure.”

WHAT DAMPENED THE ENTHUSIASM?

Britain’s entry into the EU, then the Common Market, on January 1st, 1973, contributed to the republican movement, as many Australians felt betrayed by the mother country, formerly their biggest trading partner.   In November of 1975, more people turned against the monarchy when the queen’s representative, the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, dismissed the socialist government of Gough Whitlam for financial improprieties.   As this dismissal was “in the name of the Queen,” it boosted republican feeling.

Australians gave the monarchy “the walkabout,” where members of the royal family walk amongst the people.  This was named after an aboriginal practice.   The term has caught on in the other constitutional monarchies, as well.    It’s a great way for the people to meet their sovereign and other members of her family; and for them to show that they care about local issues.   Politicians only show up at election time; Harry and Meghan are in Australia for the Invictus games and to promote growing concerns about mental health.

Wikipedia has this to say about the Games, which are now being held in Sydney:

“The Invictus Games is an international adaptive multi-sport event, created by Prince Harry, in which wounded, injured or sick war veterans take part in sports including wheelchair basketball, sitting volleyball, and indoor rowing.”

ROYAL MEMORIES

Even with binoculars, we didn’t get to see the Queen or Prince Philip sixty years ago, but I do remember the crowds and the excitement. One other memory from about the same time was of the Queen’s visit to my hometown of Grimsby, a town on the estuary of the Humber.   Again, crowds lined the street. I couldn’t see anything, but a man standing next to me offered to lift me up on his shoulders and my mother consented.   From that vantage point, I remember a couple of people across the road fainted and the Red Cross was called to revive them.   They were suffering from heat stroke (yes, even in England)!

I remember, too, that my father, a republican (not to be confused with Republicans in the US), complained that he could not drive his car through the center of town, where all the crowds were. Ironically, he got the best view of the monarch as she passed by.   It did not lead to his changing his mind on Britain’s constitutional arrangements.  Perhaps Prince Harry and Meghan’s visit will help change the minds of those Australians who are tempted to step into the unknown with a questionable and uncertain republic.

Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, together with a number of small islands in the Caribbean and South Pacific, share a cultural heritage.   A significant part of that heritage is the monarchy, which has provided each nation with a solid foundation and continuous, peaceful political and economic development.   A change in the political system will mean a diversion from that heritage.   First, abolish the monarchy, then change the flag, then something else until Australia becomes just another Asian republic – the kind of republic that new Australians have recently fled from!

Note the following from this week’s Spectator:

“Whether it was intended so or not, the decision by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to choose Australia as the place to announce that they are expecting their first child was a public relations triumph. For years the royal family was criticised for having a tin ear when it came to reading and dealing with the public, but no one could say this now.   The tone of the younger royals’ tour to the southern hemisphere has been one of approachability, without compromising the dignity of the positions which Harry and Meghan hold.

“Their visit also runs counter to the conventional wisdom of some republicans — in Britain as well as Australia — that support for the monarchy is dependent on personal affection for the Queen and that the institution will be doomed upon her death.   Now that Elizabeth II is, for reasons of age, no longer able to conduct long-haul tours, her grandchildren have achieved what her children never quite managed: to show that they have the ability to follow on and capture the support of the public where she leaves off.”  (The Spectator, 19th October).

As the prime minister recently said: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

—————————————————————–

DEATH OF JAMAL KHASHOGGI

The famous Washington Post columnist was brutally tortured and murdered in the Embassy of Saudi Arabia on October 2nd.   What happened to him was reprehensible.   It‘s not the first time that an Arab government has killed a critic.   At the same time, we should also remember that Mr. Khashoggi was no friend of the West.   His support of the Muslim Brotherhood and his close friendship with Osama bin Laden both illustrate this. 

Khashoggi was a political Islamist to the end.   He did not believe in secularism.   He wanted an alliance of Islamic democratic states. There’s nothing wrong with that, necessarily.   But it is relevant and worth saying, as it helps explain the dynamic by which he found himself on the wrong side of the Saudi regime.”   (Freddie Gray, The Spectator, 19th October)

————————————————————-

700, 000 PROTEST OVER BREXIT

A huge demonstration took place in London on Saturday, calling for a second referendum on Brexit.   They oppose the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, scheduled for March 29th, five months from now.

Referenda in the EU has often followed this path.   A vote is taken on an issue, and when the result is not to the liking of the EU, a second referendum will be called for.   Whereas the demand sounds reasonable, it could lead to further division in the United Kingdom, already seriously divided as it is.

Those who want to Remain in the EU have concerns about leaving the world’s biggest trading bloc.

—————————————————————-

WHAT MULTICULTURALISM HIDES

  • If we bring in highly qualified immigrants to our workforce, we would be taking away from poorer countries the best they have to offer, and the situation in those countries will further deteriorate.   The result will be an even greater flow of unskilled migrants escaping those countries.
  • The proponents of the new multiculturalism want to share their welfare states with masses of refugees who — through no fault of their own — will be unable to participate in financing themselves for a long time to come.

(Jan Keller, a Czech, writing for Gatestone Institute, 16th October)

———————————————————

RESPONSE ON MULTICULTURALISM

Following a comment to my last blog this morning, here is my response:

Multiculturalism was a term first coined by a Royal Commission in Canada in 1971.   It was an attempt to show Canadians a way forward following a significant number of immigrants arriving from Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Asia, peoples of different cultures from the dominant culture of Canada.   The policy was adopted by Canada and then other western nations.   It has not worked well and will lead to further problems ahead.

Jesus Christ prophesied that, at the time of the end, “Nation will rise against nation, kingdom against kingdom” (Matthew 24:7).   The word “nation” comes from the Greek word “ethnos,” from which we get the word “ethnic.”   Ethnic conflict will be common at the end time.   Indeed, it is already, arguably, the biggest cause of conflict around the world.

While we sing “O God of every nation,” and all nations are descended from Noah’s sons, we should also remember the following words spoken by the Apostle Paul, from Acts 17:26:

“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings.”   God set the boundaries;  man (mainly western man) is behind mixing, which is the opposite.

We see many problems with multiculturalism.   Tolerance is required for it to work, but this  is sadly lacking in some groups.   Rising conflict in many nations is leading to the rise of populist movements that want to preserve one culture over others.   None of this means that any race is superior to another.   People simply want to preserve their own cultural heritage.   Some cultures are just not compatible.    Comments I have made on the threats from immigration are based on this reality  — that the mixing is going to lead to negative consequences.  It is not meant to imply that any race is superior.

The Apostle Peter said that:   “God is no respecter of persons”   (Acts 10:34)

—————————————————–

CARAVAN PUTS IMMIGRATION BACK IN THE SPOTLIGHT, IN TIME FOR MIDTERMS

“As 4,000 Honduran migrants push north toward the US, President Trump sees an opportunity to help Republicans hang on to the House in the midterm elections.” (Axios, 20th October).

——————————————————

IN RETROSPECT — OF INTEREST TO THE WCG DIASPORA

“Throughout this study two related concepts have been mentioned repeatedly:   authority and government/governance.   We have seen Herbert W. Armstrong imposing his authority, diminishing his son’s authority.   Having his authority challenged, using his authority to change long-held doctrines, and being accused of authoritarianism.   We have seen Joseph W. Tkach and Joe Jr. making use of the strong ethos of obedience to top-down authority in the Worldwide Church of God to revolutionize its teachings, thus precipitating the three major schismatic moves of 1989, 1992-3, and 1995.   We have seen various attitudes to authority in the offshoot churches, from the hardline position of Philadelphia, Restored, and others to the more liberal attitudes found in United and its smaller offshoots and in the GTA group of churches.

“As for church government or governance, for some churches in the Worldwide family this is a crucial part of their beliefs; differing attitudes to governance are a major distinguishing factor between the hardline and the more liberal churches.”   (“Authority in the Churches of God,” chapter 7 of “The Fragmentation of a Sect,” by David V Barrett, 2013, Oxford University Press.)

Philippians 2:12  – “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

JUST ONE FRONT PAGE

 

Sunday Telegraph 5:8:2016

A British quality Sunday newspaper is a joy to behold.  Only three are left, now that The Independent on Sunday has folded.  The three are the Sunday Times, the Observer and the Sunday Telegraph.  Friends brought me a copy of the latter, a conservative paper, when they arrived in the US from England a few days ago.   I am very grateful for the paper, even though it’s a few days old.

In actual fact, it’s now eight day old, but still very relevant.

On the front page are two articles that reveal a great deal about Britain today.

The lead article, “Migration pressure on schools revealed,” by Tim Ross, highlights the reality of an extra 700,000 foreign language pupils in British public (state) schools.   (Multiply that by five to get the US equivalent.)   Additional funds are needed when pupils speak multiple languages.   The cost to the UK taxpayer will run into the multiple millions.

The immigrants profiled in the article are from other EU countries. They do not include the latest refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, nor do they include Indians and Africans who have been entering the UK for decades.   Free movement of peoples within the European Union, including the United Kingdom, has led to this situation.  It may be a decisive factor in June’s referendum, when the British people get the opportunity to vote on remaining or leaving the Union.

A second front-page article bears the headline “Terror suspects win human rights battle” by Robert Verkaik and Robert Mendick.  The first two paragraphs read:   “Six Algerian terror suspects with links to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are to be allowed to stay in Britain after the Home Secretary admitted defeat in a 10-year legal battle to deport them.  The move follows a challenge under the Human Rights Act which found that the men were at risk of torture if they were deported to Algeria.”   No doubt these men, linked to terror, will be entitled to receive state benefits in the UK.  This means that their terrorist activities will be financed by the British taxpayer.   The taxpayer has already had to pay out for ten years of legal fees to cover both sides in the dispute.

After finishing the paper yesterday (Sunday) I read the Lansing State Journal.   A front page article informed readers that Michigan is about to see a “surge” of Syrian refugees.   Again, the taxpayer will have to foot the bill, pushing much-needed road repair further down the list of priorities.   Additionally, there is also the prospect of future terrorist acts.

Is anyone in government sane???

———————————————————————————

TRUMP vs CAMERON

Staying in the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron described Donald Trump’s attitude to Muslim immigration as “stupid, divisive and wrong.”  This does not bode well for the Atlantic alliance or the Special Relationship that has existed between Britain and America since FDR and Churchill.  Mr. Trump said earlier today that he does not think he and Mr. Cameron will have a very good relationship should he enter the White House.

Considering the terrorist acts that have been perpetrated against the West by Islamic terrorists, we should also ask who is really “stupid” here?   I wonder why leaders throughout the Western world seem so determined to encourage the Islamization of their countries?   As Donald Trump put it today:   “It sounds like he (Mr. Cameron) is not willing to address the problem either.”

The Islamic presence, fairly recent in the context of US and British history, has itself led to division.   A further comment from the BBC’s website followed:

“He (Trump) is also involved in a spat with new London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

The US presidential contender said he would not forgive Mr. Khan for calling him “ignorant” – and challenged the Mayor to take part in an IQ test, an offer mocked by Mr. Khan’s team.”

Further division no doubt lies ahead.

Mr. Trump is also calling on Muslims “to turn people in.”   In a television interview shown on British television’s ITV (not the BBC) the presumptive Republican nominee said he is not anti-Muslim, but rather anti-terror. He called on practicing Muslims to cooperate with the police in their fight against Islamic terror.

————————————————————————

EU FACES ‘POPULIST UPRISING’

Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of Britain’s intelligence service, MI6, warned today of the consequences to Europe if the continent does not get on top of the migrant crisis.   “If Europe cannot act together to persuade the majority of its citizens that it can gain control of the migratory crisis, then the EU will find itself at the mercy of a populist uprising which is already stirring.   The stakes are very high and the UK referendum is the first roll of the dice in a bigger, geopolitical game.”

“Sir Richard also warned against offering visa-free travel to Turkish nationals, describing the move as like storing gasoline near a fire.” (BBC News website.)

 

 

TERROR GROUPS GLOBAL REACH

Jan. 27, 2015:  In this image made from video posted by a Libyan blogger, the Cortinthia Hotel is seen under attack in Tripoli. (AP)
Jan. 27, 2015:   In this image made from video posted by a Libyan blogger, the Corinthia Hotel is seen under attack in Tripoli. (AP)

ISIS has claimed it was behind the attack on a leading hotel in Libya’s capital, Tripoli, earlier this week.   The hotel was one of the few remaining western hotels, catering to foreign nationals. An American and a Frenchman were amongst the nine who were killed.

The attack shows that ISIS is now operating in Libya, a long way from home.

The three major terror threats right now are ISIS, AQAP and Boko Haram.

ISIS, having established a rudimentary caliphate over parts of Syria and Iraq, now calls itself IS (Islamic State) reflecting its new status as a country.   It is even negotiating with Jordan, a neighboring country, over the fate of a Jordanian prisoner and a Jordanian pilot captured by IS.   There is the possibility of a proposed exchange of prisoners.   They also hold a Japanese journalist and are threatening to behead him at the time of writing.

AQAP (Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) staged the Paris attacks. Some terror experts say this is the most dangerous group and the biggest threat to the West, including the United States.   The terror group emanates from Yemen, home of Osama bin Laden.   Yemen’s pro-American government has just fallen, replaced by a group loyal to Iran, a Shi’ite theocratic republic.   This strengthens Iran at the expense of the US.   AQAP is Sunni and will likely continue uninterrupted, safe in its own territory in the splintered nation.

Boko Haram may seem disconnected but operates over an increasingly wide area.   It has the same aims as the other two, the downfall of the West and a rejection of all things western.

In addition to the three groups mentioned, there is also the Taliban, which continues to stage terror attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan.   A Taliban attack on a school in December killed 148, mostly students.

Smaller groups like the Nusra Front also operate.

The Economist magazine (page 26, January 17th issue) showed there were 17 significant terrorist attacks by these groups in a one-month period (December 15th – January 13th).   The total number of deaths is hard to determine as statistics from some areas, especially Nigeria, are unreliable.   But a low estimate for the period totaled 528. During this one-month period there were terror attacks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Australia.   They included suicide bombings and gun attacks.

This is a global conflict, which will affect every nation on earth.

RISE OF ISIS

Bin Laden is dead, Long Live al-Baghdadi
Bin Laden is dead, Long Live al-Baghdadi!

Frontline’s “The Rise of ISIS” (PBS), shown on Tuesday, was a very revealing look at the origins of the terrorist organization, which went from nothing twelve months ago to being the world’s most feared terror group today, a group which has the potential to bring down the West. Although it has its origins in al-Qaeda, it is a far bigger threat. It’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is more successful than Osama bin Laden ever was. He spoke recently to the faithful in a mosque in the conquered city of Mosul, something bin-Laden never did.

The birth of ISIS has its origins in the Sunni-Shia conflict, which the US led Coalition failed to understand from Day One of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In fact, the whole debacle in Iraq and Syria is a classic example of a clash of civilizations, with a great deal of bungling on the western side. Two civilizations clashed – the West and Islam. Neither side understood the other.

Prior to the US invasion, Iraq was led by a ruthless dictator called Saddam Hussein.   Saddam was not a religious man and kept the religious extremists under control. Al-Qaeda did not even exist in Iraq under his rule.

The western invasion changed everything – and the consequences are likely to be with us for decades to come.

Saddam was a Sunni, a minority in Iraq, which has a majority Shia population.

The West saw democracy as the solution to everything. I remember an interview with President George W. Bush who, quoting an author, enthusiastically said that the spread of democracy would end all wars. British Prime Minister Tony Blair felt that democracy in Iraq, strategically located in the Middle East, would spread to other countries in the region, ending all the friction that leads to war.

Inevitably, once democracy was imposed on Iraq by the West, the majority Shia came to power, under the leadership of Anwar al-Maliki. This was a major shift in the balance of power in the region, giving Shi’ite Iran much greater influence in the Middle East.

As “Frontline” showed, it was al-Maliki’s paranoia that set the stage for the triumph of ISIS. Only one day after US troops left the country, he turned on leading Sunnis.

Al-Maliki could not embrace the Sunnis in government. Remembering Saddam’s reign of terror, Maliki was fearful of the Sunnis and feared a return to Sunni domination. It soon became clear that he would send Iraq’s army out to crush Sunni opposition, even when peaceful demonstrations were being held.

Al-Qaeda saw an opportunity to get into Iraq and soon had even moderate Sunnis supporting the organization, which was seen as the protector of Sunni Islam in the country. In February this year, ISIS broke away from al-Qaeda, pursuing a more extreme course. ISIS is sustained by the Shi’ite – Sunni conflict in Iraq. It also operates in Syria, where it has a big base.

Many in the West may see ISIS supporters as “mad,” but there is clearly a method in their madness. They have a dream of establishing a Caliphate across the Muslim world. Extremist Islamic terror groups threaten many countries throughout the Middle East and Africa – the dream could be realized. The latest casualty is Egypt. Over thirty Egyptian troops were attacked and killed just a few days ago. The Egyptian president responded by saying that the terrorists threaten the Egyptian state. The border with Gaza is to be more strictly enforced to keep Hamas fighters out of Egypt. The country is the most populous Arab state. If it falls, others will fall, just like dominoes.

Bible prophecy indicates that the entire region will become part of the “king of the south,” mentioned in Daniel 11. “At the time of the end” (v. 40) is the time period for this. The “king of the south” will push (attack?) against the “king of the north” (an alliance of countries to the north of Jerusalem). The king of the north then has to invade the Middle Eastern countries. Egypt is specifically mentioned, suggesting that Egypt will become a part of this extremist caliphate, just as the president warned could happen.

If ISIS is defeated, which seems unlikely at this point in time, the dream of the Caliphate will endure and another group will simply take over, just as ISIS has replaced al-Qaeda as the main threat in the region.

ORWELL, “1984” and US POLITICS

George-Orwell-1984

Sales of George Orwell’s “1984” are at their highest in many decades, following revelations of the US government listening in to our phone conversations in true “Big Brother” fashion.

I pity the federal employee who has been assigned my phone number – he must be bored out of his mind.

I was on a train in England sometime ago, with nowhere to go to escape the woman across from me who clearly was not interested in quietly reading like other well-behaved passengers (i.e. myself).  She rather spent the entire two-and-a-half-hour journey calling her friends.  Her inane chatter almost drove me mad!  Whichever government employee keeps tabs on her might want to switch to tracking me – compared to hers, my life is far more interesting!

In the same week as the revelations hit the headlines, I did think of “1984”, one of the best books of the twentieth century, but it was for a completely different reason.  I’m not going to read the book again.  It’s one of the few novels I read twice but I prefer his “Burmese Days” and think that his most famous book “Animal Farm” was the most influential and perceptive book of the century.

However, “1984” has been on my mind.

The reason is the new de facto alliance between the United States and Al-Qaeda.  Remember Al-Qaeda?  Osama bin Laden?  If you remember, they attacked us on September 11th, 2001, and killed about 3,000 Americans.  The attack led to two major wars that killed even more Americans, plus Brits, French, etc. – not forgetting even more domestic casualties (“collateral damage”) in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you can remember even further back (Americans have notoriously short memories!) you will know that we actually armed Al-Qaeda in their war against the Russians (then the Soviet Union) back in the eighties.  At that time, OBL was a “freedom fighter.”  Then he became “Public Enemy #1;” now, of course, he’s dead.

But his organization lives on and is fighting against the Syrian regime of Bashir al-Assad, who is now “International Enemy #1” (unofficial title).  And so are we.  We fervently want to end his dastardly regime and replace it with another dastardly regime!  Because that’s the way it works in that part of the world.

It gets more complex but I will try and simplify it for you.

Assad is an Alawite, a sect of Shia Islam.  OBL and his not-so-friendly bunch of thugs are Sunnis, as are most Muslims.  Assad is supported by Hizbullah, a Shiite terrorist organization in Lebanon that is in conflict with Israel – and Iran, which is ruled by Shiite nutters who don’t like us; or maybe they do, as they haven’t attacked us yet, whereas the Sunnis have!!!

Assad and the others are also supported by the Russians.  Remember them?  They were our enemies for over forty years during the Cold War.  They are still our enemies but everybody is still hoping they return to democracy (return???  They’ve never been a democracy.  Why should we expect them to embrace democracy now, especially when it’s not working any more in the West?).

This is all very reminiscent of “1984.”  If you remember (and I’m going back 40 years here), there were three major powers and two of them were always in alliance against the other one.  The problem was they kept changing sides.  And when they did history had to be rewritten so that the people thought they had always been at war with the present enemy and in alliance with the other.

Sounds awfully like modern international alliances and wars, doesn’t it?

There’s another lesson from Orwell that’s applicable here.  It’s found in “Animal Farm.”

For those unfamiliar with it, the book is a satire on communism.  At the beginning, the animals rebel against Farmer Jones and take over the farm.  The analogy is with Russia (Farmer Jones represents Czarist Russia; the animals the peasants who took over with the Bolshevik Revolution.)   In time, the pigs start to resemble the Czar.  In the final scene, when the animals look through the farm window, they see the pigs sitting at the table smoking cigars and drinking whisky.

In other words, revolutionary rulers end up being just like those they overthrew.

In the same way, when it comes to the Middle East, successive US Administrations looks like the last presidency and the one before that and the one before that . . .

Nothing changes and nothing is accomplished.

But they keep on having to take sides in every dispute and sometimes going to war.

And all for what?