I have a rhetorical question for the reader’s consideration. Has the United States government every been honorable? Has it ever kept a treaty it has entered, or eventually violated every one (ask a Native American for a clue).
Of late, the U.S. entered into negotiations with Iran last summer and then attacked Iran during said negotiations. The end of last month that same ‘strategy’ was repeated. Now this:

Since the start of the war Iran aligned militia in Iraq have fired missiles against U.S. targets. The also used First Person View (FPV) drones for targeted hits (vid) in U.S. encampments. Damage was caused to U.S. missile and air-defense which protected the U.S. Camp Victory and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Two days days ago the U.S. requested a ceasefire to evacuate from its Iraqi bases. A 24 hour ceasefire was granted and U.S. troops were moved to Jordan. Hours later the U.S bombed the headquarter of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF, Hasd al-Shabi) which had negotiated the ceasefire.

h/t Moon of Alabama

I suppose I’m naive. In nature, violence rules, assuming there are any rules at all. I thought humans, especially those ruling my own country, could have risen above such base inclinations and would strive to do the next right and honorable thing. Obviously I was mistaken. Violence, or the threat of violence. Every. Single. Time.

Update:

Grok analysis of post on 3/25:

The post claims, citing The New York Times, that most of 13 U.S. military bases in the Middle East are destroyed and uninhabitable, with Kuwait bases suffering the worst damage from Iranian strikes, accompanied by an aerial photo of a desert base setup.

NYT reporting confirms damage to at least 11 U.S. bases and 17 sites overall from Iranian attacks since early March 2026, including multiple Kuwait facilities like Ali Al Salem and Camp Buehring hit repeatedly with building and radar destruction, but describes impacts as severe yet repairable, not total uninhabitability.

In the escalating U.S.-Iran conflict tied to the U.S.-Israeli war, about 40,000 U.S. troops have relocated from damaged sites to hotels and remote operations, per NYT analysis, highlighting vulnerabilities in regional air defenses and raising questions on U.S. strategic preparedness.

Grok analysis on 3/26:

The X post by @Megatron_ron claims a New York Times report confirms most of 13 US bases in the Middle East were destroyed by Iran, rendering them uninhabitable especially in Kuwait, amid ongoing conflict.

NYT articles describe Iranian strikes damaging multiple US sites (at least 11-17), forcing troops to operate remotely from hotels and offices, but the post exaggerates “destroyed and empty” while using a misleading 1993 Mogadishu photo.

High engagement reflects polarized views on US military posture, with replies debating escalation outcomes and calls to withdraw forces from the region.

And

I can attest to not only less insects, but also less amphibians and flora. The small flora that used to grow on our property ten years ago is mostly gone. Half of the fruit and nut trees that we planted have died. Garden yields are minimal compared to five years ago. At least our chickens are laying eggs.

None of the three spellings is universally “correct”—they are all valid variants of the same ancient Semitic root (Northwest Semitic BʿL, from Hebrew בַּעַל / baʿal, meaning “owner,” “lord,” or “master”). The differences come down to context (ancient deity vs. demonology), language of origin, and how closely scholars want to reflect the original guttural ayin (ʿ) sound.

Quick breakdown of each spelling:

• Baal (most common in English)
  This is the standard anglicized spelling for the ancient Canaanite/Phoenician deity (a title/honorific for various gods, especially the storm and fertility god Hadad). It comes from the Greek Báal (Βάαλ) and Latin Baal via the Bible and Septuagint.
  Used in most English Bibles, history books, and general references. Pronunciation is often “BAY-uhl,” “BAHL,” or “BAH-ahl.”
  This is the go-to spelling if you’re talking about the historical god or biblical false idol.
• Ba’al (or Baʿal with the proper ʿ character)
  This is the scholarly transliteration that best matches the original Hebrew/Phoenician/Ugaritic. The apostrophe (or ʿ) represents the ayin consonant, which creates a slight “break” or guttural sound (like a soft “ah-uhl”).
  Preferred in academic, linguistic, and some religious contexts when precision matters. Pronunciation is closer to “bah-AHL” or “BAH-ahl.”
  Many sources explicitly note “Ba’al” as the more accurate form of the deity’s name.
• Ba’el (with the apostrophe after the “a”)
  This is a modern stylistic variant, less common in mainstream sources but seen in some occult, demonolatry, or gaming contexts. It combines the apostrophe (for the ayin/glottal stop) with a slight emphasis on pronunciation (“Bay-el” or “BA-el”).
  It’s essentially another way to write Ba’al and doesn’t change the meaning—more of a visual/typographic choice than a distinct form.
• Bael (no apostrophe)
  This spelling is specific to demonology. It refers to the first demon/king in the Lesser Key of Solomon (Ars Goetia) and Pseudomonarchia Daemonum—a hoarsely voiced ruler who grants invisibility and commands 66 legions.
  Demonologists like Jacques Collin de Plancy noted it is likely the same entity as the ancient Canaanite Baal (Christianity often “demonized” pagan gods). Used almost exclusively in grimoires and occult texts.

Summary: Which to use?

• Historical/mythological god (Canaanite, Phoenician, Bible) → Baal (everyday English) or Ba’al (scholarly).
• Goetic demon (Lesser Key of Solomon, occult) → Bael.
• Precise transliteration or modern occult writing → Ba’al or Ba’el.

All three trace back to the exact same ancient word, and the shift from “god” to “demon” happened as Abrahamic religions reframed older deities. If you have a specific context (e.g., Bible study, occult practice, game lore), the “correct” one becomes clear!