Well I read something that was quite interesting the other day. It dealt with the questions of what we can expect from an Obama Administration. The article by Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris titled What we don't know about Obama points to some interesting thoughts.

So far we know that President Obama has ordered the detainee prison in Guantanamo Bay closed. He expects this to take one year, though the Bush Administration has spent at least 2 years seeking to move some 60 of the worst prisoners to any nation that will not just release them to Al Quida. This is part of his promised acts as a peace maker. That is in conflict with his plans for Afghanistan.

President Obama believes we can win in Afghanistan. He has stated that is the center of the war on terror. And that is where he wants to focus, then end our fight. But to do so is anything but being a peacemaker.

“Most military experts think a decisive win in Afghanistan — as opposed to a muddle-through strategy leading to a gradual withdrawal —will involve a major surge in troops and a willingness to tolerate high costs and high casualties.“

And speaking of war, there is Iraq. Which President Obama continues to move towards running from. The country is finally in some semblance of stability after our prolonged presence and several gaffs of the Bush Administration.

“But this remains an extremely volatile region that could erupt in new bloodshed. Will Obama still cling to a speedy pull-out if it means the country could implode?”

With anti-war hawks like Hillary Clinton in his Cabinet, and a majority of the Democratic Party looking for nothing less than absolute withdrawl what would President Obama do in that situation? Especially as he focuses our troops in Afghanistan thus escalating that conflict? Especially as military history states that a war involving multiple fronts usually end up with loss.

Also along these lines is the question of torture and interrogation. The first part of which is what to do with the detainees in Gitmo as I stated above. But moving forward is what to do about any future suspects we might encounter. They will not be able to be detained. Thus we must presume they will be interrogated in the field. But under what rules?

No matter what some may feel about the use of questionable techniques or outright torture there is one absolute truth. America gained needed information that has led to no more attacks on American soil. With many of the prior interrogation techniques now banned will we still be able to gain that information? Since we will not have detention areas to hold these suspects will we have an opportunity to learn the information that would prevent another major attack?

Then there is the question of the economy. An issue I have long has major problems with. The proposals made by the Obama Administration demand and create multi-trillion dollar deficits, which President Obama has said cannot be maintained long-term. But there is nothing in the proposals that would indicate that the deficits would be paid off in the next 4 years, or even 10.

The public is now becoming used to, and insistent on stimulus checks. If you ask the average American right now they believe that another stimulus check will be in the mail – which has been directly refuted by President Obama. And the poorer the person the more they are anxious for that check.

But that is a mere $850 billion dollars. If President Obama also goes forward with his healthcare plans, his expanded Government, and the declared spending (bailouts) for the economy the imbalance will be at least $1.6 – $2.1 trillion dollars when it’s all said and done (this year alone).

If President Obama plans to keep his budget in massive record deficit only for the short term then he must raise taxes sharply - for ALL Americans, cut entitlements drastically – including the new healthcare and social security, and reduce the military’s budget even as we have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. And a major deficit will still exist, with no guarantee that the economy will have improved.

And then there is a hot-button issue for me. Darfur. A subject that most politicians have avoided on all levels. America has yet to pass the laws sitting in Congress for 4 years that would prevent corporate or individual investment in the Sudan (Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act). This is similar to the laws passed that prevented funding Apartheid in the 1980’s. Yet even in the Democrat-led 110th Congress nothing has been done.

Will President Obama step up and use his extreme approval ratings to draw national attention to this genocide that has been ongoing for some 7 yeas now? Will he place financial bans, or even use military force to help save millions of non-American lives? Does his role as peacemaker end at the shores of America or does it include other parts of the world that have dire need and no strategic benefit to our nation?

What will President Obama do? No matter what he chooses he will piss off some part of America. But is he strong enough to piss off his main support – far-left liberals? They gave him the money to win. They rallied him over Clinton. They want some of the most extreme (I believe socialistic) changes to the Government. And if President Obama is to be an effective President for all of America, the far-left must be pissed off often and on major issues at times.

But that would bode poorly for his approval rating and chances at re-election. And virtually all the plans of the Obama Administration seem to require 2 terms to come to the proposed fruition. Is President Obama willing to risk that second term for a more balanced Government?

All serious issues, all serious repercussions. And all without any assurance of what will happen. Many wanted change, and in some form or another they are about to get it whether they like the outcome or not.

Labels: Afghanistan War, American economy, Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Jim VandeHei, John F. Harris, President Barack Obama, stimulus package, torture techniques

So Ted Turner showed up on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox News. This might be something that you would expect lots of sparks from. But in fact it was quite civil and perhaps a bit mundane.



One of the things I love to hear is the constant call that Fox News is a far-right network. Given that Sean Hannity is far-right, the network and the bulk of the programs are not. And in this instance, as I have often found, Turner barely if ever watches the network he compares to the Nazi's.

It just cements the concept of most liberals/left-wing these days. You can say anything you want, just as long as it agrees with whatever they believe. Everything else is a horrible right-wing conspiracy to remove freedom and thought. Even if they have no clue what any other thought might comprise.

And Turner was honest that his real motivation was the fact that he knew that all the major media focuses to the left (or far-left depending on your level of honesty) and thus anything neutral or to the right would draw attention beyond anything his network or the others could match. Because try as hard as they do, the nation leans right even with massive media bias.

Of course Turner could not avoid his belief that America is an exploitative nation. Funny how he says that, yet he has no problem accumulating his wealth in and from this nation. Or has he been donating the bulk of his wealth to the Government to lower the deficit, save defaulted mortgage owners, and the poor in general? Has he somehow managed to make donations to programs and organizations of size without Forbes or anyone else noticing? In fact the answer, like with most wealthy liberals/progressives - including Warren Buffett and George Soros - is no.

And the best part is the most stupid statement that the educated and experienced Ted Turner makes.

"If we stop bombing people and sent doctors, scientists, and engineers around the world that we make a lot more progress and wouldn't have near as much terrorism in the world as we do." - minute 3:09 - 3:22

That is a stupid statement in every sense of it. First America has nothing to do with bombings in India based on the differences of religion in that nation and Pakistan. We have nothing to do with bombings in France, England, Southeast Asia and nearly 2/3 of the world. And virtually all of these places have been getting bombed for over 3 decades or more. That has nothing to do with us.

Israel is one place that an argument might be made. And of course Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly a result of our actions recently. Not that anyone could say any Middle East nation was peaceful and calm over the last 5 decades let alone the last 10.

But Turner makes a dumb argument because on top of these facts we spend more money on medical and agricultural aid to various nations than many nations make as GDP. Or has he forgotten the Peace Corps and the various debts owed to America from these nations we have helped. And then there is AIDS.

America has done more about AIDS in Africa than most every other nation combined. That is still far from what I think is adequate or within our abilities, but it is far from the implied thought of Turner that we do nothing. And our work in Darfur is horrendous. But that does not erase all the other good work we have done for many nations in Africa. Still we are losing the edge in helping African nations develop better technology to China, but that is a problem of a different sort than what Turner suggests.

Again this is left-wing polispeak to make things sound worse than they are. Like somehow denouncing our actions makes their even lesser actions look better. I've never known anyone to be motivated after hard work for a good cause by being told what they have done was useless and negligible, and then asked to do more.



In part 2 it gets personal. Hanoi Jane Fonda is in the picture. But first we see what "progressives" like Turner calls himself think. Turner admires Fidel Castro. I think there are a lot of people in Florida that would love to have him explain why.

The argument that Turner makes, and I have heard before is that Castro has done good things in his time so he is a good guy. He built hospitals and makes sure people have nationalized healthcare.

So the fact that Cuba is stuck in the 1950's in virtually every aspect doesn't matter to Turner. The fact that the people have no voice in their Government is meaningless. The fact that dissenters are (or at least were) routinely jailed, beaten and/or killed is ok. The fact that their economy is horrendous is all good. Because the people get free healthcare.

So taking that logic, a nation that builds schools, allows free elections, builds hospitals, creates clean water, improves electricity, invigorates an economy and makes the nation stable is a great nation. Wake up "progressives", I just described what America is doing in Iraq.

But I think Turner would stumble on that realization. He, and "progressives" as he described himself, don't want to see America like that. For whatever reason.

Perhaps the best part of this whole interview was when Ted Turner was asked about his inaction after the Viet Nam protests. He with Hanoi Jane protested the actions of America and supported (her moreso to traitorous levels) the North Vietnamese. When America left Viet Nam due to the political pressure, 3 million Vietnamese were slaughtered. And the "progressives" said nothing.

They in fact did what some say America did to Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated. They forgot about the whole thing. They could care less. If they did care they hid it well with their complete and utter silence for decades.

Hanoi Jane, and Ted Turner, had every opportunity to speak out nationally about the atrocities. They could have brought media attention to the situation at any point they desired. Even to this day they could say something. Yet all you will hear is more silence. How "progressive".

Now considering that track record I have to ask a simple question. If we follow the guidance of "progressives" like Turner, and far-left nuts like Hanoi Jane, and leave Iraq as we did Viet Nam, what would they do if things went bad in that nation? Their actions tell us they would turn a blind eye and deaf ear, which is the absolutely best environment for groups like Al Quida to grow in. And that means we would have future attacks on our soil within 5 - 15 years, en masse.

Can America afford to have "progressives" and the far-left say

"You got me. I really didn't think about it." - minute 3:06 - 3:10

as civilians are killed?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Africa, AIDS, al quida, Bill O'Reilly, Cuba, Darfur, Fidel Castro, Fox News, Hanoi Jane, Iraq, O'Reilly Factor, Ted Turner, Viet Nam war

So Senator Obama has gone overseas to visit Iraq for the first time in years. His first trip to that nation was done with little fanfare and lasted less than 48 hours. This time he will spend another 48 hours in the company of 3 broadcast news agencies, dozens of reporters, and supplied with help by reportedly 300 foreign policy advisors.

Now tell me this isn’t a farce.

It’s a whirlwind tour of the Middle East with enough press corps to equate to several fire teams, not counting the hordes of military soldiers that will be flanking the whole group. But the question is can Senator Obama learn anything new? Can he find out any first-hand information about where Iraq stands and what America should do in the near future?

Well in truth neither candidate has a great position on Iraq. And as noted by a recent USAToday editorial

“It's difficult, for example, to imagine a President McCain insisting on keeping U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely if Iraq's government demands that they leave. Al-Maliki is acknowledging the reality that most Iraqis and most Iraqi politicians want U.S. forces out, at least as soon as they are confident that their own government can protect them.

At the same time, it's equally difficult to imagine a President Obama insisting on an inflexible withdrawal timetable if that means squandering security gains won with great American sacrifice. Though Obama has repeatedly insisted on a timetable, he has pointedly not said that every U.S. troop will be gone when the timetable ends. In fact, he has promised to leave a "residual force" of undefined size in Iraq, and carefully left himself an escape hatch in case the situation worsens. "You've got to make sure the country doesn't collapse," he says.”

So what are the realities of the situation then?

Well for Senator Obama I would think they include the following:

Senator Obama is the Democratic Party line. His votes are not only partisan, they are the extreme left of his party. Thus he was a strong backer of the comments by Harry Reid



Of course Harry Reid was wrong. The surge has worked as anyone with eyes can see. And now Senator Obama has to find a way to tactfully state the Reid and Pelosi were off their rockers. But he can’t say this in a way that agrees with General Petreaus (an enemy of strong Obama supporter MoveOn.org – which would make them enemies of the U.S. government no?) or the Republican Party, or Senator McCain who has visited Iraq 6 times and actually has a frame of reference on the events there.

Senator Obama must avoid making it seem like his trip is a polispeak ploy. It’s obvious to everyone that this trip is not a Congressional fact finding trip but a means to allay the fact that he has no international presence or experience. Senator Obama is spending 1 week to create the impression that he is knowledgeable of international facts, and Presidential in the manner that he acquires them.

His whole goal is to gain votes on the backs of soldiers that are following the orders of the Commander-n-Chief. Thus by standing near a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan he looks Presidential.

Of course if the trip looks like the blatant posturing it is, then he will get a negative backlash. You can’t look Presidential standing on the bodies of American soldiers. You are obviously spinning polispeak when insurgents act up as you proclaim them defeated and our job done.

Thirdly Obama wants to impress Europe. Both because of the fact that so many Americans have roots in Europe and that our economy is directly tied with the fate of those nations.

“It will not be a speech about campaign issues,” an adviser said. “He’s not going to address campaign issues in terms of other candidates, it is not a speech about American politics, and so it’s not a campaign event. We’re not trying to recruit support from the crowds that are coming. It’s not a campaign event.

The point of the outdoor rally is that the senator wants to speak directly to our allies and to the people of Europe and the people of the world and it would be inconsistent to do that and try to limit the attendance for that event. There’s a great deal of interest in his visit. We want to accommodate that interest.”

In fact this is a campaign speech. He is campaigning for the support of world leaders and corporations – who would then lend support to him and hopefully impress centrist Americans that would otherwise avoid his liberal policies.

If this is not a speech about American politics, what the hell is he going to say? He may not frame the speech in terms of McCain, but he will in terms of America and so it’s just another stump speech. Take out the polispeak and that’s all it is, but if his campaign makes it any more obvious it will backfire.

Will this all work? Well it depends. If you are of the mind of say Pete Hegseth maybe not

“Obama frequently decries the danger of “dogmatists” and “ideologues” in public policy, yet he himself has proved consistently uninterested in putting himself in situations where he might be confronted with the hard complexities of this war.”

If you are of a mind as say Peter Beinart then maybe

“This is not to say the security improvements in Iraq are illusory. It’s just that the war’s realities are too elusive to grasp on a brief trip led by people with a vested interest.”

Overall I have one overriding thought, this is political candy meant to do one thing – elect Senator Obama. There is almost nothing Senator Obama can learn with the media following him like puppies and the speed at which he is traveling. He isn’t there to learn anything substantive (lest he have an opinion that does not fall in line with Democratic Party lines, or worse contradict his far-left campaign speeches – more than he already has), he is there to look good. In the words of Fernando

“It's better to look good than to feel good."

And damn if Senator Obama isn’t being made to look good. But I wonder if all the bluster will lead to an Obama Presidency, and if it does will we be able to say this quote afterwards

“I hope when you are my age, you'll be able to say - as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. Our lives were a statement, not an apology." Ronald Reagan

Labels: Afghanistan War, Democratic Party, Harry Reid, Iraq, moveon.org, Pete Hegseth, Peter Beinart, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, USAToday

There is an international shit storm about to hit the U.S., and the American media is eating it up. The storm comes in the form of a video released to the Canadian government of detainee Omar Khadr. Omar Khadr is currently held in Guantanamo, after being captured in Afghanistan where he is alleged to have killed U.S. Sgt. Christopher Speer and blinded another with a grenade.

Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen. He is the son of alleged Al Quida financial supporter Ahmed Said Khadr, his father. He was captured when he was 15, six years ago. Canada has not tried to get his release, and continues to make no efforts to regain him. He is facing life imprisonment in October.

The following video is the longest version of the video released to Canada, that I have been able to find so far. It is 5 minutes of 10 that exists. This snippet of video is the material being used by Canadian defense lawyers on behalf of Khadr.

When I say snippet that is because there is in fact 7.5 hours of video. The defense obviously used the most beneficial minutes for their cause. Part of what was excluded was video showing Khadr denying the existence of his family, and urinating on their photo.

I will comment further after the video



First let me say that I am a supporter of the Child Soldier Act [also see here What's better a laptop or food?]. I believe everything possible to prevent children from engaging in war should be done. The U.S. government (at all levels) has dragged its feet in this matter.

Now as for the video, it’s not horrendous. It does show that he is being treated like an adult though, which is illegal for a U.S. citizen child. He is Canadian. I cannot comment on international law (I don’t know it I’m not a lawyer).

The interrogations are being done by CANADIAN agents. They were involved lock step with his American detainment. The Canadian government was directly aware of what was happening, and they felt it was appropriate.

He was deprived of sleep, that is illegal mental torture. But he was given food and rest as the video clearly states.

The wounds he wants to receive pity for were inflicted (as reported by Rolling Stone in the most anti-war form) from the grenade he used to kill a U.S. soldier. [I have seen one news item stating the chest wounds were from gunshots – it is not made clear how he was shot in that same article] That grenade injured his eye and chest. And as noted in the video and the fact he has lived for 6 years he received adequate medical treatment, which the Canadian government was aware of.

These are facts we can determine from what is known. Anything else is subjective, and based on the views of the viewer. And the media is definitely against Guantanamo.

The first sentences of several media news releases says it all.

AP via Yahoo – TORONTO - A 16-year-old captured in Afghanistan and held at Guantanamo Bay sobs during his questioning, holding up his wounded arms and begging for help in a video released Tuesday that provided the first glimpse of interrogations at the U.S. military prison.”

Newsblog - “A 16-year-old sobbing teenager is not, needless say, the image the Pentagon would like you to associate with its infamous destination for "enemy combatants".”

Rolling Stone – “At that moment, Omar entered the extralegal archipelago of torture chambers and detention cells that the Bush administration has erected to prosecute its War on Terror. He has remained there ever since.” [3rd paragraph]

Leader-Post – “Canadian Security Intelligence Service officials "callously disregard" everything terror suspect Omar Khadr had to say during an interrogation when he was 16 years old, according to the Guantanamo detainee's two lawyers.”

And it just goes on.

But let me refer back to something. Ahmed Khadr trained his son to be a fighter. Ahmed Khadr placed his son in a war zone to kill Americans for Al Quida. Omar threw the grenade that killed Sgt. Christopher Speer.

It’s one thing to be against recruiting children into a military, or to force them to fight. It’s quite another to defend yourself as the child tries to kill you. Successfully at that.

In that video, did you hear remorse? Did you hear any argument that he did not kill Americans? Did you note him being upset that his father placed him in the situation he was in? NO, I did not.

You heard a child that wanted sympathy for the consequences of the actions he took, and his father wished him to live. You heard a child (whether he states, Kill Me or Help Me) that realizes that he has done a wrong and is being punished. You hear a trained assassin that is seeking means to circumvent any legal reprimand for his actions.

Are those my opinions? Yep. And of his Canadian government.

So while the media may want to focus on the fact that this murderer, active in a war zone, was a child and was treated, admittedly, badly stop. Before you give him pity stop. Before you hear the roaring tide of liberals saying that war is bad, stop.

Before Omar Khadr threw that grenade he had a choice. While in interrogation he had a choice. Before he urinated on the picture of his family he had a choice.

The lawyers from his defense team had a choice after viewing 7.5 hours of video tape. They chose the most sympathetic 10 minutes. What happened in the remaining 7+ hours?

The news media at large had a choice in how to frame this video. They could present facts, or color the presentation to increase exposure, gain sympathy, and support their political views. Call me old-fashioned but I believe Edward R. Murrow was in favor of facts.

Is his incarceration fair? Not entirely. But then again many nations incarcerate minors that commit murder, some less Westernized nations kill them.

Was his interrogation and torture fair? Who are you asking, me, yourself, the members of SGT. Speer’s unit, or the family of Sgt. Speers? You might get different answers from each, and every one of them is valid.

War is not without its mistakes and over-reactions. It is the single worse state of Mankind. But it is also a reality that has existed for as long as Mankind.

In the end this particular story does not reflect on Guantanamo, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Oil, Terrorism, America or Canada. It is a very small piece of war, and it is sad. Any other thought is what you bring to it, just as I have and the news media in general have not.

I would have to believe that overall we all would agree that this was not a shining moment for anyone involved, but that it is part of the price of war. It’s one outcome in a sea of tens of thousands of outcomes, just as occurred in Viet Nam, World War I, the Spartans last stand, the Crusades and every other conflict known to Man.

So what do you think? Not what the media, or fanatical political or religious groups want you to think, but your thoughts?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Associated Press, Canada, Child Soldier Prevention Act, Leader Post, news media, Newsblog, Omar Khadr, Rolling Stone

Senator Obama has finally declared he will be going to Iraq and Afghanistan prior to November. Finally. It took long enough.

Senator Obama is known for his opposition to the Iraq war. It’s been one of the most critical points in his candidacy. The war is unpopular (now) and many seek an end at all costs. But most of those that are making such a call have never been in Iraq or Afghanistan and thus have no idea beyond those already in polls and party polispeak.

Considering that Democrats have voted overwhelmingly for the war, then jumped boat when the polls turned against the war I’m not surprised that so few have taken the time to get first-hand experience. It’s far easier to say



or even more recently to not only ignore that the surge has worked, some political stability has been established, and we have move closer to the goals we have been fighting for – but to say



But a future Commander-and-Chief must be able to go beyond petty political polispeak and posturing. Iraq is one of the key thoughts in America. How we resolve this issue will determine the safety of Americans worldwide for a decade or more.

I do not believe that as a senator opposed to fighting in Iraq, opposed to the surge, in favor of a timeline (which I think is stupid – it’s telegraphing your strategy which has never worked historically), and critical of anything that differs from this view that 2 days in Iraq back in January 2006 is enough. And if he only takes a trip of similar length it should be noted that it’s pandering to the public for votes.

But I look forward to Senator Obama going to Iraq and Afghanistan and getting more first-hand information. I really look forward to hear his comments on the obviously massive changes since his last short visit, especially when he speaks in a debate with Senator McCain on the subject.

Labels: Afghanistan War, Harry Reid, Iraq War, Nancy Pelosi, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

President Theodore Roosevelt. The name evokes an image of a powerful President, and the growth of America as a serious world power. This one titular President made perhaps the most famous of Presidential quotes, “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” [Actually an African proverb that he co-opted]

It is because of the image and actions of this President that Presidential candidates of both parties use his words to try to puff-up their own images. Virtually every candidate has done it, each in reference to goals they wish to promote. And in my opinion, none of them deserve or embody the legacy of the 26th President. Let me be clear.

Many candidates want to use or paraphrase the famous quote cited above, to improve their stature when speaking on issues like the Iraq war, terrorism, Afghanistan and America’s role in the world. It would be impressive if any of them actually had a solid plan for those issues. But as politics have become more MTV driven, in that there is little substance but lots of motion giving the impression something is happening, the soundbites are as close as any candidate gets to being a strong leader of our military.

Many candidates want to quote and refer to the strides President Roosevelt made against corporate corruption, implying they too can help improve the economy and preserve the 401k’s and retirement funds of the nation. Yet the plans stated to date, including taking corporate profits for redistribution or expanding/creating government programs, seem to go against that fiscal responsibility. Again the bluster fails to reach the pinnacles of the quotes and image.

Theodore Roosevelt was an important President. He was the first to have a Black man as a dinner guest in the White House. That was in 1901. Current candidates cannot compete with that, given. But they also seem incapable of doing anything comparable. Some would roll over in the face of political pressure found in polls on standing on this issue or that. Others are adamant in following only one course without a concept of what repercussions may be the result.

I don’t mind that the various candidates want to look like more of a leader than the other. I just wish one actually was more of a leader than the others. Quotes from those that have done things are never equal to those pretending to be of equal importance.

President Roosevelt had served in the military, ran state government, ran the Navy, a polymath, an author, an explorer, head of his political party, and was a boxing enthusiast. Most of the candidates today can barely stand in the shadow of his experience, before he ever became Vice-President or President. As such they should never try to use his limelight to make themselves shine. It just reminds us of how far less they offer in a time we need so much more.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Iraq War, President Roosevelt, presidential candidate, terrorism, Theodore Roosevelt

Concluded from Discussing retreat or fighting in Iraq Part 2...

There is no simple solution to this situation. Blame covers virtually ever member of Congress and the Executive branch. The reasons for enacting this war, no matter how questionable today, have been supported by more than the majority of Congress up until the 2nd quarter of 2006. Even until the end of April 2007 the general consensus has been in support.

Partisan bickering has not resolved any of the issues involved. No effective plan has been offered as a counter to the existing one. No plan currently includes the probable outcomes 2 years or more down the road.

Anger at various officials has overshadowed the actual events ongoing. If President Bush were to be replaced by ANYONE at this moment, there still would be no better plan in place than what exists at this moment. In fact there would be less of a plan in place (based on the exact plans declared by virtually all the candidates to date) thus promoting chaos.

Emotion must be removed, as well as partisan election games, to reach an effective middle road. Extremes are ineffective and costly. Lack of planning is terrifying. We are America, better can be done.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, presidential candidate, terrorist attack

Continued from Discussing retreat or fighting in Iraq Part 1...

Looking at the other side of this issue, we see those that wish to fight until all opposition is removed. Such an action requires the building of a colony or commonwealth. It would involved the complete takeover by the United States. Iraq would cease to be independent and fighting would continue for about 2 generations. This plan would require that America rebuild the entire nation. A new infrastructure, buildings, economy and education system would need to be created. Military bases would have to be installed. The cost to America would be enormous, with any return on the investments there not being seen for 5 years to a decade.

An immediate problem would be the response by moderate and liberal nations in the world. France as an example would likely be outraged by ‘actions in America that harkens back to imperialist empire-building.’ During the first 10 years at least there would be constant attacks on Iraq, with several nations (notably Iran) claiming that this was an attack on Islam. The loss of soldiers would increase roughly 10-fold over the first 10 years.

Given history, it would be expected that assimilation would begin after the generation raised with improved facilities (hospitals, schools, running water, ect) reached the age of 25, and began families of their own. By the second generation internal support of America would be high and the improved quality of life would draw more moderate individuals from neighboring countries. Stateside, there would be fewer attacks but they would be more severe, as the emphasis would be on destabilizing Iraq. Liberals in America would be enraged, and strong divisions in both political parties would emerge. Taxes would increase to offset the investment in Iraq, but economic returns would improve roughly 7-12 years after the start of this program.

As neither of these extremes is attractive, or viable, what alternative exists? There is no plan offered currently other than that of continued fighting. The current plan requires Iraq to stabilize it’s government, which is not happening. The near civil war in Iraq will likely take about a decade to resolve, with continued U.S. support. Current strategies will continue the slow loss of American soldiers and high cost of fighting. Within 2 years taxes will have to be increased to cover the cost. The strain on the economy will be increased, and corporations will seek to gouge business in Iraq to make up for the risk and protracted cost.

Without U.S. support, actual civil war will occur, with Iran and several other nations supporting various groups in the fighting. The Middle East will have higher tensions, oil prices will go up. Hundreds of thousands will die. Likely an autocratic if not theocratic government will be formed and tens of thousand will be jailed in response to having aided the U.S. efforts or those of other groups. The children that lost family, as well as grown adults will be convinced that America was the cause of the current ills, and that they are worse than the subjugation of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party. Within 7 years, recruits to Al Quida and similar groups will triple to a 5-fold increase. Within 2 years of a gradual loss of U.S. support, without a strong central government, America will have a major attack, with several minor attacks similar to those that have occurred in England happening before and after the main attack.

Continued in Part 3...

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, presidential candidate, terrorist attack

Not long ago there was a battle in the Congress to bring troops fighting in Iraq back to America. This was lead by the Democratic party, based in part on the results of the 2006 mid-term elections where Democrats ran on the platform of change in Iraq policy. The Democrats failed to force the President to withdraw immediately, the only concession being the establishment of a timeline where the status of the new surge policy would be evaluated in September 2007.

Today there is renewed efforts to bring the troops back home. While the initial push for this same policy was a partisan effort, largely, 5 months ago this new effort is more bi-partisan. Some are stating they are unwilling to wait to learn the results of the strategic change, and are demanding the troops return. Without regard to political affiliation this is a serious issue with ramifications that will affect America for decades. As such some need to pause and evaluate what we are doing, and attempting to do.

Looking at the extremist views, in particular on the left, there is a call to leave Iraq immediately. Those that have this view seek to turn and run from Iraq. Semantics aside, that is what immediate withdrawal means. Let’s consider the implications of such an action. I will guarantee that upon news of an immediate withdrawal several things will happen. The first is that the news will be broadcast over Al Jazira (an Arabic equivalent of CNN or other cable news networks). Many of the most extreme militant groups in the Middle East watch this program regularly, and would learn of this act immediately. Within hours news of this would reach Afghanistan and Iraq, or more particularly those who are fighting American troops. EVERY nation in the world would see this as a loss for America, and in the Middle East anti-American groups would be dancing in the streets.

Within days of that news, attacks on American troops would increase. That is not a guess, it’s basic military strategy. The opponent is turning their back to flee, which means any aggressive action will have greater effect. The higher level of direct attacks, plus the demoralizing effect on American troops (no one likes to lose a fight, and as a nation that is the strongest in the world, losing to a few small groups is a smack in the face) would be devastating. Any student of military strategy will tell you that attacking retreating forces will cause them to have greater casualties, and confusion. Of course that does not include the fact that opponents of America will rally to Iraq, being in on the winning side is either a matter of self-preservation in a post-war country or a bragging point.

Going beyond the immediate increase of enemy forces, increased attacks, and the change in morale is the question of what happens stateside. Sleeper cells in the United States would be emboldened. New cells will seek to enter the nation. Within 6 months, several attacks will occur in several major cities. This is not random speculation but highly probable actions determined from the stated goals of militants that we are currently fighting, military strategies, and the rush of new recruits to organizations that will claim they cause America to ‘cower in fear and run away’. Looking across the world, and throughout history this always happens to nations that flee a fight of this nature.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, presidential candidate

I am so annoyed. And I think everyone in America should be as well. At least those that use the internet and blogging. We are all being used in a terrible way, and I have to comment on it.

I have posted several of my letters to various presidential candidates from both parties, that have been sent since December 2006. I’ve mentioned that to this moment none have replied. I’ve even reported on how I have been ignored by my state senator, and received unsolicited mass mails, but not a single response. And I am not alone.

Thousands if not millions have been contacted, enticed and solicited via email and the internet for one Presidential candidate or another from both political parties. I have no problem with that. I have not committed funds or an endorsement, personally or with my corporation, for any party or Presidential hopeful. But neither I nor the general public have received anything in exchange for these requests of support other than a couple of soundbites. Our vote is not that cheap.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, immigration, homeland security, education, abortion and many other issues cannot be answered in 90 second bits. There is not a single intelligent person on the planet that can answer fully and honestly any of those issues in that time frame. It can’t be done. Yet both political parties hope that we will accept just that in selecting who will run for President in 2008. Even the selected meetings, chosen to highlight and benefit the various candidates, are structured to provide soundbites for the evening news, cable news, and bloggers. That just doesn’t cut the mustard.

Why is this being done? Why does it cost so much to run for President? Because it has become more MTV driven than ever before. Debates are no longer about substance, but about who appears more Presidential. It’s not what is being said, but what gets quoted. And at the same time fewer people follow the debates and coverage than ever before. As a matter of fact, my informal questioning has brought me to the conclusion that fewer people today even know what the Republican and Democratic parties stand for.

Drop the hot button question of how long we will be in Iraq, and tell me what the parties want? Does the American public want to end the war now or win and leave? What preparations are planned for the repercussions of either decision? What’s actually best for the nation and why? What can or will any of the candidates do to improve healthcare or education in the inner cities? What does it mean to be a mainstream Democrat or Republican? Most people I as these questions haven’t the slightest idea, but they know one party or another is better for the nation. Almost invariably I get quoted a soundbite or commercial for one person or another, without any clue as to what context that soundbite applies to. We are being bought cheaply.

I think this is enough. We deserve better answers and more of them. If hiring bloggers with ranks similar to mine are good enough to solicit the public, then mine is good enough to give a response to. And it’s good enough to inform you the public. I’m not just picking at the Presidential candidates I’ve sent letters to, but also the political parties I sent a letter to [on March 30, 2007 – to info@nygop.org and nysdems@nysdems.org ]. I will post the letters that I sent out to the Democratic and Republican parties.

I am left with a question, why do the candidates and their respective parties seem afraid to give any response? Why don’t they want to answer direct and important questions? Why do they not want to be responsible to the people they wish to govern?

So I ask you this, read the letters I have sent. Look for the candidate of your choice, and send them a copy of my letter (via email, link, social bookmark, or printed mail as you chose) and ask them why they can’t respond. Ask them why some of the things that will impact you and your children only deserve a 90 second incomplete answer. Ask why a soundbite is worth your financial support or more importantly your vote.

If you earned a promotion, raise, commission, higher grade or whatever and you were given an incomplete 30 or 90 second response, you would ask for a better response. So am I, with your help.

I look forward to your responses.
This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Democratic Party, Iraq War, presidential candidate, presidential election, Republican Party

Continued from part 1...

If someone says “so and so just said you sleep with animals” and you hit so and so, it doesn’t matter that what you were told wasn’t true or only partially true. You will be in a fight all the same. I it’s known that you stop fighting once you get a bloody nose, I’d expect you will get hit in the nose. If you do stop fighting because your nose starts to bleed, it doesn’t mean the other person is going to stop fighting, in fact I’d expect them to kick your arse now that you stopped resisting. Every kid in elementary schoolyards understands that.

I try to understand the conspiracists that feel Americans staged the 9/11 attack on other Americans. I am lost at how anyone could agree with this. I am befuddled. Where is the logic in it? What is the gain? Is there anything of worth for America in Afghanistan? Did we need to kill Americans to attack Iraq? Didn’t we fight a war previously without any attacks on our soil?

I wonder how anyone can claim that EVERY Jewish person was out of the Towers and away from the area. I personally know for a fact that several I know where there and injured. I am told from friends of Jewish persons being part of those that died. I wonder how anyone could know the religion of every person that didn’t show up for work that day, or everyone that died to be able to make such a claim. I wonder how many Black Americans, Hispanic Americans and Whites and other minorities didn’t make it to the Towers that day. What are the percentages? If more women didn’t show up to work for the attack does that mean that N.O.W. organized the attacks? If that sounds ludicrous (which I feel it is) how is any other group of Americans more credible?

If it were Jewish Americans what could they gain? America already supports Israel. The Twin Towers were not owned by any Jewish corporations or persons at that time to my knowledge. If the profit were shared among Jews the payout from the insurance is worthless unless a handful of people were involved. If it were a handful, why would they need to kill thousands just to get a minor amount of money? Wouldn’t it have been easier to simply use hijacked planes that were empty and attack in the middle of the night?

Of course all Americans have a right to think whatever they wish. They have the freedom to make any movie, or help distribute any movie, they wish and can afford. But where is the logic in this theory? Where is the gain? And what consequence is likely? Wouldn’t EVERY enemy America use such a film to denounce the war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Wouldn’t EVERY militant Muslim group point to such a film to gain recruits and funds? Wouldn’t every terrorist use such propaganda to incite attacks against Americans everywhere in the world?

And I have to consider how different the actions of liberals today are from the actions of liberals during Viet Nam. How much support is shown by retreating from the fight now? How much respect is given to those that VOLUNTEERED to fight in IRAQ? How much confidence are we inspiring as congressmen and women seek to enact restrictions that would prevent soldiers from protecting themselves [part of the recent bill passed by 218 congressmen and women requires that there must be a 15 day prior notice to Congress before any troops can be moved into Iraq. Thus is troops need support from the air, they would need to wait 15 days to get a C130 in with supplies. This is a fact not a supposition. Read page 72 of the bill.] I wonder how long it will be before ultra-liberals call the troops baby-killers as they did to those that returned from Viet Nam.

These are things I wonder and see. What about you?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, Twin Towers, Viet Nam

So I’m sitting back and I start to wonder. I wonder about a lot of things when I have a free moment. I like to look at the logic of things and follow them to their logical most probable outcome. Perhaps it could (and has) be called mental masturbation. Tell me what you think of my musings.

I think about global warming. I wonder what was the temperature of the world in 1492, or 500, or 1776, or even 1865. There is no answer, though there are several guesses by very intelligent people that refuse to say “I don’t know.” I wonder how many people were alive in the world at those times. I’m quite sure there were less than what is in the world today. Half a billion? 2 billion? Who knows. But if the number is set at say 1 billion in 1492, just to have a fixed number, I wonder how much more CO2 has been created by human beings breathing and living as we grew to the estimated 6+ billion today.

I wonder how much CO2 will magically disappear if every source of fossil fuels were ended today. How might food get transported around the world, or homes heated, or lights for the darkness without the fuel? I question if CO2 levels will continue to rise when the world hits 7 billion people breathing and living.

I ponder the fact that if weather is cyclic for the planet, nothing we do will change the weather. I ponder how much of an effect the moon is having on weather patterns as it continues to slowly escape the orbit of the earth.

I have to consider whether or not the removal of every soldier in Iraq will stabilize that nation. I have to believe that anyone that can make a strategy to play any video game, from Resident Evil to The Sims, should be able to understand that if there is an absolute date set for the retreat of our troops, any enemies to our nation would just wait till that day to take serious action in that power vacuum. I consider the thought that if we retreat every child, brother, sister, mother, father and other person that has lost someone in this war will be an easy recruit for anyone blaming their loss and any other ills in Iraq on the retreating U.S. troops. I consider the reaction of every anti-American nation on the day the last solider leaves and Al Quida and other groups claim they forced America to run away from them; similar in the way Hamas has claimed they beat Israel in their recent conflict. I come to a conclusion that while the soldiers sent home will be safe from fighting a war away from home, this will only be temporary as some group or nation takes the retreat as a sign of cowardice and weakness and attacks the nation. I conclude that a citizen will be a larger target when traveling away from home as fear of reaction is lessened, and the thought of long-term action is minimized. I am lead to believe that this was the reason, at least in part, why the Twin Towers were attacked in the first place. Because the nation lacked the resolve to finish a fight.

I have to stop and consider that there is no direct connection between the 9/11 attack and the start of the war in Iraq. I understand that that point is moot though, as we are fighting in Iraq. It may not have been the war we should have fought, but it is the war we are fighting. And it will be a fight that will influence future terrorist attacks here at home and abroad in the future. Arguments about the start of the war are useless in resolving the war itself. Seems obvious.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Afghanistan War, global warming, Iraq War, Twin Towers