Principle of Honor

It should come to no surprise that the man who declared his Presidency would be defined by being a “Uniter not a Divider” and then used every opportunity that presented itself to divide America would spit on the tradition of the Office of the Presidency when traveling abroad.

While I have thought his actions were born of incompetence, I am slowly coming to the realization that Mr. Bush is an evil man.  Not because I disagree with his actions, which I do, but because his motivations are  seem to stem from a desire to promote himself at the expense of the country that he swore an Oath to his God to protect.  Mr. Bush has not only failed to do protect this country, but has actively taken steps to insure that it remain in a vulnerable state in order to deliver himself a second term, and his party political control.

Mr. Bush seems to take delight in surprising his political opponents by taking measures that one would presume would be off limits.  For a lame duck President give a speech on the foolishness of his party’s political opponents proposed tactics or direction they wish to proceed is fairly commonplace.  For a President to do so while addressing a Foreign Government, on Foreign Soil, at the celebration of an Ally’s Memorable Anniversary is contemptible.  For Mr. Bush to invoke the Nazi experience to a Nation that was founded by the survivors of the Horrors of the Holocaust, proves that Mr. Bush indeed has no morals in the pursuit of his Party’s power.

It was a speech that should have negated the message of Bin Laden, who is held as unaccountable for his crimes as it seems Bush is.  Bin Laden used the anniversary of Israels 60th year to legitimize the ideology that Israel is an occupier of Palestinian Land.  As such he and those of his ilk would continue to fight the Israeli’s and of course the Americans.

Mr. Bush who had decided that Bin Laden is not as large a threat to the United States as a weakened dictator in Iraq.  This same Mr. Bush has now deemed that a Democratic President is more dangerous to the United States rather than the enemies that we face.  Perhaps if Mr. Bush pursued Al Qaeda with the intensity that he has sought to undermine the Constitution, perhaps we would not have to worry about being seen as weak for negotiating.

Then again if memory serves me correctly, it was the Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan who tuck tail and ran when Hezbollah attacked a Marine barracks in Lebanon, and was also willing to have negotiations with our enemy the Soviet Union, as well as his Presidential predecessors.  What Mr. Bush fails to understand, concede, or fathom is that by talking you lose nothing.  Now it is true that we should not speak with Hezbollah, or have high level contact with Hamas - but speaking with recognized, if not legitimate, governments opens channels to challenge ideology.

Perhaps the example can be made that the Israeli’s are much like the Iranians themselves, as Israel has a Palestinian population seeking independence, so too does Iran have to deal with a Kurdish population seeking their own independent and sovereign government.  What would the reaction be if Western Powers were to support the Kurdish movement?

The United States has been successful in engaging its enemies.  The successes in Foreign Policy proves this point.  The United States had engaged the Soviet Union politically and via proxy, militarily.  This led to the fall of a system that sought to minimize the individual and suppress the rights of Humanity.  The United States engaged China diplomatically, then economically and was able to call this burgeoning Super Power an ally of sorts.

Mr. Bush has been a catastrophic experience for our country, and has left a tainted mark upon the seal of the President.  It is a shame that as we close in on 8 years of his term, we have yet to witness him being Presidential.  Now it may be to late, but it would be nice if he acted as though he was aware of the Principle of Honor.

Response To a General

So here be the rantings of a crazy General whose support for all things Bush are very amusing.  My rebuttal follows his letter, so ahve fun reading.

BY: JIM CASH, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.

I recently wrote about the war in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islam, eliciting a number of responses. Let me try and put this conflict in proper perspective.

Understand, the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger than just Iraq . What happens in the next year will affect this country and how our kids and grandkids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond. Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the seventh century. They have been defeated in the past and decimated t o the point of taking hundreds of years to recover. But they can never be totally defeated.
Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates that in time they recover and attempt to dominate again.

There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to the West. Two, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, just need firm pressure from the West to make major reforms. They need to decide who they are really going to support and commit to that
support. That answer is simple. They both will support who they think will hang in there until the end, and win. We are not sending very good signals in that
direction right now, thanks to the Democrats.

The other six, Afghanistan, I raq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya will require regime change or a major policy shift. Now, let’s look more closely.

Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but are being fueled by outsiders from Syria and Iran. We have scared Qaddafi’s pants off, and he has given up his quest for nuclear we apons, so I don’t think Libya is now a threat.

North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying them off. They are starving. That leaves Syria and Iran. Syria is like a frightened puppy. Without the support of Iran they will join the stronger side. So where does that leave us? Sooner or later, we are going to be forced to confront Iran , and it better be before they gain nuclear capability.

In 1989 I served as a Command Director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex located in Colorado Springs, Colorado for almost three years. My job there was to
observe (through classified means) every missile shot anywhere in the world and assess if it was a threat to the US or Canada . If any shot was threatening to
either nation I had only minutes to advise the President, as he had only minutes to respond.

I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at each other every day, and all day, for months. They killed hundreds of thousands of their people. Know why? They were fighting for control of the Middle East and that enormous oil supply.

At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and could care less about toppling the west. Oil prices were fairly stable and we could not see an immediate threat. Well, the worst part of what we have done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with the military capability of one of those nations. Now, Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them. They have turned their attention to the only other threat to their dominance, they are convinced they will win, because the US is so divided, and the Democrats (who now control Congress and may control the Presidency in 200 have openly said we are pulling out.

Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their support to Iran , which they will obviously do if we pull out? It is not the price of oil we will have to worry about. Oil WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE to this country at any price. I personally
would vote for any presidential candidate who did what JFK did with the space program; dec lare a goal to bring this country to total energy independence in a decade.

Yes, it is about oil. The economy in this country will totally die if that Middle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a recession. It will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the “good-old-days”. The bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over.

One way or another, Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community. It may mean a real war - if so, now is the time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age.

I urge you to read the book “END GAME” by two of our best Middle East experts, true American patriots and retired military generals, Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney. They are our finest, and totally honest in their assessment of why victory in the Middle East is so important, and how it can be won. Proceeds for the book go directly to memorial fund for our fallen soldiers who served the country during the war on terror. You can find that book by going to the internet through Stand-up America at www.ospreyradio.us or www.rightalk.com.

On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today, who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on ranting and raving about the war. They are wrong, and doing the country great harm by giving a certain political party reason to use them as experts to back their anti-war claims.

You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible enough to support our going to war. If that is the case I should stop here, as th at level of thinking approaches mental disability in this day and age. It is right up there with alien abductions and high altitude seeding through government aircraft contrails. I helped produced those contrails for almost 30 years, and I can assure you we were not
seeding the atmosphere. The human race is a war-like population, and if a country is not willing to protect itself, it deserves the consequences. Nuff-said!!!

Now, my last comments will get to the nerve. They will be on politics. I am not a Republican. And, George Bush has made enough mistakes as President to insure my feelings about that for the rest of my life. However, the Democratic Party has moved so far left, they have made me support those farther to the right. I am a conservative who totally supports the Constitution of this country. The only difference between the United States and the S outh American, third world, dictator infested and ever-changing South
American governments, is our US Constitution.

This Republic (note I did not say Democracy) is the longest standing the world has ever known, but it is vulnerable. It would take so little to change it through economic upheaval. There was a time when politicians could disagree, but still work together.
We are past that time, and that is the initial step toward the downfall of our form of government. I think that many view Bush-hating as payback time. The Republicans hated the Clinton ’s and now the Democrats hate Bush. So, both parties are putting their hate toward willingness to do anything for political dominance to include lying and always taking the opposite stand just for the sake of being opposed.

JUST HOW GOOD IS THAT FOR OUR COUNTRY?
In my lifetime, after serving in uniform for Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Ca rter, Reagan, and Bush I have a pretty good feel for which party supported our military, and what military life was like under each of their terms. And, let me assure you that times were best under the Republicans.

Service under Jimmy Carter was devastating for all branches of the military. And, Ronald Regan was truly a salvation. You can choose to listen to enriched newscasters, and foolish people like John Murtha (he is no war hero), Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Jane Fonda , Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and on-and-on to include the true fools in Hollywood if you like. If you do, your conclusions will be totall y wrong.

The reason that I write, appear on radio talk shows, and do everything I can to denounce those people is simple. THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR THIRST FOR POLITICAL POWER AND QUEST FOR VICTORY IN 2008 ABOVE WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY. I cannot abide that. Pelosi clearly defied the Logan Act by going to Syria , which should have lead to imprisonment of three years and a heavy fine.

Jane Fonda did more to prolong the Vietnam war longer than any other human being (as acknowledged by Ho Chi Minh in his writing before he died). She truly should
have been indicted for treason, along with her radical husband, Tom Hayden, and forced to pay the consequences.

This country has started to soften by not enforcing its laws, which is another indication of a Republic about to fall. All Democrats, al ong with the Hollywood elite, are sending us headlong into a total defeat in the Middle East, which will finally give Iran total dominance in the region. A lack of oil in the near future will be the final straw that dooms this Republic. However, if we refuse to let this happen and really get serious about an energy self-sufficiency program, this can be avoided. I am afraid, however, that we are going in the opposite direction.

If we elect Hillary Clinton and a Democrat-controlled congress, and they carry through with allowing Iran to take control of the Middle East, continue to refuse development of nuclear energy, refuse to allow drilling for new oil, and continue to do nothing but oppose everything Bush, it will be over in terms of what we view as the good life in the USA.

Now, do I think that all who do not support the war are un-American … of course not. They just do not understand the importance of total victory in that region.

Another failure of George Bush is his inability to explain to the American people why we are there, and why we MUST win. By the way, it is not a war. It is martial law that is under attack by Iranian and Syrian outside influences, and there is a difference.

So, what do I believe? What is the bottom line? I will simply say that the Democratic Party has fielded the foulest, power hungry, anti-country, self absorbed group of individuals that I have observed in my lifetime. Our educational system is partially to blame for allowing the mass of America to be taken in by this group.

To win wars, you must put boots on the ground. When you put boots on the ground, soldiers are going to die. A President must make the war decision wisely, and insure that the cause is right before using his last political option.

However, CONTROLLING IRAN AND DEMOCRATIZING THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE ONLY CHOICE IF WE ARE HELL- BENT ON DEPENDING ON THEM FOR OUR FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS.

-Rebuttal-

The fact that this Gen. now resides in Montana offers a clue to his being out of touch. However his criticism of the Democratic Party is largely misplaced. The dynamic that was existent within the Middle East was that Iraq was the check upon the natural hegemony that Iran is within the region. The area is called the “Persian” Gulf rather than the “Arabic” Gulf for a reason.

While he is correct in the assessment that the war on terror is larger than Iraq it was the neo-cons that decided that settling an old score against an old enemy was more important than the country’s self interest. The build-up to the war was filled with talk of how short the war would have been, and the memories of the immense success in Dessert Storm was very much fresh in the mind of the American people.

It was easier to strike at an enemy that we knew was located, rather than looking for a true threat. This was the political gamble the Bush Administration took, hoping to give Bush the second term his father never received. The proper respect and did not consider unintended consequences. This would include the actions that Iran’s government would take with the United States having a field army in both countries that border Iran.

That would of course be to use their influence within the Shia’ population in Iraq, in order to bog down the US army having to deal with insurgent attacks, which were what the Viet-Con used to great effect in the Vietnam War. This would also consist of the Israeli Military taking preventive against Hezbollah in Lebanon, leading to the current situation where civil war is boiling over once again in Lebanon. Not to mention the “alliance” between North Korea and the Syrian government taking the shape of a Nuclear Facility in Syria.

The war in Iraq has weakened our position because of the damage to both our credibility to the danger that Fundamental Islam does represent to the World. It has also given the Iranian government the benefit of getting rid of a rival that they have faced since the Islamic Republic was founded, and hopes that they may institute such a government in Iraq, and the Middle East.

This was a problem that both parties had a share of, the Republicans for pushing for such an arrogant and misinformed plan, and the Democrats who did nothing to oppose it.

As for “Democrats getting even” so far as hating Bush, it was the Republicans that likened Max Cleland, a man that lost three limbs while serving in Vietnam, to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, by a man that never served in the military.

The deficiency of the Republican Party, has been their desire to claim Lincoln, but not follow his words, “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it”. Rather the Neo-Con ideology is that because we are the Super Power we are able to do as we wish.

The situation we face is because of the lack of diligence of the Bush Administration to craft a workable policy, and the weakness of the Republican Members of Congress, who cared more of preserving Republican Unity rather than the Balance of Power that was mandated by the Constitution they claim to wish to preserve.

The Democrats, as seen by Clinton having more legislation passed with a Republican Congress, are much less built for party unity as they are representative of the various diversity that is the United States. It was the Bush Administration’s duty to make not only the case for war, but to make sure the American People would be supportive despite casualties.

Pick Your Spots

Someone needs to tell President Bush to shut up.  His credibility has reached the point that if he told me that sticking a fork in my eye would be painful, I would have to seriously contemplate that eyes were actually immune to pain.

Bush is now stomping through Europe attending the NATO meetings and is actively getting in his own way, by opening his lying yap.  The two most contentious aspects of Bush’s goals would be getting more troops in order to secure Afghanistan, the place that actually had Al Qaeda, and getting the Eastern European countries Ukraine and Georgia -the country not the state- into NATO.

These are good things.  Getting troops into the area that has terrorists and actually was responsible for the training of hijackers is necessary and one of the more responsible aspects of leadership that Bush has, accidentally I am sure, come across.  But it comes across as he is an incompetent boob, that messed up Afghanistan by a premature invasion of Iraq.

The man who spurned advice, caution, and strategy is now asking for help to fix one of his many blunders.  Now I understand that Bush is used to dealing with an inept and partisan driven Congress that would give him whatever he wanted, but that is no longer his audience.

“The Uniter” is going to have to rely upon his ability to persuade and convince our allies that this the important fight of our times and that success is only achievable should we be united.  That of course would assume that Bush would have a personality transplant or be so doped up out of his mind that he becomes a decent human being.

The second aspect that he is fighting for is equally notable.   NATO was founded on the principle of providing Democracies within the sphere of Europe collective security.  To be sure that protection was against a militarily aggressive Soviet Union seeking to take advantage of post WWII Europe.

NATO has evolved with the times however and now provides collective security in an altogether sense.  It is important to note that political freedom is directly correlated with the level of security that the government faces.  Thus entry into NATO provides the necessary security blanket, that governments can allow the release of boundaries upon their citizens in order to achieve a more perfect type of democracy.

Even in our own history, when the fate of the Union has been threatened, rights of Americans have been infringed upon in order to maintain security of the state.   What Bush, of course, is failing to understand is the deep seeded historical feelings that exist between Russia and NATO, and the sentiments of Russian and its former Soviet Satellite States.

Politics is about give and take.  Bush can have his war, but he must pay for it - ok bad example.  Politics  should be about give and take.  Keeping with the topics Bushmust decide which is more important to the immediate interests of the United States, and tone down the rhetoric on the other one as an immediate crisis.

This would be especially true if the CITIZENS of the said countries are no where near a consensus on if joining NATO would be a good idea.  Since they are in the shadow of Russia they still have jobs, trade routes, family, WWII articles in common with mother Russia even if they hate her for all the abuse she handed out when they were growing up.

This would especially true of the Ukraine who had a great number of their troops be sent to Afghanistan when they were still part of the Soviet Union and got killed when Tom Hanks - Charlie Wilson- messed it all up by sending stinger missiles.

It comes off that Bush is expecting Eastern Europeans to bail him out of a mistake that hubris doesn’t win wars.  I will give him credit that it does win him elections, but then the military doesn’t have to write letters to families of soldiers killed in elections.  So Bush…Pick Your Spots

Fade to Black

It strikes me that people in the Media, and Presidential Campaigns say how “complicated” the situation is in Iraq.  Perhaps this is because they believe the American people are so stupid that they cannot handle plot lines that are more complicated than Heroes, but then the ratings for that craptastic show are better than voter turnout now isn’t it?

The best way to understand Iraq is to understand the motives of the players involved.  Then we can formulate a plan to either fix the problems, or get the hell out of there and let countries deal with their own problems, its not like the oil prices will go down no matter what we do - and the oil profits seem to be rising as well guess they need more subsidies.

What follows are the motivations behind where we are now-

The United States - the Prime motivation for invading Iraq was to get George W. Bush a second term as President of the United States.  American’s are very hesitant to switch horses mid stream in a war no matter how how poorly things are going initially.  Reference Abe Lincoln and FDR, even LBJ perhaps would have received a new term, but decided not to run.

The secondary motivation was for the US to look tough.  The terrorist attacks shocked and were a decidedly large PR hit to the vulnerability to the lone Hegemon -Greek word meaning ultimate badass- on the globe.  Knocking out Afghanistan wasn’t all that impressive cause nobody knew where it was.  Even knowing that the Soviet Union couldn’t do what we did was no longer impressive because as it turns out nobody is impressed with what a dead empire did 30 years ago.

The last motivation was to make all the Arabs play nice and bring peace to an are of the world that has either been at war with itself, or war with the outside world, since God kicked Adam out of the garden of Eden.  Then it turned out that not all Arabs are the same and there are different dialects, ethnicities, religions, and we have a huge pile of mess with burning oil on the side.  The goal then became to stabilize it enough to go after Iran.

Great Britain-  Great Britai’s motivations fall squarely on the shoulders of one Tony Blair.  Prime Minister Blair has at his core the fundamental belief that International Organizations such as NATO, and the UN, can only be effective as organizations if they carry the credibility of force should mandates not be followed.  This point can be directly seen as to the British forces involvement in the military strikes against Serbia during the Clinton Administration.

US forces, namely politicians, were not interested in the least of having another Somalia situation where the death of 29 soldiers by combat related incidents caused huge uproars and demands that our forces be pulled - ironic now that in Iraq that total has topped 4,000- and the Republican Party criticized our forces even being present in Serbia because -meddling in other countries affairs is not the role of the United States- As such US forces were relegated to backup positions and air support.

It was the British forces that took the responsibility to carry out front line  operations and suffer the casualties that were inevitable.  So that the teeth of NATO could be seen in order to strengthen the resolve of the newly formed Countries caused by the fall of the Soviet Union.

Iraq -  The motivations that got Iraq invaded was Saddam Hussein making the right decisions, but at the wrong time.  Invading Kuwait was the correct decision, given the circumstances presented at the time.  The current President of the United States was the Vice President to Ronald Reagan- who had given aid to Iraq in its war with Iran due to the hostage situation that embarrassed the United States.  The same Ronald Reagan who was President when a terrorist organization in Lebanan- Hezbollah - attacked a Marine Barracks killing 241 American Service Men- and responded with complete withdrawal.  Ronald Reagan the Cold Warrior - became a cut and runner.

We must also place into context  that Kuwait was one of the only Arabic states who was pro-Soviet Union rather than pro-America during the Cold War.  Thus, one would assume that the United States would not be terribly beholden to keep said country form being invaded.  Combined with the US Ambassador April Glaspie, who told Saddam in a conversation, “We have no opinion in Arab-Arab conflicts”and “the Kuwait issue is not associated with America” -both of which come from transcripts published by the New York Times September 23rd 1990 issue-

This was an almost clear green light, and the tanks rolled and the world was shocked.  Saddam got his tail whipped, but still clung to power through intimidation of force and WMD.  That was his only card in keeping power in an area where assassinations, and coups are not all uncommon.  But Republicans who wanted to conquer the land of Babylon, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz- were determined to finish what they started.

Iran -  Iran’s motivations are actually quite simple.  They are the third Axis of Evil, and they have on either side of their border a country that was invaded and still holds large numbers of US military personnel.  Having the possession of neither Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear weapons that would deter a US invasion, it is in their best interest to keep Iraq an utter disaster to literally keep the US occupied and unable to advance on Iranian soil.

The trick is that it would be devastating to Iran should Iraq fall apart for a variety of reasons.  The first of which is, nobody likes large number of immigrants and a dissolved Iraq would bring thousands to the door step of Tehran.  Second, Iran has a large Kurdish population that borders Iraq’s own Kurd population and would be deeply concerned the two would attempt a merger, and that would be unacceptable.  The third reason is that since the Iranian Revolution, the Mullahs have seen Iraq as the Gateway to export their Islamic Republic system throughout the Middle East, for it to disintegrate would be a fundamental blow for that goal.

Saudi Arabia - As the self seen leader of the Middle East because of the possession of the 2nd and 3rd most holy cities in all of Islam - Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia seeks to be the champion of the Sunni Islam.  They also realize that with the Saudi family’s close relationship with the United States, they would be a prime target for the Export of an Islamic Republic form of government should Iraq fall.  Thus to keep that from happening they too try to keep the flames of unrest burning, while not seeking to break the balance of power so the country dissolves.  This turns Iraq into a proxy war in much the same way Africa and Asia was between the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war.

Shia-  the European way of doing things was to put the minority population in charge of the majority through the giving of advanced weaponry money and placing certain rules on who can and cannot do something.  Apartheid was an extreme form of this legacy and was why the Sunni population was in control in Iraq.  The problem becomes that when you have no job, responsibility, money- the only thing to do is have babies, and then that majority becomes a lot bigger, and a lot more bitter.

Fast forward through the brutal nature that Saddam held onto power with, and you have a population itching to get some level of payback for all the past humiliation and the like.  It would be like giving Reverend Jeremiah Wright and a bunch of his friends truck loads of guns and saying, “work out your aggression now”.  They now want a piece of the pie and want to make up for the years of being ostracized and give the Sunni a taste of their own medicine.

Sunni -  Having just read that, the Sunni want to keep from being subjected to the same level of degradation they heaped on the Shia counterparts.  They don’t have the numbers to outright win a civil war, but do have the level of sophistication to make it very bloody and drawn out, almost to make the Shia believe they could win.  Power is a wonderful thing, and the Sunni have been at the front of the line gulping it down for a while, so they of course want to hold on to at least enough to make sure they still get a large oil money check.

Kurds - The Kurds want what it seems every ethnic group wants these days, to be an independent country.  The problem they face however is that such a country is not always viable, they were conquered at some point for a reason after all, and will need the assurances of the United States protection to even have a chance.  Having a longstanding terrorist group dedicated to unifying land that currently belongs to Turkey, doesn’t aid their cause.  So they seek to be the good soldiers waiting patiently and helping when they can to show they had intentions of making it work, and thus deserve a legitimate shot of independence.

Turkey - Once known as the Ottoman Empire that controlled all of the Middle East and was a rival to the great Empires of Europe, Turkey has drawn a line in the sand that no more territory will be stripped from their control.  This makes the statement Iraqi Kurds have said they are a part of “Southern Kurdistan” raised the question of where they think northern Kurdistan would be since that territory is Turkish.  Thus they are adamant that the Kurds remain a part of Iraq, as well as attempting to quell their own Kurdish independence problem.

There you go, the motivations and characters involved in Iraq.  I tried to use small words that even our President could use, so I will now…Fade to Black

Back Again

It is amazing the various things that can alleviate the undercurrent of pent up frustration, and thus distract from the necessary angst to supply the information provided on this site.  Meeting an interesting Chick, finding all of the hidden skulls on HALO 3, killing Arabs/Russians on Call of Duty 4 and Army of Two.  A sense of serenity takes hold and the world doesn’t seem as stupid and pointless - then of course one hears about the ultimatum set by the Iraqi “government” and it all comes crashing down.

The interesting chick turns out to be, not all that interested- the quest to find all terminal locations on HALO 3 needs to be started, and eventually killing Arabs/Russians becomes not entertainment or self preservation, but more of a muddle some task- I was as surprised as Israel at this revelation.

To fully understand the futility of the meaningless …or else statement issued by Washington- I mean Baghdad to the Shia’ militias is to gain insight into the stereotypical views of Middle Eastern culture.  Arabic culture takes on the premise that if you talk a good game and look tough, you will avoid the inevitable ass whipping they will receive.

To prove this point, as it is still the Easter season, a parable is in order, possibly even two.  In the waining days of the ‘91 Persian Gulf War, which is to say a couple days after it started, their were pockets of Iraqi forces that were camped out - and were told by their US counter parts to “Leave the area without your weapons by 9am or at 9:05 we will come in there and kill you.”

The Arab generals of course puffed their chest and replied with great zeal, “We will leave when we are prepared no earlier than noon, with all of our equipment and at a pace of our choosing.” This made the US officials smile and gently laugh among one another.  The US general then reiterated, “No, you will leave by 9 or we will come in there and kill all of you by 9:30.”

The Arabs then looked at one another, conversed, and replied, “In that case we will be gone by 7.”

This is the major culture clash that exists between the Middle East and Western civilizations.   By and large when Western Nations speak about invasions, military actions they follow through.  Arabic governments do not.  The reason for this in my mind, is that Western nations can afford to have a functioning, equipped, and competent military without fear of them taking over the country in a coup.  Arab nations do not have that luxury- and thus have the most dysfunctional, underfunded, group of muppets as there armed services.

To demonstrate this let us examine the Israeli experience.  Jews that had migrated before WWII, or had survived the Holocaust, were defend not even half of the land they currently posses, against the combined forces of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, as well as a presence from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.  To survive against such an alliance is to be impressed, but for the Israeli military to EXPAND the territory that would fly the star of David against such a force is a true accomplishment.

Surely the questions in your minds go something like this, “Oh great disperser of the true knowledge if this is the case - why are groups like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, or Hamas so hard for Western Powers such as Israel and the United States to stamp out.  The answer is that these organizations are run like Western Armies, only the fanaticism in their cause is notched up a bit, and the moral qualms are diluted.

For example, the leadership of Al Qaeda is not worried that the fighters they train to become martyrs will take part in an insurrection against them and take over their positions by execution.  There is a hierarchy within these organizations, as well as an indoctrination program to get these people all thinking of the cause, and not the actual planning of these events.

These men fight for a cause greater than themselves, and are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to see that the job is done, and seek to destroy as much of the enemy as they can- such a definition could refer to any number of Hollywood action movie protagonists.  In a moral vacuum it could refer to the enemy that we fight so valiantly today.

The greatest failing of the Bush Administration and the likely McCain Administration, is the inability either by desire, understanding, arrogance, or contempt, of making the Islamic world know- and believe that this fight is not in a moral vacuum.  Killing civilians by design is not the moral equivalent of  killing civilians through collateral damage.  That merely saying one is following the “words” of Allah does not make it so.  To challenge the Islamic world to truly define the Nature of Allah as best as mere mortals can, whether it would be a being of understanding or hate.  To put the terrorists on the defensive not only on the battlefield, but ideologically as well.

Republicans often bemoan the fact that Reagan the God-King is no longer present in their party.  Perhaps they are lucky, for the inevitable question would be asked of the Iraqi’s “Are you better off now than you were five years ago?”  When the violence of Saddam Hussein was at least predictable and avoidable, as opposed to now, when the violence is unavoidable and unpredictable, and a proud people must look to an occupying force for safety.  I for one would think Reagan would be ashamed…

Yippy Hippy

If there is one thing that can bug me more than religious conservatives, Christian and Muslim, it is the ideological mistake that spawned Hippies. Flower power is nothing more than turning sunlight and carbon dioxide into oxygen, and who amongst us needs that? (Guess that will get me in trouble with Virescent)

The latest consternation I have with the useless hippies is the new doucheness coming out of Berkley. While enjoying the most liberal of ridiculous policies because of the college, which for a time had a naked Indian, Native American, walking around campus, has decided to target the Marines as evil. (then of course the excess of commas will tick of Conservative Amazon-which is a misnomer)

As if planted by agents of FOX news, this douche giveses gives perfect ammo to show how ridiculous people are on the left by claiming the Marine recruiters are bad and somehow a threat to the community. Their stupid excuse is that this is a protest against the war, rather than the protests that hippies had in the Vietnam era where they called military people baby killers. (I guess that lack of coherent logic makes sense if you smoke a half ton of weed before breakfast)

They then have a 14 year old girl speak at the town meeting, my guess is that a 14 year old girl has a lot of experience in dealing with life and all its hardships, that they “Don’t hate America, but they hate war.” Well good for you, most everybody hates war. Those who don’t are usually gun runners or crazy.

What I don’t get is the “Conflict never solved anything.” bull Huckabee, that these idiots preach. Conflict solves a lot of things, it can sprout new problems when you don’t do it right, we should probably ask the leadership at Carthage their opinion, oh wait- they don’t exist because the Romans killed them. Bad Romans, don’t you know that violence never solved anything?

We should then speak to the Iriqios Nation exist as a buffer between the US and Canada, well shucks again, they don’t exist cause we beat them repeatedly with the help of fake treaties. Maybe we can speak to the Confederate States of America what their opinion is on the subject- damn when will I learn, they lost- and are now voting for Huckabee, so I guess the South may indeed “Rise Again“.

Lets also remember that we didn’t hear a peep outta the Balkans, that place in Europe where Republicans said it was treasonous for Bill Clinton to commit troops in attempting to bring democracy to a place rich with ethnic and religious conflict- nothing like the history of Iraq- when the Soviets were running the joint, mostly because if any group started messing with the other one, they all got run over by Soviet tanks. Being iron fisted is should not exist in all cases, but there are times when it is necessary. When dealing with the Middle East it probably should be the default mode.

Lets be clear war can be a brutal terrible thing to experience, especially when the leaders who are entrusted with the public trust betray that pact by having a shotty plan with no thoughts of troop withdrawal, Damn you Truman! But it is at times necessary, acknowledging the horrors that exist and making the decision knowing that their sacrifice will mean more than ones reelection. Stupid Jefferson. (UVA-ers cringe, while VA-Techers, well hell they can’t read so they can’t be mad at me)

What I am saying is this you disgusting little maggots out there in the Mary Jane smoking, hemp wearing, non bathing, French loving, Valentine’s day celebrating, Obama crushing, but McCain voting, terrorist pitying, nativity scene stealing, non football playing, dodge ball boycotting, tag promotes isolation saying, crapshoot of a town in Berkeley is that it may be your town, but it is our country- so appreciate the sacrifices those Marines accept so that you can be Yippy Skippy

Change For Changes Sake

If there is one thing that we should learn from surviving the Bush Presidency, it is that not everything one’s predecessor did is necessarily bad thing.  Clinton’s rice for calming down the North Korea nuclear program kept the country from thumbing its nose on the grand and public scale of global politics.

Bush canceling the program because North Korea would cheat on the program every now and again to make sure the food would keep coming, was a stark warning sign of how little he knew about global policies and his role as President in dealing with them.

There are certain parts of the world where change, no matter how badly needed by outside influence, cannot be changed through military intervention.  This would include all three parts of the “Axis of Evil”, as well as Africa.  (Africa is included because as famine, genocide, and an aids epidemic sweep the country-nobody seems to care so long as they teach abstinence and don’t have abortions)

North Korea has the protection from their “comrades” in China, as well as their cousins in South Korea.  China still harbors feelings of inadequacy and is uncomfortable having a democracy right on its border, and it knows that should North Korea fall, they will receive immigrants by the bucket load, and they don’t want them.

South Korea wants to keep the North propped up because of the economics involved.  Sure, they will receive immigrants too, but then the possibility of reunification will come to surface, and despite the rhetoric, nobody in the South wants that.   The reasons for this are simple especially when we look at the other example of reunification last century, Germany.

The evil, diabolic, swine infested pinko commie bastards, here to will be referred to as “Russians”, they at least provided East Germany with some sort of infrastructure.  They had roads, schools, buildings, and a really impressive wall.  Germany is still recovering economically from absorbing that half of the country.  North Korea is basically a couple of cities and farmland.  The costs of absorbing would set South Korea back generations.

The other parts of the Axis of Evil we have history.   Aparently the United States was an integrel part of the crusades.  Which I find surprising because if it were true, the Middle East would have been conquered centuries ago and not be the flea infested kitty litter box it is today.

What the next President needs to take from the Bush experiment is that having someone unstable and uncompromising is not a terrible thing.  Sure he can’t have any real power, but it is nice to be able to keep our enemies concerned.  The way we tinker this, is have someone with that personality, that actually knows what they are doing.

Threatening to invade and then do air strikes.   Though I w was thoroughly disappointed with the shock and awe that took place at the opening of Bush’s War.  This is what is good about Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, they are freking crazy lunatics.  You don’t give them any REAL influence, but they keep people on their toes.

“Speak softly and carry a big stick” was the foreign policy by Teddy Roosevelt,  and it worked for many years because it understood both the global environment and the United States role in it.  The next President needs to take us back to a policy that can do the same.

Diplomacy is a tool that can only be effective when applied with leverage.   While this leverage need not be a nuclear weapon being detonated upon Mecca and Medina, pointing out the option usually gets one’s attention and shows how serious the situation now is.  Economic benefits, military contracts, hosting the Olympics are all tools that can be used to gain that leverage.

It should also be pointed out that Peace for the sake of Peace is incorrect policy as well.  While there are moral absolutes in almost any field, Global policy is the least affected, as the shades of gray are numerous. These are not easy decisions, for no matter what you decide people die.   It is the next President’s job to determine where, what nationality, and how many.

Controlled aggression, just like in poker and love, is often rewarded in global politics.   Where one gets into trouble is when we are over come by our passions, and allow aggression to go unchecked.  Influenced by God, Power, Fearlessness, Principles, or unresolved father issues, we are now living through what can happen when the desire for change goes too far.

The definition of insanity is to repeat the same cycle of decisions, and expect different results.  Change is necessary and sometimes painful.  What this country needs now is to adapt, which can be even more intimidating.  What we cannot do, is Change For Changes Sake.

Democratic Downer

Well after an interesting and entertaining, albeit misleading, State of the Union Address by the President Bush the Democrats laid a big giant egg on the rebuttal.

While the Pelosi era as Speaker has been historic, being the first woman speaker, what it has served to prove is why chicks haven’t obtained that high of an office in the past.

The Armenian Genocide bill she pushed for was a fantastic failure of wrong place, wrong time, and wrong messenger.  That decision pails however in her decision on who to have give the democratic response to the President’s speech last night.

The first thing that came to mind was how vastly the Democrats underestimated the overall tone of the Presidents speech, and how unfamiliar people from Kansas are with teleprompters.  The only thing I remember from the response was the awkward pauses while the teleprompter catches up.

Its not too surprising since Kansas doesn’t believe in electricity, or running water, because it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and is therefore a tool of the desolate one.  They are also the home of that Crackpot Baptist church that protests at US soldiers funerals and chanting that God desired their death.

The tone of the Democratic response was one of timidness and uncertainty.  In these times of color coded warnings, that is not acceptable.  American’s require boldness, and sometimes informed boldness, in their leaders.

Telling the country that they would do what Bush did not: giving the military the tools to get the job done, not supporting blanket immunity for Mercenaries, and not seeking to circumvent treaties dealing with torture, would have been a much better speech.

Republicans have painted the Democratic party as tree hugging, skinny cause they are vegan, glasses wearing, dodge ball fearing, educationally elitist, don’t like to kiss girls(unless they are fat chick interns) gay marrying, pansy asses.  One does not counter that argument by having a timid housewife who got to be governor of a state nobody cares about because her daddy was a governor too.

That is what you call proving your enemies point.  Republicans don’t have a misinformed, gun toting, bible thumping, Nascar loving, cow tipping,  sentence butchering, Kentucky Fried Chicken eating, baboon give their speeches do they?  Well sometimes they do, but they also have assertive, crazy, some people think are hot, chicks talk too.

The point is you have to have a tough guy or gal give the counter arguments to Bush these days or you re-enforce his legacy seeking at any cost to the men and women of the armed services.  Going quietly into that good night is not something this Cowboy will do, no matter the timid desires of the Democrats.  All that will lead to is a McCain Presidency and a Democratic Downer.

Sunni or Later -

This may have come as a shock to many of you, as over the last seven years I have, perhaps as you, been confused and perplexed at the various positions and direction that the Bush Administration has taken, and I fear I have that familiar feeling again.

After his trip to Israel, Bush stopped by our very trustworthy Allies in Saudi Arabia, then promptly dropped a $20 Billion contract for weapons to the Kingdom. This of course is to maintain Saudi Arabia as a regional check on the Iranian bid for power. It just seems odd that Bush feels nothing but contempt for checks and balances stated by the Constitution at home, yet thinks it can work in the Persian Gulf.

The United States has benefited greatly from its hard work tenacity, idealistic principles, and quite frankly stupid opponents. Miscalculating their advantages and misunderstanding the circumstances that surrounded the military engagements throughout our history.

Enumerating this list would take more work than I am able to do, since it is a dreary Monday.  Suffice it to say that a great deal of luck benefited the United States at very critical moments in our history.  Luck, however is a fickle mistress, and her retributions can be harsh.

Providing weapons to Islamic people who wish to drive off a common enemy of both the United States and the Islamic people we are aiding did not go particularly well in Afghanistan.  Despite the knowledge/Faith/Hope that God was on our noble side.

So we are now giving more aid to the country that 15 of 19 hijackers were born and raised on.  A country whose government is founded upon the spiritual clout of the Wahabi Islamic teachings, the back to the old way style of Islam.

All of this to put a strangle hold on Iran, who by my reckoning does not have nuclear weapons, and yet we do nothing with regard to Pakistan, or North Korea, that do have nuclear weapons.   Bush’s own rhetoric is the driving force for a country that is ideologically opposed to US interests, to gain the technological check on American influence in the region.

I wish I could see the world through Bush’s eyes and in that way gain an insight on what it is h is trying to accomplish.  I could understand Tony Blair, and see the vision he was attempting to bring to life.  But then I am the worst of all things: a moderate liberal,  articulate when I want to be, cynical in our battered political system, and growing more apathetic to its false hope of change.  Its got to get better, Sunni or Later.

Peace In Our Time

Well I don’t know about you, but I am definitely feeling so much better about the idea of peace in the Middle East.  With a President that has been so correct on diagnosing and applying policy to critical questions that have faced our country, it is safe to say that President Bush knows exactly what he is talking about.

One may look to his many successes on the foreign policy front, and you must stare in awe at the keenness of his eye, and the sharpness of his intellect.  While so many others have failed to bring prestige across the globe for the United States, President Bush has truly shined.

With the United States military finding the arsenal of Biological and Chemical weapons bunker in Iraq, which had a total payload of 200 million tons, keeping these weapons from potential terrorist was indeed a huge success for this administration.

This is of course ignoring the great embrace that the Iraqi people have shown towards Coalition Military units.  Showering before them as they travel the streets of Baghdad  and through the country with flowers of praise and thanks.  The Iraqi people have truly embraced democracy, a fact shown by the professional way that the trial of Saddam Hussein was conducted, and the eventual outcome of his imprisonment for life, rather than the death penalty.

When combined with the capture trial and eventual execution of Osama Bin Laden, as well as 7 of his ten highest ranking members, the War in Afghanistan will truly go down in History as the most successful reprisal of terrorist actions.  Having been one of the most disadvantaged countries since the beginning of the Mongol Empire, the ability of Afghanistan to turn their backs on opium farming and build the foundation for a capitalistic democratic country that serves as an example to the world the power of personal worth.

These successes served as the tipping point to finally be able to normalize relations  with Iran, and be a driving force to bring the Islamic Republic on the world stage as a peaceful member of the global community.  Having concluded that nuclear energy is no longer necessary for their countries national defense, President Ahmenijihad has canceled the fledgling nuclear program and has desires to act as an emissary of Peace to the people of North Korea.

While the only snag has been the persistence of the North Korean government to only close down one of their nuclear facilities, signals have been sent by Kim Jung Il, that he is willing to participate in regional talks without limitations or restrictions.   Should this be the worst outcome that President Bush’s Administration faces, history will truly be able to place him in the conversation of one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever had.

Though the accomplishments do not stop there.  Through the unique friendship that exists between President Bush and out going President Putin, Russia has transformed itself into a truly democratic society that stands as a champion of the rule of law, economic transparity,  while being a calming influence of change upon Asia.

By that same token, Saudi Arabia has also embraced the unique position that they have by being at the epicenter of two of the three most important cities in the Islamic world.  thorough interfaith dialogues initiated by the President the Wahabi teachers have embraced a reformation of Islam that seeks to rid itself of the negative stereotypes and speak to the true essence of the Prophet Muhammad.

The places that have experienced the greatest change in the Political landscape because of this outcome have been of course, the peace agreement and nuclear disarmaments treaties that now exist between India and Pakistan, and the purpose of this post, Israel and Palestine.

This has been the Presidents first trip to the country of Israel, and he has had talks with the leaders of both the Palestinian Authority, as well as the Prime Minister of Israel.  Mr. Bush has proclaimed that he feels that a deal of peace may be struck within this his last year of his Presidency.

With the economy rolling along strong, and New Orleans back to its former glory is is little wonder that the House of Representatives introduced a Constitutional Amendment seeking to abolish the limits on the number of terms that a President may serve.  President Bush declined and spoke against this amendment of  course, by saying that, “One man, one Party, One President, can never be greater than the Whole of our Country, while today’s media seeks to praise me, it is truly the principles of our country that has made these successes possible.”

So when the elections in November comes around, the nation will surely morn the loss of one of its most influential leaders, and a truly golden era as our country has elevated itself to new heights of prosperity and prestige.   One may only hope that the tradition of this President may continue as the endorsed Candidate Mike Huckabee seems poised to lead us into the future.  A future where we will truly have Peace In Our Time.