In an anti-government rally in Moscow the police swarmed in and put their sights on Kasparov. Kasparov is famous enough as an international chess champion that he is seen as a major target by Putin's government. I think that with this election will show just how calculating and thought out Putin has been in trying to return Russia to the Soviet Union. This is an election that most Americans do not even know is taking place much less paying any attention to, however this election will have broad implications for the United States and her interests globally.
We sit here and rant about the bickering between our candidates, as well we should but we need to be aware of the politics of other countries as well. And right now the political events in Pakistan and Russia are just as important as our own. What happens in the upcoming election in Russia may well set the stage for some challenges in our own political future.
Putin has been strategically aligning himself against us without creating too much friction and he has been able to do this because for the most part the mainstream media here in the US does not support the current administration and therefore does not blast any head of state when they speak out against our government. When reports make it to the headlines about other heads of states speaking against our own it is presented more as a see how wrong you are report against our government instead of as offense against all Americans.
One of the things that we have to realize as Americans is that our opponents look at us collectively and put us all in the same stereo-type, unlike us where we separate the government from the people. When our enemies attack us they do not concern themselves with the collateral damage that they may cause, the ends always justifies the means. So we need to keep that in mind when we see and hear the opposition speak against us.
We need to look at the larger pictures sometimes before we take hard fast stands based on 2 minute sound-bites. We are a global power living in an international environment, we cannot be an isolationist nation it will not work and it will most definitely not improve our security.
30 November 2007
26 November 2007
And you call Bush stupid........
2 April 2007
What happened to the days when elected officials considered it a duty and honor to SERVE society? When you were elected to an office because you were respected and trusted? When you didn't worry about re-election and always did your best to do what was right? When being a politician was in addition to your career or profession or job? When you didn't do the job for power or money or a stepping-stone? Where have all the TRUE heroes gone? Where have all the GREAT role models gone? Where have leaders with morals gone? Why is it that our best people are not on Capitol Hill? Why is it that as citizens and voters we do not demand better from our lawmakers? Why did we allow peace to make us soft? Why did we allow prosperity to make us lazy? Why are we not concerned about the citizens of the world? When did we change our perspective from the world beginning at the end of our nose to the world ending at the end of our nose?
"It makes no sense for politicians in Washington, D.C., to be dictating arbitrary timelines for our military commanders in a war zone 6,000 miles away," Bush said.
The above statement is very accurate, however politicians are so power hungry and greedy that they do not concern themselves with petty issues like reality.
If the bill becomes law, "our enemies in Iraq would simply have to mark their calendars," Bush said.
This statement seems to be very out of the realm of comprehension of the minds of Congress. It must be nice to live in such a fantasyland. Where you can play with people's lives without the ramifications of dealing with the consequences of your actions. Hey, here is one that we should think about—wonder if the politicians would be so keen to set a pull-out date if after said date, we divided Iraq into geographic sections and assigned one of the supporters of the troop pull-out to each section and every time that someone in that section was killed or injured by insurgents then the assigned politician would loose the same number of persons from their family/friend circle. By the way their family/friend circle would also include their biggest financial supporters, as we really want them to feel some pain. Wonder if even the mere thought of possibly losing members of these lists would give them the incentive to be more realistic in their assessment of how and when our troops leave Iraq. It would certainly show which ones even have a shadow of a heart within their breasts. Then we could tell them every time that they loose someone that we support their job as politician, we just don't support their decision for a troop pullout, because as they say they support the troops just not the war. Somehow I don't think that they would buy our support, do you? But we could tell them that our support for them is just as real as their support for our troops; nothing like salting a wound when it is fresh and bleeding.
What happened to the days when elected officials considered it a duty and honor to SERVE society? When you were elected to an office because you were respected and trusted? When you didn't worry about re-election and always did your best to do what was right? When being a politician was in addition to your career or profession or job? When you didn't do the job for power or money or a stepping-stone? Where have all the TRUE heroes gone? Where have all the GREAT role models gone? Where have leaders with morals gone? Why is it that our best people are not on Capitol Hill? Why is it that as citizens and voters we do not demand better from our lawmakers? Why did we allow peace to make us soft? Why did we allow prosperity to make us lazy? Why are we not concerned about the citizens of the world? When did we change our perspective from the world beginning at the end of our nose to the world ending at the end of our nose?
Deadly Day in South Florida
14 September 2007
Yesterday was not a good day in South Florida.
We had 4 law enforcement officers shot here. That brings the total in the last 10 weeks to 6 locally and at least 7 statewide. According to the Department of Justice more law enforcement officers were shot in the first 6 months of this year than in all last year. (There were 48 officers killed in the line of duty in 2006. That was 7 fewer than in 2005.)
It has been a rough summer for the boys in blue here in paradise. Broward County had two deputies shot in less than 10 days, one fatally and the other still hospitalized with a severe head injury. Then right on the heels of these events a deputy was shot in the Tampa area.
But yesterday was the worst day since 1976, 4 Miami-Dade officers were shot making a traffic stop while working a burgalry detail. The suspect, Shawn Labeet exited his vehicle and fired his AK-47 multiple times, hitting all 4 officers. One officer was fatally wounded, one seriously wounded and the other two were treated and released.
As can be expected the incident and ensuing manhunt was the focus of all of South Florida yesterday. The media was sent chasing leads and stories across two counties, in the end there would be 5 crime scenes and another shoot-out. Late last night law enforcement cornered Labeet in a Pembrook Pines apartment complex. A shoot-out ensued that left Labeet fatally wounded. While the result is a victory for law enforcement it will bring little relief to the families left behind.
All three shootings here in South Florida were law enforcement officers doing routine duties, stopping a driver running red lights/stop signs, approaching a vehicle in a drug store parking lot, and stopping a vehicle that was driving erraticately. This series of recent events highlights that even the most routine events in law enforcement can be deadly. But the more pressing issue is the complete disregard for peace officers and law that these individuals displayed.
Two of the shooters had extensive records, one that while showed a total disregard for authority did not show violent behavior. The other was wanted on an outstanding warrant for aggravated assualt with a deadly weapon. And the third suspect is an unknown.
How did this happen? Why were these persons on the street to begin with? It is my opinion that the courts are to blame. There is way too much poliltics in the court room. If you commit a crime, especially a violent one, like aggravated assualt with a deadly weapon, you should not be walking the streets. And before the excuse of over crowded jails is brought up--which is a whole other blog topic--put them on house arrest then, but keep them off the streets. Violent offenders should not be out on the streets they should be detained by any means available till their court date. And we as citzens need to support our law enforcement agencies by demanding that the courts get tougher on violent offenders.
Let that be the legacy that these fallen officers leave behind.
Yesterday was not a good day in South Florida.
We had 4 law enforcement officers shot here. That brings the total in the last 10 weeks to 6 locally and at least 7 statewide. According to the Department of Justice more law enforcement officers were shot in the first 6 months of this year than in all last year. (There were 48 officers killed in the line of duty in 2006. That was 7 fewer than in 2005.)
It has been a rough summer for the boys in blue here in paradise. Broward County had two deputies shot in less than 10 days, one fatally and the other still hospitalized with a severe head injury. Then right on the heels of these events a deputy was shot in the Tampa area.
But yesterday was the worst day since 1976, 4 Miami-Dade officers were shot making a traffic stop while working a burgalry detail. The suspect, Shawn Labeet exited his vehicle and fired his AK-47 multiple times, hitting all 4 officers. One officer was fatally wounded, one seriously wounded and the other two were treated and released.
As can be expected the incident and ensuing manhunt was the focus of all of South Florida yesterday. The media was sent chasing leads and stories across two counties, in the end there would be 5 crime scenes and another shoot-out. Late last night law enforcement cornered Labeet in a Pembrook Pines apartment complex. A shoot-out ensued that left Labeet fatally wounded. While the result is a victory for law enforcement it will bring little relief to the families left behind.
All three shootings here in South Florida were law enforcement officers doing routine duties, stopping a driver running red lights/stop signs, approaching a vehicle in a drug store parking lot, and stopping a vehicle that was driving erraticately. This series of recent events highlights that even the most routine events in law enforcement can be deadly. But the more pressing issue is the complete disregard for peace officers and law that these individuals displayed.
Two of the shooters had extensive records, one that while showed a total disregard for authority did not show violent behavior. The other was wanted on an outstanding warrant for aggravated assualt with a deadly weapon. And the third suspect is an unknown.
How did this happen? Why were these persons on the street to begin with? It is my opinion that the courts are to blame. There is way too much poliltics in the court room. If you commit a crime, especially a violent one, like aggravated assualt with a deadly weapon, you should not be walking the streets. And before the excuse of over crowded jails is brought up--which is a whole other blog topic--put them on house arrest then, but keep them off the streets. Violent offenders should not be out on the streets they should be detained by any means available till their court date. And we as citzens need to support our law enforcement agencies by demanding that the courts get tougher on violent offenders.
Let that be the legacy that these fallen officers leave behind.
Who is held to higher standards?
27 August 2007
Well the breaking news right now is that Gonzales is resigning.........
And the big deal is that less than 10 federal prosecutors may have been fired for political reasons. Oh, BOO HOO!!!! I got news for you that is what happens when you work for elected officals. It might suck, it might be wrong, but it is the way politics works and until the American society decides that this is wrong it is acceptable.
Hum, didnt Clinton fire almost 200 federal prosecutors? Which top offical resigned over that? Better yet who screamed foul in that political move?
And when faced with this comparison, then you hear that Gonzales might have misled Congress when he testified about the firings and other issues.
Hum, what was it that then President Clinton said on national TV and again in a sworn deposition in a CRIMINAL investigation (not a Congressional fact finding probe)? Oh yeah, I didnt have sexual relations with that woman!!! He sat in the same chair that the acts occured in and didnt even have the balls to name Monica by name (because as a politican and lawyer he knows that if you give her a name then you make her a person and invoke feelings).
I missed Clinton's resignation, oh yeah that is right he didnt resign!!!!!!!!
Dont get me wrong I think that most of our politicians dont deserve our trust.
But wrong is wrong regardless of which political party you belong to. But it is amazing how the democratic slant of the media makes it a haven for misdeeds by those members of the democratic party and turns into the Spanish Inquistition for any perceived wrong doing by a member of the republican party.
So much for journalism bringing truth to the American people and holding the government accountable for the actions of ALL its members.
Well the breaking news right now is that Gonzales is resigning.........
And the big deal is that less than 10 federal prosecutors may have been fired for political reasons. Oh, BOO HOO!!!! I got news for you that is what happens when you work for elected officals. It might suck, it might be wrong, but it is the way politics works and until the American society decides that this is wrong it is acceptable.
Hum, didnt Clinton fire almost 200 federal prosecutors? Which top offical resigned over that? Better yet who screamed foul in that political move?
And when faced with this comparison, then you hear that Gonzales might have misled Congress when he testified about the firings and other issues.
Hum, what was it that then President Clinton said on national TV and again in a sworn deposition in a CRIMINAL investigation (not a Congressional fact finding probe)? Oh yeah, I didnt have sexual relations with that woman!!! He sat in the same chair that the acts occured in and didnt even have the balls to name Monica by name (because as a politican and lawyer he knows that if you give her a name then you make her a person and invoke feelings).
I missed Clinton's resignation, oh yeah that is right he didnt resign!!!!!!!!
Dont get me wrong I think that most of our politicians dont deserve our trust.
But wrong is wrong regardless of which political party you belong to. But it is amazing how the democratic slant of the media makes it a haven for misdeeds by those members of the democratic party and turns into the Spanish Inquistition for any perceived wrong doing by a member of the republican party.
So much for journalism bringing truth to the American people and holding the government accountable for the actions of ALL its members.
Obama visits Miami.........
27 August 2007
Obama chose to voice his ideas for a new policy towards Cuba in the same auditorium that Ronald Regan announced imposing strict bans on travel and economic relations with the communist regime. Miami is home to many Cuban exiles and there are strong emotions with reguard to Cuba - America relations.
I think it is obvious to state that the Cuban-American community wants the communist regime toppled. If there is any divergence it is in how to accomplish this. For years there has been very strict bans on travel and even stricter restrictions on economic relations with the country or industries within the country. The reason behind this was to devastate the economy and there by facilitate a collaspe of the ruling government. Well, while well intended we did not acheive the goal we wanted. So maybe it is time that we step back and take another look at how to achieve a better enviroment, economic and political, for Cuba and her people.
Obama would like to see and ease in travel restrictions and the economic policy eased to make it easier for Cuban-Americans to send money to relatives still in Cuba. These are small steps that with the current climate might help shift the regime just a little our way. And with Chavez trying to buy Cuban alliance with Fidel, we cant afford to be stubborn and close-minded on this issue. And this is not a Miaimi or Florida issue; what happens in Cuba affects the whole region and impacts the world.
America can not be an isolationist country or we will be a country defeated.
Obama chose to voice his ideas for a new policy towards Cuba in the same auditorium that Ronald Regan announced imposing strict bans on travel and economic relations with the communist regime. Miami is home to many Cuban exiles and there are strong emotions with reguard to Cuba - America relations.
I think it is obvious to state that the Cuban-American community wants the communist regime toppled. If there is any divergence it is in how to accomplish this. For years there has been very strict bans on travel and even stricter restrictions on economic relations with the country or industries within the country. The reason behind this was to devastate the economy and there by facilitate a collaspe of the ruling government. Well, while well intended we did not acheive the goal we wanted. So maybe it is time that we step back and take another look at how to achieve a better enviroment, economic and political, for Cuba and her people.
Obama would like to see and ease in travel restrictions and the economic policy eased to make it easier for Cuban-Americans to send money to relatives still in Cuba. These are small steps that with the current climate might help shift the regime just a little our way. And with Chavez trying to buy Cuban alliance with Fidel, we cant afford to be stubborn and close-minded on this issue. And this is not a Miaimi or Florida issue; what happens in Cuba affects the whole region and impacts the world.
America can not be an isolationist country or we will be a country defeated.
Chavez socialism is abusive relationship.......
26 August 2007
As I have been reading the articles concerning Hugo Chavez and his antics -- I keep telling myself that this is an abusive relationship. If you start with the begining and follow through to now- Chavez' rise to power has been a step by step climb taken from any DV relationship.
Over a decade ago this charming, charismatic hero appeared on the scene. And he said all the right things and acted the part of the answer to all the prayers of the poor, the weak, and the disinfrancised. He was able to gather the energy of their hopes and dreams and used it to secure power for himself. Then he appeared to be true to his word as he nationalized industries and created jobs. The people saw these things as being great. What they didnt see was Chavez arresting opposition and spreading propaganda to create the basis that he needed to stay in power. He created the US as an evil villian that he and he alone could protect Venezuela and the rest of South America from. He made loud and rude comments about America, he arrested and threw out Americans that he labeled as spies. With his control of the state run media it was easy for him to create a completely false vision of himself for the people of Venezuela.
He has created a dependency of the Venezuelan people on his power. He has convinced them they need him, when the reality is the opposite. He has convinced them that they would be nothing without him, the same as any abuser. Now he is going to rewrite the constitiution so that he can consolidate power and increase his tyranny. He is a smart and cunning man-he is a danger to the peace and stability of Latin America and the world. And just like with an abusive relationship if the victim (the Venezuelean people) is not seperated from the abuser the results will be fatal.
As I have been reading the articles concerning Hugo Chavez and his antics -- I keep telling myself that this is an abusive relationship. If you start with the begining and follow through to now- Chavez' rise to power has been a step by step climb taken from any DV relationship.
Over a decade ago this charming, charismatic hero appeared on the scene. And he said all the right things and acted the part of the answer to all the prayers of the poor, the weak, and the disinfrancised. He was able to gather the energy of their hopes and dreams and used it to secure power for himself. Then he appeared to be true to his word as he nationalized industries and created jobs. The people saw these things as being great. What they didnt see was Chavez arresting opposition and spreading propaganda to create the basis that he needed to stay in power. He created the US as an evil villian that he and he alone could protect Venezuela and the rest of South America from. He made loud and rude comments about America, he arrested and threw out Americans that he labeled as spies. With his control of the state run media it was easy for him to create a completely false vision of himself for the people of Venezuela.
He has created a dependency of the Venezuelan people on his power. He has convinced them they need him, when the reality is the opposite. He has convinced them that they would be nothing without him, the same as any abuser. Now he is going to rewrite the constitiution so that he can consolidate power and increase his tyranny. He is a smart and cunning man-he is a danger to the peace and stability of Latin America and the world. And just like with an abusive relationship if the victim (the Venezuelean people) is not seperated from the abuser the results will be fatal.
Throw Us Under the Bus, Please!!!!
12 March 2007
If it were up to the Democrats we would still be under terrorist attacks, because they would not have pushed for any retaliation, except for maybe a UN resolution calling the acts uncivilized. Yeah, that is what we should have done, whined to the UN that Usama was not playing nice, that the Taliban were supporting terrorism and encouraging attacks against innocent civilians. Yes that is ALL that should have been done and then in 10 or 15 years after the current Democrats had left public office the next generation of leaders would have been left to clean up the mess that would have grown exponentially unchecked in that time. What a wonderful thought, what a nice legacy to leave our children!
So the Democrats are showing their support for our troops once again. Setting a pull out date, how nice of them. They still don't get it. You cannot give deadlines to the enemy. Could you be any more anti-troops than that? They might as well hand the insurgents copies of all our mission plans and defense capabilities. Hell, why not just sign a surrender agreement right now. Maybe we should put all the supporters of the troop pull out on a plane send them to Iraq and let them go to every school and every clinic and every village and tell every innocent civilian that we are going to bail on them again.
And NO we do not have the troops to protect your visits to these villages and schools and clinics, take your chances; you are peace loving enlightened intellectuals that understand the insurgents and are civilized enough to reason with them so you have no need for military escorts!!!!!
That would show the world that they can count on us; that we have backbone and the stomach to go the long haul. NOT!
I just get more and more irritated with the Democrats every time they shoot their mouths off. The problem is that they are so anti-Bush and anti-Republican that they don't even look at the issues or the big pictures. All they want to do is show that they went against Bush that they were on the opposite side of the argument with the Republicans.
What is it with Democrats that being against Republicans and Bush is more important that doing the best thing for national security and interests? Why would they cut off their nose to spite their face? Why is it that they are more concerned about one detail than the bigger picture? How is it that they only know how to be reactive and never proactive? Why is it that they never want to prevent something but only pick up the pieces after and then only if they cant get someone else to do it and only if it wont hurt too bad.
What happened to the true Democrats? FDR must be so disappointed in his party today; even JFK had a better grasp of world politics and international relations than any of the Democrats in Congress today.
If it were up to the Democrats we would still be under terrorist attacks, because they would not have pushed for any retaliation, except for maybe a UN resolution calling the acts uncivilized. Yeah, that is what we should have done, whined to the UN that Usama was not playing nice, that the Taliban were supporting terrorism and encouraging attacks against innocent civilians. Yes that is ALL that should have been done and then in 10 or 15 years after the current Democrats had left public office the next generation of leaders would have been left to clean up the mess that would have grown exponentially unchecked in that time. What a wonderful thought, what a nice legacy to leave our children!
With Allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
17 February 2007
If you have not been paying close attention to world politics and activities then you may not be aware of the detrimental actions of two of our 'best' Muslim allies. The end result will be that we will have a harder time achieving our goals in the region and insuring a secure existence for our country and her interests abroad.
There has been intelligence and rumors, as well as, covert actions by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, at least as far back as the mid '90's that should give a reason for pause when it comes to depending on these 'allies' to do their part to help defeat terrorism. Both countries independently have supported terror organizations and extremists views of Islam. Not only have these countries allowed extremist views and organizations to flourish within their borders, they have also funded and supported extremist and terror groups internationally.
The Saudi royals have long been known to provide moneys and other support to radical Islamic movements to help change the political climates of other countries. The facts are that Saudi Arabia produces a large number of international terrorists. Most of the suicide bombers in the GWOT have been of Saudi nationality. Not only were most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudi, but also based on which group you site, between 40% and 60% of the suicide bombers in the Iraqi Insurgency are Saudi. When the FBI arrested one of Al Qaeda's top persons in Faisalabad, according to General Posner, he stated that his primary contacts in Saudi Arabia included three princes of the royal family. The irony of this revelation is that those three princes, as well as the named contact within the Pakistani government, all died within a very short time of the respective governments being notified of the information.
The U.S. was caught between a rock and a hard spot, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were needed to have any success in the GWOT, yet, the truth of the matter is that they are largely responsible for the enemies that we fight in that war. The choice was made by the U.S. that our need for these regional, strategic partners was greater than our ability to wage any effective attack against Afghanistan or Iraq without them.
So do we have control over these 'allies', and do they have any form of allegiance to us in this war? Our control or influence over these allies is more limited than we would like to imagine as can be seen in recent events between the two countries when Gen. Pervez Musharraf made a recent official visit to the Kingdom. This visit was a stop on a tour of 5 capitals in the region, but was of the most notice for what went on behind the scenes. The Pakistani President and the Saudi King meet in secret for 3 hours and then in a ceremony the King awarded Musharraf with the King Abdul Aziz Award. Also brokered in this visit was "an epic accord of 7 secret clauses on the terms in which Pakistan would make nuclear weapons available to, and sell, Saudi Arabia nuclear-capable missiles."
We have the makings of some very precarious moments in the future. There is a common theory that the royal family and Gen. Pervez Musharraf walk political tightropes in their respective countries, yet if things continue globally down the road that they are on right now, it will be the United States that finds itself on an international tightrope without the preverbal saftey net.
Friend or Foe? What day of the week is it?
13 February 2007
We must step up and complete our missions in Iraq and A'stan, we must accomplish some form of lasting stability so that we can reassess our footprint and take a clear and unbiased view of the world as a whole to insure our security and the security of our interests abroad. And we must do this before Putin and his Russia make their move!
Determining who our friends are and who they are not is becoming more and more difficult. It really is almost a day-by-day roster of who wants what from us. If someone wants something from us, money, aid, influence, weapons, protection, defense then they do their best to kiss our ass. But if they are not getting anything or what they want from us then heaven help us in their media. It is amazing how the world wants us to become just and honorable and fair when they are not getting what they want. World leaders and international media rip our country and our policies to shreds and then turn around in the same breath and kiss our ass looking for a hand out or bale out. God, love their honor and justice!!
It is hard to believe that in the last 30 years, there were very clear sides with the Cold War in full swing. The Iron Curtain divided Europe. South America, Africa and Asia were up for grabs. And the grabbing went on and on and the Super Powers were played by warlords and tribal chiefs that could barely read and write if at all. Now in the 21st century we have the mess of our making but only one super power cleaning it up.
But what will the future hold? Putin has his ambition in full swing and high gear, he sees his time for making his moves and we have given him the room and the backing to do it.
Looking closely at the internal politics of Russia you can see the old order rising out of the dust like the phoenix out of the ashes. Putin blocks our moves every chance he gets; however, he has been careful not to slap us fully in the face. And here we are war weary, tired and ready to go back to being self-indulged and instantly gratified. We are right were Putin and the world wants us and our own media has made it easy for them to get us here.
Our own media slams our administration every chance that it gets, they pump out a liberal agenda that screams socialism and even feigns on communism, failing to realize or admit that if either of those schools of thought took over here in this country their own freedom to slam the government would cease to exist. Maybe we should start a new program, since the academic institutions seem to have such a love affair with socialism and communism, I propose that all senior year journalism students should have to intern in a communist society. They should have to live, eat and breathe journalism in a communist country. They should be required to sign a wavier that if anything happens to them in that year, they are on their own, if they become imprisoned, executed, assassinated or if they just disappear it is just life. Wonder if that would impress upon any of them the true value of freedom of press?
The media especially has become so yellow that they have forgotten that with freedoms does come a certain amount of responsibility. They seem less inclined to verify the accuracy of charges against people if what they have supports their agenda. And no longer is the media's agenda one of informing the public of the facts of the events that have impact on their readers and the world around them. No the media's agenda is that of forming opinions and creating thought patterns that promote the climate and social conditions to create the atmosphere that they desire.
This lack of concern for their responsibility to the public and our society has made them the perfect bedfellows for our enemies. Terrorists have learned to wage war in the media when they cannot win it on the ground. Our fair-weather allies have learned to use the media to their advantage also. Both know that our MSM will promote to our public that America is an evil empire that attacks countries for oil, and ignores the requests of the civilized world to keep our 'war mongering' troops in check. And where are the reports about the atrocities committed by the insurgents or the taliban, they are far and few between? Where are the stories in the media about the real reasons that our 'allies' wanted us to show restraint with Iraq and now with Iran? Where are the sound bites by Putin that show his intentional isolation form the west?
Well, I can help the media out with that one, Putin has been quoting Czar Alexander III; the quote is, Russia has only two allies -- the army and the navy. This is something of notice to Russia's own citizen,, but not to MSM here. The state run media in Russia is creating the condition for a self-imposed isolation and also creating an image of the enemy. The common people of Russia are again being conditioned to believe that it is them against the world.
We can't afford to fight GWOT and another Cold War at the same time, and Russia cannot control the terrorists, nor can she defeat the terrorists. It is my opinion that Russia is sitting back and hoping that the GWOT will so strain our resources and military that in the near future they will be able to step in and gain control and influence on a wider scale than they ever imagined under Stalin. I don't think that they have the capacity to understand the mentality of the enemy nor do they have the ability to influence the actions of their own bedfellows that will have to arise for them to have what they are yearning for.
We must step up and complete our missions in Iraq and A'stan, we must accomplish some form of lasting stability so that we can reassess our footprint and take a clear and unbiased view of the world as a whole to insure our security and the security of our interests abroad. And we must do this before Putin and his Russia make their move!
Put up the Walls Boys!!!!!
14 January 2007
Well the NEW Iraq plan is out and everyone is grabbing hold of the troop increase!!! I love the way a whole plan is discussed and MSM grabs one detail and runs with it!!!!!
If you only needed ONE piece of the puzzle to make everything work, then it would be a picture and not a puzzle!
There are, however, other aspects to the plan. One of the other plans is to divide Baghdad into zones and wall them off. Then sweep them of insurgents and terrorists and militias. After they are swept then maintain that security for the citizens in the zones. This could be a daunting task.
Personally, however, I think that the idea of Baghdad being divided up into 9 zones and being 'walled' off and dealt with, is a good one. There is at least one area in Baghdad that has done that for months now under the direction of the elders of the neighborhood (see Salam Pax's video blog). This area is one of the safest areas in Baghdad.
The 'cleaning up' of these zones will fall to the Iraqi Army. There will be units brought in from the north to relieve the 6th, 8th, and 9th divisions that currently maintain the Baghdad AO.
I completely love the idea that the units of the IA that will be brought in to do this house cleaning are the ones that are majority Kurdish, that will deflate the fact that Sunnis are after Shiites and Shiites are after Sunnis. This will also eliminate the concept that the mostly Shiite Iraqi Army will not forcefully go after the Shiite militias. The word is that the units will NOT answer to Iraqi Military Headquarters. This means that they will be free to do the job and do it right.
This plan was used in Tall Afar and was successful. Now it is time to clean up Baghdad and let the peaceful citizens of the city get on with their lives and get on with building a better Iraq for ALL Iraqis. It will become the American military's job to go in after the IA has 'cleaned' the area and maintain the security and rebuild the area so that infrastructure is up and running and increase the job market.
This can go a long way towards decreasing violence and civil strife in the immediate future. The lasting effects will depend on how successful the sweeps are and how well the Iraqi government demonstrates after the 'clean up' that it will be a unified government for a unified Iraq. I think that the ONE MUST DO in the sweeps, to insure that the success is long lasting, will be the removal of Al Sadr. As long as Al Sadr remains there will be friction and violence and strife. So on the lists of things that MUST BE accomplished, the removal of Al Sadr must be Number 1. There are basically no alternatives, the down side to this is that his removal will make him a 'martyr' and that is going to create some fallout. However, it will be easier to handle the fallout than it will be to allow him to remain. If Al Sadr is removed and the sweeps remove all elements of insurgency within the city and the infrastructure gets up and running completely and the job market picks up then Al Sadr's martyrdom will be short lived. Iraqis are like most other people they are mostly concerned with their families, so if they are finding jobs and earning money and increasing their standard of living and secure without the militias they will not be openly influenced by the 'martyr'.
So I say bring in the troops and let the Kurds show Baghdad how it can be and should be!!! It will be interesting to see what the next few months holds for the citizens of Baghdad and I for one am hoping that they finally get on the forward path.
A Message to Iran and Syria………
12 January 2007
President Bush unveiled his new strategy for Iraq and in it he did not extend an olive branch to Syria or Iran. Good on him!
According to Iran and Syria they are and always have been innocent. Yeah, right!
Now I do have to say that I don't think we should totally or completely isolate them as Bush alluded to. I think that we should have face-to-face meetings with them and put it all on the table. This is they way that meeting should go………
We are not here to offer you any compromise.
We are not here to ask for your blessing.
We are not here to ask for your permission.
We are not here to ask for your assistance.
We are not here to negotiate.
Here is what we are here for;
You will secure your borders.
You will stop sending in insurgents.
You will stop supplying weapons.
You will stop supplying money.
You will stop supplying bodies.
You will stop promoting violence.
Failure to comply with the above mentioned statements.
(Yes, they are statements and not requests.)
Will, not may, but WILL result in reprisals.
We will close any "HOLES" in your borders.
We will bomb ANY suspected logistical locations supporting the insurgents regardless of their location.
We will freeze ALL assets of ANY suspected insurgent funders.
We will eliminate ANY insurgents within the borders of Iraq.
We will attack and counter attack ALL forms of civil strife that the insurgents promote.
Have a nice day.
When is enough enough?
8 January 2007
I was reading about the new Polish Archbishop and the Rev. Janusz Bielanski of Warsaw that resigned over their "cooperation" with secret police in Communist Poland. And it made me wonder, when is enough enough?I mean there are still people that are hunting down WWII war criminals. Now, before someone thinks I either dont believe that the holocaust happened or that I dont think that what happened was awful, I do. But, I also think that justice has been served. At some point you have to let go.
The argument against Warsaw Archbishop Stanislaw Wielgus, is that he cooperated with Polish Secret Police during the Communist rule. Their basis is that he signed a piece of paper that said that he would. This paper had to be signed before he would be permitted to travel to West Germany to study. Now, Im thinking that if I were a young person in communist Poland and all I have to do to get a chance to leave and go to West Germany to study is sign a piece of paper that states that I will cooperate with the secret police, Im signing and getting the h#*$ out of Dodge!!!!!!
We have here jurisprudence in our legal system that allows for a legal defense of duress or coercion.
Black's Law Dictionary(6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]."
I think that most normal people can look at the situation of Archbishop Stanislaw Wielgus and Rev. Bielanski and see duress and coercion.
To my knowledge there has been NO hard evidence brought against them where they gave information that led to the detention or death or disappearance of any persons. I also have not seen any reports that they has been 'unlawfull' or 'illegal' in any other manner. And it is this point that I am leading to.If you have men that did or participated or said 'evil' or 'bad' things while trying to survive in a society that was a state of constant duress and coercion, how can you truly blame and try and hold accountable every single individual of that society? Do not get me wrong, persons like Hess and Himmler and Mengele deserved to be hunted down and brought to trial. But, I do not think that every person that wore a German uniform or was a registered member of the Nazi party was a criminal nor should they be hunted down expecially years later.
Here is the way that I look at it if these persons were able to get out of Germany and in their new countries never commited criminal acts then I say give them the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe that truly bad people change and therefore if they were very willing participants they will do these things again and some of them did, but most of them did not.
Now back to the Archbishop Stanislaw Wielgus, so he signed a piece of paper so that he could leave an oppressed country for a breif time and study in an open society. He then returned to his counrty and served, well apparently, for many years and the thanks that he gets is that he is forced to resign over a peice of paper. A piece of paper that says what? That he agreed to at some time in the future to cooperate with the secret police? Would any of his accusers have shown more bravado at that same moment in time? How many others signed the same piece of paper? Where is the proof that he actually ever cooperated? Where are the list of names of people that he turned over? Where is the blood on his hands?
I think that the 'grudge' that is being held is unfair and unhealthy. I guess that you can say that it is human nature to hold a grudge against someone that has done you wrong and to a degree I understand that, but how do you hold a grudge against someone that has not wronged you personally? And why would you want to? I do not get this, but I know that I think differently. I do not hold grudges, not at all really. As I am typing this I am trying to think of any grudges that I hold and I am drawing a blank.
It is, however, not in one's best interest to hold a grudge. Why not, you ask? Because when we hold a grudge or hate someone then we act and do things based on that grudge or hate. What we are doing in essence is allowing the person or thing that we have a grudge against or hate to have power that they do not deserve. Think about it if you hold a grudge against someone or something then you will do things based soley on that -- such as if you hold a grudge against an ex and therefore because of this grudge you no longer socialize with mutual friends what have you gained? Nothing. You have lost. You have fewer friends, and the ex has power over you.
The same is true in this instant. The communist ideals still have a power over the people of Poland. At some point you have to let go of the hate and anger and hurt.
Do not forget the injustice; learn from it and prevent it from happening again. But do not let it consume your life, do not let it rule you, do not let it win.
I was reading about the new Polish Archbishop and the Rev. Janusz Bielanski of Warsaw that resigned over their "cooperation" with secret police in Communist Poland. And it made me wonder, when is enough enough?I mean there are still people that are hunting down WWII war criminals. Now, before someone thinks I either dont believe that the holocaust happened or that I dont think that what happened was awful, I do. But, I also think that justice has been served. At some point you have to let go.
The argument against Warsaw Archbishop Stanislaw Wielgus, is that he cooperated with Polish Secret Police during the Communist rule. Their basis is that he signed a piece of paper that said that he would. This paper had to be signed before he would be permitted to travel to West Germany to study. Now, Im thinking that if I were a young person in communist Poland and all I have to do to get a chance to leave and go to West Germany to study is sign a piece of paper that states that I will cooperate with the secret police, Im signing and getting the h#*$ out of Dodge!!!!!!
We have here jurisprudence in our legal system that allows for a legal defense of duress or coercion.
Black's Law Dictionary(6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]."
I think that most normal people can look at the situation of Archbishop Stanislaw Wielgus and Rev. Bielanski and see duress and coercion.
To my knowledge there has been NO hard evidence brought against them where they gave information that led to the detention or death or disappearance of any persons. I also have not seen any reports that they has been 'unlawfull' or 'illegal' in any other manner. And it is this point that I am leading to.If you have men that did or participated or said 'evil' or 'bad' things while trying to survive in a society that was a state of constant duress and coercion, how can you truly blame and try and hold accountable every single individual of that society? Do not get me wrong, persons like Hess and Himmler and Mengele deserved to be hunted down and brought to trial. But, I do not think that every person that wore a German uniform or was a registered member of the Nazi party was a criminal nor should they be hunted down expecially years later.
Here is the way that I look at it if these persons were able to get out of Germany and in their new countries never commited criminal acts then I say give them the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe that truly bad people change and therefore if they were very willing participants they will do these things again and some of them did, but most of them did not.
Now back to the Archbishop Stanislaw Wielgus, so he signed a piece of paper so that he could leave an oppressed country for a breif time and study in an open society. He then returned to his counrty and served, well apparently, for many years and the thanks that he gets is that he is forced to resign over a peice of paper. A piece of paper that says what? That he agreed to at some time in the future to cooperate with the secret police? Would any of his accusers have shown more bravado at that same moment in time? How many others signed the same piece of paper? Where is the proof that he actually ever cooperated? Where are the list of names of people that he turned over? Where is the blood on his hands?
I think that the 'grudge' that is being held is unfair and unhealthy. I guess that you can say that it is human nature to hold a grudge against someone that has done you wrong and to a degree I understand that, but how do you hold a grudge against someone that has not wronged you personally? And why would you want to? I do not get this, but I know that I think differently. I do not hold grudges, not at all really. As I am typing this I am trying to think of any grudges that I hold and I am drawing a blank.
It is, however, not in one's best interest to hold a grudge. Why not, you ask? Because when we hold a grudge or hate someone then we act and do things based on that grudge or hate. What we are doing in essence is allowing the person or thing that we have a grudge against or hate to have power that they do not deserve. Think about it if you hold a grudge against someone or something then you will do things based soley on that -- such as if you hold a grudge against an ex and therefore because of this grudge you no longer socialize with mutual friends what have you gained? Nothing. You have lost. You have fewer friends, and the ex has power over you.
The same is true in this instant. The communist ideals still have a power over the people of Poland. At some point you have to let go of the hate and anger and hurt.
Do not forget the injustice; learn from it and prevent it from happening again. But do not let it consume your life, do not let it rule you, do not let it win.
Dont Bite the Hand that Feeds you...........
7 December 2006
But by all means BITE the hand that attacks you!!!!
And starve it too!!!!!If we want to win the war in A'stan that is just what we need to do. We have to attack the WHOLE enemy. The Pentagon has been unhelpful in assisting with the opium problem in Afghanistan. "Military units in Afghanistan largely overlook drug bazaars, rebuff some requests to take U.S. drug agents on raids and do little to counter the organized crime syndicates shipping the drug to Europe, Asia and, increasingly, the United States, according to officials and documents." (Los Angeles Times, December 5, 2006, Pg. 1, Josh Meyer) However, that opium crop is the source of the bullets that kill our troops, the bombs that blow up our convoys, the surface to air weapons that attack our aircraft and the security that the Taliban enjoy, especially in the southern part of the country. It is the profit from the opium fields that provide the cash to secure loyalty, propaganda, intelligence, weapons and 'martyrs'.
During previous combat engagements we have carried out carpet bombing to destroy the infrastructure of the enemy, we have carried out selective target bombing to destroy the logistical resources of the enemy, we have even destroyed the headquarters of the arms dealers supplying our enemy (too bad that building was also the Chinese Embassy).
Now, I know that the purpose of our military is to defend and protect our country and its citizens, lands and interests from attack by enemies of the state, whether foreign or domestic. I, also, know that the method for doing so is to plan, execute and complete a military operation to achieve a military goal. And that our military leaders try to confine these military operations to a narrow scope with well defined goals and procedures. These methods are well suited for conventional warfare, however the GWOT is not conventional in any manner. The unconventional manner of the war on terror is such that not even the use of guerrilla tactics is enough to ensure mission completion.
Our military leaders have to do something, that for some may be a totally foreign concept to them; they have to think totally outside the box. However, along with thinking outside the box they have to keep in mind that we are fighting the terrorists and not become them. This can create a very complex and disconcerting issue for our leaders. We instill in our military leaders respect for life, morals while engaging the enemy, and conscience in planning, executing and completing the mission. We do not believe that the end is the justification for the means, that makes us who we are and we are not the terrorists.
Keeping that in mind I think that we need to expand our concept of how we defeat the enemy. The war that we are waging is like no other war we have fought in our history. The economic and media fronts are almost more important than the frontlines. We have to really appreciate the terror organizations ability to sell their cause to the masses and to use propaganda to recruit new members. We have to understand how cash is a weapon also. We have to learn to attack their cash flow just as we would a bomb making factory or the arms dealers headquarters. We have to eliminate their ability to exist.
We dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki not because we believed in the death of innocent civilians, but we made a tough choice--drop the bombs and kill numerous civilians to save multitudes more. This decision was not made lightly and did result in an earlier end to the war than would have been possible without the bombing. I think that we need to make another hard choice here with Afghanistan and the poppy fields -- I would not recommend dropping hydrogen bombs on the poppy fields, however I am thinking that napalm bombs or another ordnance that would achieve a similar goal, the quick and efficient destruction of a poppy field with as little collateral damage as possible, would be a smart choice in helping to prevent the future destruction of property and loss of life globally.
We have to look at the whole picture and the complete enemy. We have to remove their ability to recruit, publicize and attack. We have not been effective thus far in countering their offensives in the media or online and playing catch up at this point might bog us down in a true quagmire. However, if we remove their ability to produce, promote and distribute their ideals to open ears then we will shift the advantage in our favor. We have the advantage on the ground in the combat zones it is in the unconventional areas that we are losing the war. So the Pentagon needs to put their egos on the back burner grant the DEA's request for assistance in so much as they can to eliminate the poppy fields of Afghanistan. One or two sweeping operations whose goal is the complete destruction of cash crops of illegal substances in theater should effectively limit the enemies ability to mount a resistance of substance.
But by all means BITE the hand that attacks you!!!!
And starve it too!!!!!If we want to win the war in A'stan that is just what we need to do. We have to attack the WHOLE enemy. The Pentagon has been unhelpful in assisting with the opium problem in Afghanistan. "Military units in Afghanistan largely overlook drug bazaars, rebuff some requests to take U.S. drug agents on raids and do little to counter the organized crime syndicates shipping the drug to Europe, Asia and, increasingly, the United States, according to officials and documents." (Los Angeles Times, December 5, 2006, Pg. 1, Josh Meyer) However, that opium crop is the source of the bullets that kill our troops, the bombs that blow up our convoys, the surface to air weapons that attack our aircraft and the security that the Taliban enjoy, especially in the southern part of the country. It is the profit from the opium fields that provide the cash to secure loyalty, propaganda, intelligence, weapons and 'martyrs'.
During previous combat engagements we have carried out carpet bombing to destroy the infrastructure of the enemy, we have carried out selective target bombing to destroy the logistical resources of the enemy, we have even destroyed the headquarters of the arms dealers supplying our enemy (too bad that building was also the Chinese Embassy).
Now, I know that the purpose of our military is to defend and protect our country and its citizens, lands and interests from attack by enemies of the state, whether foreign or domestic. I, also, know that the method for doing so is to plan, execute and complete a military operation to achieve a military goal. And that our military leaders try to confine these military operations to a narrow scope with well defined goals and procedures. These methods are well suited for conventional warfare, however the GWOT is not conventional in any manner. The unconventional manner of the war on terror is such that not even the use of guerrilla tactics is enough to ensure mission completion.
Our military leaders have to do something, that for some may be a totally foreign concept to them; they have to think totally outside the box. However, along with thinking outside the box they have to keep in mind that we are fighting the terrorists and not become them. This can create a very complex and disconcerting issue for our leaders. We instill in our military leaders respect for life, morals while engaging the enemy, and conscience in planning, executing and completing the mission. We do not believe that the end is the justification for the means, that makes us who we are and we are not the terrorists.
Keeping that in mind I think that we need to expand our concept of how we defeat the enemy. The war that we are waging is like no other war we have fought in our history. The economic and media fronts are almost more important than the frontlines. We have to really appreciate the terror organizations ability to sell their cause to the masses and to use propaganda to recruit new members. We have to understand how cash is a weapon also. We have to learn to attack their cash flow just as we would a bomb making factory or the arms dealers headquarters. We have to eliminate their ability to exist.
We dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki not because we believed in the death of innocent civilians, but we made a tough choice--drop the bombs and kill numerous civilians to save multitudes more. This decision was not made lightly and did result in an earlier end to the war than would have been possible without the bombing. I think that we need to make another hard choice here with Afghanistan and the poppy fields -- I would not recommend dropping hydrogen bombs on the poppy fields, however I am thinking that napalm bombs or another ordnance that would achieve a similar goal, the quick and efficient destruction of a poppy field with as little collateral damage as possible, would be a smart choice in helping to prevent the future destruction of property and loss of life globally.
We have to look at the whole picture and the complete enemy. We have to remove their ability to recruit, publicize and attack. We have not been effective thus far in countering their offensives in the media or online and playing catch up at this point might bog us down in a true quagmire. However, if we remove their ability to produce, promote and distribute their ideals to open ears then we will shift the advantage in our favor. We have the advantage on the ground in the combat zones it is in the unconventional areas that we are losing the war. So the Pentagon needs to put their egos on the back burner grant the DEA's request for assistance in so much as they can to eliminate the poppy fields of Afghanistan. One or two sweeping operations whose goal is the complete destruction of cash crops of illegal substances in theater should effectively limit the enemies ability to mount a resistance of substance.
No One Venturing ... Absolutely Nothing Gained
5 December 2006
President Bush met with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. This was another attempt by Bush to get Iraqis to step up. And again the response fell grossly short. Personally, I dont think that it was a total failure, things were said that I think the US should use in Iraq and with the Iraqi government.
First, Aziz al-Hakim told the press that he did not think that the American troops were conducting decisive strikes against the insurgents, that stronger actions needed to be taken. I have to agree with him on that one, however, as is usually the case he wants these tactics to be used not against ALL militias and insurgents, just the ones that are loyal to Saddam Hussein. He denied that Shitie militias are fueling the sectarian violence. Wonder where he gets his news, not only are the Shiite militias conducting major and numerous strikes against Sunnis, they are blackmailing and intimidating the Iraq government. This would be the same government that their political arms are in the majority, that is enough to make any Iraqi, especially one of other than Shiite affiliation apprehensive.
Again, I say they need to turn loose of this revenge mode left over from Hussein's regime. This is a NEW Iraq, one for ALL Iraqis. The international community as a whole needs to apply pressure to the Iraqis to step-up and be bigger problem solvers than they have been. If the Iraq government really wants to be respected in the international arena then they need to start acting like a fair and just government. Al-Sadr and his militia need to be removed--there does not appear to be any way to work with this cleric in the new government. He IS NOT part of the solution, he IS part of the problem, a major part.
Someone, actually EVERYONE, in the Iraqi government needs to realize how much easier their jobs would be if al-Sadr and his militia were removed from the picture. It does not take some in-depth analysis of the situation to see that more than half of the problems have one source. Sure the whole situation is complex and difficult, but the idea of making it more complex or giving up and accepting him as a factor is just unacceptable at this point. Al-Sadr was given the opportunity to be a player at the table to help move Iraq forward, that is not his desire, he does not want to see Iraq move forward, he wants to see Iraq move backwards, he has his own agenda and it is in no way in line with a safe and secure Iraq for ALL Iraqis. That in and of itself is enough to make him an obstacle that needs to be removed.
"The strikes [the insurgents] are getting from the multinational forces are not hard enough to put an end to their acts, but leave them to stand up again to resume their criminal acts," Hakim said in a speech at the United States Institute of Peace. "This means that there is something wrong in the policies taken to deal with that danger threatening the lives of Iraqis."
I have to agree with Hakim on the fact that there is something wrong in the policies. Where we disagree is what it is that is wrong. He wants tougher strikes that eliminate the Sunni/Baathist militias, leaving the shiite ones in tact. I want the policies to be applied equally, every militia needs to be at least disarmed, more effectively they need to be eliminated. Think about this, if US troops were to surround a Sunni neighborhood and wipe-it out the Iraq government would claim a victory against the insurgents, however, if the same US troops applied the same policy against Sadr City, the outrage would be intense and extreme. This one hypocrisy makes peace in Iraq under the current government a basic impossibility.
The Iraq leaders want Iraq problems to be solved by Iraqis and I am all for that, they should be they are the best qualified to solve the problems, but they have to have the strength and determination to do it and so far Im not seeing it.
Am I frustrated? You bet I am. Am I ready to cut and run? Hell no!
Rome was not built in a day and neither will Iraq be. The common Iraq family needs to be able to live in peace and security. We need for that to be our only mission. I do think that we could stand to bang some heads together in the next Iraqi cabinet meeting, but we know that is not going to happen!! Maybe Allah can help us out with that one.
Nothing Gained
30 November 2006
The following quote is from Pres. Bush's remarks after his meeting with PM Al-Maliki in Jordan. "One of his frustrations with me is that he believes that we've been slow about giving him the tools necessary to protect the Iraqi people," Bush said. "He doesn't have the capacity to respond. So we want to accelerate that capacity."
We've been slow, I would beg to differ, we have not been slow. He has not done his job to maintain the capacity that we have provided him and the Iraqi government. He has not demanded that the militia's stand down--they do more damage to his capacity than anything that the Americans do. It is the militias that are bombing the police stations and recruiting places. It is the militias that are killing anyone that is working for the betterment of Iraq, not the Americans. It is his own supporters, Sadrists that have boycotted the government because of Maliki's meeting with Bush. They are flexing their power and Maliki is letting them. If he wants "the capacity to respond" to mean something then he needs to let the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army do their job and not put Sadr City and Al-Sadr off limits to law and justice. You cannot have a free and independent nation with international respect if your laws only apply to some and not all. If Iraq is to be a safe and secure place then NO ONE can be above or outside of the law. Someone needs to remind him that he is Prime Minister of Iraq not of Sadr City.
There has been suggestions that he is a puppet leader and I must agree with that. However, there are elements that want you to believe that it is Washington that is pulling the strings, they are wrong, dead wrong, his strings are not that long--they do not reach past Sadr City. It is time for Iraqi leaders, ALL Iraqi leaders, to step up to the plate, to come together put differences aside and make decisions that will move ALL of Iraq forward.
It is inexcusable to me and should be to the Iraqi people, that the leaders of their elected government show less internal fortitude running the government than the masses did in going to the poles and placing their votes. It is my humble opinion that Al-Maliki has lost his ability to be the right man for the job. He lacks the strength and charisma to overcome the petty bickering of even the factions within his own coalition, much less the difficulties of a unified Iraqi government. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be anyone with these qualities left in Iraq. How is it that a country with the population and history and culture of Iraq has allowed its populace to lose their strength and ability? With all that Iraq has to show for her past it appears that she is struggling to show anything for her future.
The following quote is from Pres. Bush's remarks after his meeting with PM Al-Maliki in Jordan. "One of his frustrations with me is that he believes that we've been slow about giving him the tools necessary to protect the Iraqi people," Bush said. "He doesn't have the capacity to respond. So we want to accelerate that capacity."
We've been slow, I would beg to differ, we have not been slow. He has not done his job to maintain the capacity that we have provided him and the Iraqi government. He has not demanded that the militia's stand down--they do more damage to his capacity than anything that the Americans do. It is the militias that are bombing the police stations and recruiting places. It is the militias that are killing anyone that is working for the betterment of Iraq, not the Americans. It is his own supporters, Sadrists that have boycotted the government because of Maliki's meeting with Bush. They are flexing their power and Maliki is letting them. If he wants "the capacity to respond" to mean something then he needs to let the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army do their job and not put Sadr City and Al-Sadr off limits to law and justice. You cannot have a free and independent nation with international respect if your laws only apply to some and not all. If Iraq is to be a safe and secure place then NO ONE can be above or outside of the law. Someone needs to remind him that he is Prime Minister of Iraq not of Sadr City.
There has been suggestions that he is a puppet leader and I must agree with that. However, there are elements that want you to believe that it is Washington that is pulling the strings, they are wrong, dead wrong, his strings are not that long--they do not reach past Sadr City. It is time for Iraqi leaders, ALL Iraqi leaders, to step up to the plate, to come together put differences aside and make decisions that will move ALL of Iraq forward.
It is inexcusable to me and should be to the Iraqi people, that the leaders of their elected government show less internal fortitude running the government than the masses did in going to the poles and placing their votes. It is my humble opinion that Al-Maliki has lost his ability to be the right man for the job. He lacks the strength and charisma to overcome the petty bickering of even the factions within his own coalition, much less the difficulties of a unified Iraqi government. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be anyone with these qualities left in Iraq. How is it that a country with the population and history and culture of Iraq has allowed its populace to lose their strength and ability? With all that Iraq has to show for her past it appears that she is struggling to show anything for her future.
A Little Much!!!
17 November 2006
In Holland, policies associated with the nationalist fringe in 2002 have been co-opted by the center: holding asylum-seekers in detention centers, more muscle for the police and intelligence services, and visa examinations that require would-be immigrants to watch videos of homosexuals kissing and of topless women on the beach. Everyone must learn to speak Dutch, and Muslim clerics must mind what they say in their Friday sermons for fear of deportation.
Read full story here http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061117/ap_on_re_eu/netherlands_burqa_banThe headline that proceeds this article is Dutch Government Proposes Ban On Burquas. Now, I, personally, would never wear one and I find it completely unacceptable and barbaric to require a woman, or anyone for that matter, to wear anything. However, if the individual person choses to wear an item of clothing or covering, how ever you would like to define it, that should be their right.
I do understand to a degree the argument against wearing burquas while conducting offical business, such as having your DL photo taken, especially since it is used as a form of official ID. I do not consider that an infringement on someone's rights, religious or otherwise. Why not you may ask. Because in this country if you were to loose that DL, anyone and I do mean anyone could use it without any problem. On the otherside of the issue, I do not agree with France's ban on any head scarf, not that I agree with much that the French do! If they are not going to allow head scarf's for Muslims, then they should ban all head gear of a religious nature, and while they are at it any jewelry that depicts any religious affiliation. After all the argument over the burquas was that France was a secular society. So shouldnt it be secular for ALL Frenchmen?
What got me in the opening paragraph was the requirement of all immigrants to watch videos of homosexuals kissing and women topless on beaches. Okay, guys I know that you are all for that, at least as long as the kissers are women and the sunbathers have nice racks!! But that being said let me put it to you another way, how many of you guys watch "Queer As Folk"? How would you like for your entry into a country to be based on you watching an episode of that show? Yeah that is what I thought, as you guys sit there going "Are you out of your mind?" "Im not doing that!"
Apparently the Dutch are importing some VERY GOOD smokes into the country these days.
Now here is the question that I ponder, what action or reaction passes or fails you on that part of the exam? And if you are revolted or disgusted or offended are you denied entry? And do the Dutch believe that only Muslims would get offended by these videos? So have we now located the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah? Is the Dutch government sending out a message--moral people need not apply?
In Holland, policies associated with the nationalist fringe in 2002 have been co-opted by the center: holding asylum-seekers in detention centers, more muscle for the police and intelligence services, and visa examinations that require would-be immigrants to watch videos of homosexuals kissing and of topless women on the beach. Everyone must learn to speak Dutch, and Muslim clerics must mind what they say in their Friday sermons for fear of deportation.
Read full story here http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061117/ap_on_re_eu/netherlands_burqa_banThe headline that proceeds this article is Dutch Government Proposes Ban On Burquas. Now, I, personally, would never wear one and I find it completely unacceptable and barbaric to require a woman, or anyone for that matter, to wear anything. However, if the individual person choses to wear an item of clothing or covering, how ever you would like to define it, that should be their right.
I do understand to a degree the argument against wearing burquas while conducting offical business, such as having your DL photo taken, especially since it is used as a form of official ID. I do not consider that an infringement on someone's rights, religious or otherwise. Why not you may ask. Because in this country if you were to loose that DL, anyone and I do mean anyone could use it without any problem. On the otherside of the issue, I do not agree with France's ban on any head scarf, not that I agree with much that the French do! If they are not going to allow head scarf's for Muslims, then they should ban all head gear of a religious nature, and while they are at it any jewelry that depicts any religious affiliation. After all the argument over the burquas was that France was a secular society. So shouldnt it be secular for ALL Frenchmen?
What got me in the opening paragraph was the requirement of all immigrants to watch videos of homosexuals kissing and women topless on beaches. Okay, guys I know that you are all for that, at least as long as the kissers are women and the sunbathers have nice racks!! But that being said let me put it to you another way, how many of you guys watch "Queer As Folk"? How would you like for your entry into a country to be based on you watching an episode of that show? Yeah that is what I thought, as you guys sit there going "Are you out of your mind?" "Im not doing that!"
Apparently the Dutch are importing some VERY GOOD smokes into the country these days.
Now here is the question that I ponder, what action or reaction passes or fails you on that part of the exam? And if you are revolted or disgusted or offended are you denied entry? And do the Dutch believe that only Muslims would get offended by these videos? So have we now located the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah? Is the Dutch government sending out a message--moral people need not apply?
Reflecting on Rummy
15 November 2006
This isnt the topic that I started with today and I will finish that post, but I got diverted and somewhat bogged down. So in an attempt to get my mind headed in some direction, even if it was backwards I went out to read some of my favorite blogs ( I will have to make that an upcoming post). And a couple have given their thoughts on Rummy's resignation. In reading the expert's opinions and our real people opinions about the expert opinions, I thought everyone seems to be missing the real event that happened. At least the real political event in my view.
Remember this one; the thing that Pres. Bush did that guaranteed my support of him 'forever' was his decission to go to war and then sticking to it without worrying about the political fallout. Another words he said we are going to war and he did it, even in the face of devasting political consequences. With that action he became MY President! I may even have to write him in in the next election!!!
How does this relate to Rummy, very similarily in my eyes. There were alot of calls for the firing of Rummy before the election. But did MY President buckle under pressure? NO! If he were Clinton or maybe even Bush Sr., Rummy would have been out the door as soon as he became political baggage. That is why I like Bush. He did not play the political card and fire Rummy to gain Republican votes. You gotta love that about him.
As for Rummy, I like him-albeit it in that Cold War nostaliga way. But I do over all like him, he has served his nation and her citizens well. That being said I do believe that it was time for him to go. My reasons are probally not the same as others calling for his resignation, I think the politics so marred him as to make it impossible for him to do anything effective. The general public does not see and therefore is not always aware of the behind the sences restrictions and power strugles that go back and forth between Capital Hill and the Pentagon.Hello, Congress-you are to give the military a mission and then let them plan, execute and complete the mission. It is called delegation of authority--here's an example that you might be able to relate to, or at least comprehend; a pipe in your house breaks, causing a flood, what do you do? You call the plumber and have him come and fix it, and if you are smart and do not want to pay double for his services you stay out of his way and let him do the job.
Congress has become so populated with egomaniacs that they do not know when to stop. Here's one for you, Congress; If you approved these Generals and Civilian Leaders and you are the experts in what we need, then why tell them how to do their job? If they were not the best qualified for the positions, why did you approve their appointments?
So either you were right and you need to leave them alone to do their jobs; or you were wrong and we need new members in Congress, because you are not qualified to determine the capabilities of the military leaders that you have approved. So which is it?
This isnt the topic that I started with today and I will finish that post, but I got diverted and somewhat bogged down. So in an attempt to get my mind headed in some direction, even if it was backwards I went out to read some of my favorite blogs ( I will have to make that an upcoming post). And a couple have given their thoughts on Rummy's resignation. In reading the expert's opinions and our real people opinions about the expert opinions, I thought everyone seems to be missing the real event that happened. At least the real political event in my view.
Remember this one; the thing that Pres. Bush did that guaranteed my support of him 'forever' was his decission to go to war and then sticking to it without worrying about the political fallout. Another words he said we are going to war and he did it, even in the face of devasting political consequences. With that action he became MY President! I may even have to write him in in the next election!!!
How does this relate to Rummy, very similarily in my eyes. There were alot of calls for the firing of Rummy before the election. But did MY President buckle under pressure? NO! If he were Clinton or maybe even Bush Sr., Rummy would have been out the door as soon as he became political baggage. That is why I like Bush. He did not play the political card and fire Rummy to gain Republican votes. You gotta love that about him.
As for Rummy, I like him-albeit it in that Cold War nostaliga way. But I do over all like him, he has served his nation and her citizens well. That being said I do believe that it was time for him to go. My reasons are probally not the same as others calling for his resignation, I think the politics so marred him as to make it impossible for him to do anything effective. The general public does not see and therefore is not always aware of the behind the sences restrictions and power strugles that go back and forth between Capital Hill and the Pentagon.Hello, Congress-you are to give the military a mission and then let them plan, execute and complete the mission. It is called delegation of authority--here's an example that you might be able to relate to, or at least comprehend; a pipe in your house breaks, causing a flood, what do you do? You call the plumber and have him come and fix it, and if you are smart and do not want to pay double for his services you stay out of his way and let him do the job.
Congress has become so populated with egomaniacs that they do not know when to stop. Here's one for you, Congress; If you approved these Generals and Civilian Leaders and you are the experts in what we need, then why tell them how to do their job? If they were not the best qualified for the positions, why did you approve their appointments?
So either you were right and you need to leave them alone to do their jobs; or you were wrong and we need new members in Congress, because you are not qualified to determine the capabilities of the military leaders that you have approved. So which is it?
Service Above Self
11 November 2006
For those veterans in Johnston County, thanks came from the best place. The JROTC Cadets for the 4 high schools in the county that have programs jointly along with the School System honored service members, past and present. It is a great thing to see high school students take the time out of a long weekend to practice for and then honor our veterans. Each of the four JROTC programs had their cadet commanders speak to the veterans. I have to say that even though I was not a parent of one of the cadets that spoke, my hero was a flag bearer, I was still full of pride at the articulation and poise these young men and women possessed. They spoke with thought and apprecitation and pride. There is leadership to be found in the youth of today!
There were veterans from WWII to Desert Storm, one of honor was a survivor from the USS Arizonia. Other speakers spoke of their experiences from their time in service and combat. Coming from a familiy with a deep sense of service and patriotism, I knew of the events that they spoke, and when they were mentioned one uncle or cousin or another came to mind. Yes, I thought, I know that battle, I remember the stories told at family dinners. Our most distinguished speaker of the event was Gen. Shelton (USA Ret.). He spoke of those men and women that recognize that freedom comes at a cost. He honored their "service above self" and their action in reply to the challenge posed by Pres. Kennedy, "ask not what your country can do for you; but what you can do for your country." At the end of the ceremony and the honoring of the past and present veterans, the cadets Passed in Review for the General. And as a very proud parent of one of those cadets, I was overwhelemed at the resounding applause given to the future veterans of this great nation. I know that not all of those cadets will chose to wear a uniform past high school, but some of them will. Among those that will includes my own hero. I know that she will be honored and thanked for her own "service above self" action for she has already experienced the graditude of the highest magnitude, applause from those that came before her.
Happy Veteran's Day!
11 November 2006
Today, around the country and world, people are taking time out to remember and honor our service members. On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month the war to end all wars ended and the world rejoiced. So to mark the occassion V-E Day (Victory in Europe), became Armistace Day and Rememberance Day and now Verteran's Day. Other things have happened since that glorious day, the war to end all wars is now WWI, and we have had WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. Those are only the ones that you might even remember, unless you are a veteran that served in one of the numerous smaller theatres that were not mentioned in MSM or the history text books. For over 200 years men and women have chosen 'service above self' in defense of this great nation and her people. So today take a moment and thank those that not only "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" but had the courage and sense of "service above self" to step up and wear the unifrom of our armed forces. I salute you all, past, present and future. For you are the heart of our nation. It is your blood that corses through the veins of this country and spills to protect her. It is your honor and loyalty that shroud our freedoms in an impenetrable shield. It is your duty and service that allow us to sleep soundly every night. For it is you, the soldier, sailor, airman and marine that makes America. Thank you! Today and everyday.
Today, around the country and world, people are taking time out to remember and honor our service members. On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month the war to end all wars ended and the world rejoiced. So to mark the occassion V-E Day (Victory in Europe), became Armistace Day and Rememberance Day and now Verteran's Day. Other things have happened since that glorious day, the war to end all wars is now WWI, and we have had WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. Those are only the ones that you might even remember, unless you are a veteran that served in one of the numerous smaller theatres that were not mentioned in MSM or the history text books. For over 200 years men and women have chosen 'service above self' in defense of this great nation and her people. So today take a moment and thank those that not only "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" but had the courage and sense of "service above self" to step up and wear the unifrom of our armed forces. I salute you all, past, present and future. For you are the heart of our nation. It is your blood that corses through the veins of this country and spills to protect her. It is your honor and loyalty that shroud our freedoms in an impenetrable shield. It is your duty and service that allow us to sleep soundly every night. For it is you, the soldier, sailor, airman and marine that makes America. Thank you! Today and everyday.
Cutting Off Your Nose To Spite Your Face
30 October 2006
In the last couple weeks there has been numerous articles in various papers around the country as well as lots of buzz in the blogging community about the Pentagon trying to pull the plug on military bloggers. As is usual with the Pentagon someone somewhere has gotten their fragile little egos hurt--maybe they have never really served their country in the heat of battle or maybe they are like Kerry not a TRUE hero or may be someone is just on a major power trip. Whatever the case may be the screws are being put to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to reign in what they tell the American public as well as the international community via the internet.
Im all for OPSEC, I do not want our military guys in unneeded harms way--yes it goes with the territory but we can limit how much danger they face. I believe that we should use every resource to aquire the best intel to keep our guys ahead of the enemy and give our boys the upper hand where ever they may be engaing the enemy. But when we are, as many have pointed out, losing the media war and the war of public opinion the Pentagon has decided to kill off by startvation and slow torture one part of the campagin that could provide us with the greatest benefit. That being the independent reporting of military bloggers.
I have been reading the blogs of military guys serving in various locales around the world and yes I have read somethings that Im not sure I would agree with, totally within the boundaries of OPSEC, but some of the issues are just the higer-ups on power trips. Citing issues like pics of the front gates of the bases in Iraq--hello please tell me that our military leaders are not naive enough to believe that we dont have the enemy in the bases on a daily basis giving intel to the insurgents about how the camps are layed out and what security measures are being used--because we do. Or slamming kids who post pics of themselves geared up to go out and that the ammo belts shows the tracer count to the enemy--hello some of Ossama's men served in our military, some with our most elite forces --they already knew the tracers count along with the weapons that we carry and the capabilities of those weapons. Outside of the use of real names of soldiers I have not seen any real OPSEC violation--now in the defense of the Pentagon and the VA NG Unit that is now playing the role of 'Big Brother' in the milblogging world, I have not read every single blog posted by every single service member. But without reading a single military blog I can find out the locations of our troops, their camps and the number of soldiers on the ground. I can access maps and satilite images of the areas that are in the fore front of the war on terror. I can find all the intel that I need to launch an effective attack against our boys in uniform.
If the Pentagon stifles the voice of the military blogging community they will be giving the war away. What no amount of leadership or speeches by the highest leaders can do is give reality to the masses about what our boys are doing and how they are doing it. When you read a soldier's account of a raid or patrol and hear about his/her interaction with the local people good or bad you can form a "fair and balanced" evaluation of what is happening on the ground 8,000 miles away. When Americans turn on the TV for the news they hear how soldiers were killed and how the death squads killed numerous more civilians. The press is full of stories of what we did wrong or of what went wrong--if the Pentagon wanted the American public to be in this for the long haul they would be highlighting these bloggs and referring the media to them for their realistic content. Blogs of servicemembers could be used to point out that 100 service members signing a petition to get out of Iraq is a negligiable minority and that most troops know why we are there and believe in making Iraq and Afghanistan safe places for the people there. The Pentagon should making the stories that these bloggers tell recieve double the attention that one nay sayer here or there receives.
Instead the Pentagon is screaming OPSEC and attempting to starve the one hand that could pull them out of the media tail spin that partisan politics has gotten them into.
In the last couple weeks there has been numerous articles in various papers around the country as well as lots of buzz in the blogging community about the Pentagon trying to pull the plug on military bloggers. As is usual with the Pentagon someone somewhere has gotten their fragile little egos hurt--maybe they have never really served their country in the heat of battle or maybe they are like Kerry not a TRUE hero or may be someone is just on a major power trip. Whatever the case may be the screws are being put to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to reign in what they tell the American public as well as the international community via the internet.
Im all for OPSEC, I do not want our military guys in unneeded harms way--yes it goes with the territory but we can limit how much danger they face. I believe that we should use every resource to aquire the best intel to keep our guys ahead of the enemy and give our boys the upper hand where ever they may be engaing the enemy. But when we are, as many have pointed out, losing the media war and the war of public opinion the Pentagon has decided to kill off by startvation and slow torture one part of the campagin that could provide us with the greatest benefit. That being the independent reporting of military bloggers.
I have been reading the blogs of military guys serving in various locales around the world and yes I have read somethings that Im not sure I would agree with, totally within the boundaries of OPSEC, but some of the issues are just the higer-ups on power trips. Citing issues like pics of the front gates of the bases in Iraq--hello please tell me that our military leaders are not naive enough to believe that we dont have the enemy in the bases on a daily basis giving intel to the insurgents about how the camps are layed out and what security measures are being used--because we do. Or slamming kids who post pics of themselves geared up to go out and that the ammo belts shows the tracer count to the enemy--hello some of Ossama's men served in our military, some with our most elite forces --they already knew the tracers count along with the weapons that we carry and the capabilities of those weapons. Outside of the use of real names of soldiers I have not seen any real OPSEC violation--now in the defense of the Pentagon and the VA NG Unit that is now playing the role of 'Big Brother' in the milblogging world, I have not read every single blog posted by every single service member. But without reading a single military blog I can find out the locations of our troops, their camps and the number of soldiers on the ground. I can access maps and satilite images of the areas that are in the fore front of the war on terror. I can find all the intel that I need to launch an effective attack against our boys in uniform.
If the Pentagon stifles the voice of the military blogging community they will be giving the war away. What no amount of leadership or speeches by the highest leaders can do is give reality to the masses about what our boys are doing and how they are doing it. When you read a soldier's account of a raid or patrol and hear about his/her interaction with the local people good or bad you can form a "fair and balanced" evaluation of what is happening on the ground 8,000 miles away. When Americans turn on the TV for the news they hear how soldiers were killed and how the death squads killed numerous more civilians. The press is full of stories of what we did wrong or of what went wrong--if the Pentagon wanted the American public to be in this for the long haul they would be highlighting these bloggs and referring the media to them for their realistic content. Blogs of servicemembers could be used to point out that 100 service members signing a petition to get out of Iraq is a negligiable minority and that most troops know why we are there and believe in making Iraq and Afghanistan safe places for the people there. The Pentagon should making the stories that these bloggers tell recieve double the attention that one nay sayer here or there receives.
Instead the Pentagon is screaming OPSEC and attempting to starve the one hand that could pull them out of the media tail spin that partisan politics has gotten them into.
25 November 2007
No more Political Parties!!!!
It doesnt work, it never has and it gets worse every year.
Here is what I propose--we go back to 8th grade civics class;
Teacher - "What type of government do we have class?"
Student - " It's a democracy."
Teacher - "Yes, but what kind of democracy is it?"
Student - Silence (how many kinds are there?)
Teacher - "Well, anyone?"
Student - "Republican one? But my parents are Democrats."
Teacher - "Not really. We have what is called a representitive democracy. Can anyone tell me what the means?"
Students - Silence (this is so boring, why do we need to know this crap anyway)
Teacher - "Okay, what this means is that we elect representitives to speak for us."
Students - Dear in the Headlight Stare (and that means what--im hungry when is lunch)
Well, and I wonder why people dont get it. They dont have a clue, we teach civics/government maybe twice in 12 years of public education and then wonder why we do not have more citizen involvement in government. On the flip side of the equation, we slept, talked, and cut up through the 2 classes that taught us about the workings of our government as the forefathers set it up and we wonder why the politicans dont do what they say they will.
Why should they, we dont do what we should as voters and citizens.
The system is not broken; the users are not following the instruction manual!
You know, that priceless piece of paper that starts with "We the people" commonly referred to as The Constitution.
If we want to end corruption and the status quo then we need to return to our roots. We need to do away with political parties and platforms. Every canidate should be indepentent. Everyone runs against each other in the primary and the top 2 vote getters are placed on the ballot for the general election. And that should hold true for the president also, in that case though it should be the top 4 canidates that make it on the ballot for the general election and there should be no running mates. The number 1 vote getter is President and the number 2 canidate is Vice-President.
The forefathers thought that true democracy would be inefficient and ineffective, wonder what they would think of how we have mutilated their ideas? They were thoughtful and careful in their establishment of our government. They created checks and balances, they divided the running of the government, they spread out the power to maintain equality. And they even provided for the states to be watch dogs of the federal government and vise versa.
But we have grown lazy and complacent. We do not follow the issues, we are too interested in the mud slinging. We do not question the canidates, we judge the sound-bites that someone else decided were the 'guts' of what was said. We listen to 'experts' and follow their lead instead of gathering the information and making the decissions themselves.
How did we get to this state and how far down do we have to go before we grab ourselves by the bootstraps and yank us back up where we belong?
Here is what I propose--we go back to 8th grade civics class;
Teacher - "What type of government do we have class?"
Student - " It's a democracy."
Teacher - "Yes, but what kind of democracy is it?"
Student - Silence (how many kinds are there?)
Teacher - "Well, anyone?"
Student - "Republican one? But my parents are Democrats."
Teacher - "Not really. We have what is called a representitive democracy. Can anyone tell me what the means?"
Students - Silence (this is so boring, why do we need to know this crap anyway)
Teacher - "Okay, what this means is that we elect representitives to speak for us."
Students - Dear in the Headlight Stare (and that means what--im hungry when is lunch)
Well, and I wonder why people dont get it. They dont have a clue, we teach civics/government maybe twice in 12 years of public education and then wonder why we do not have more citizen involvement in government. On the flip side of the equation, we slept, talked, and cut up through the 2 classes that taught us about the workings of our government as the forefathers set it up and we wonder why the politicans dont do what they say they will.
Why should they, we dont do what we should as voters and citizens.
The system is not broken; the users are not following the instruction manual!
You know, that priceless piece of paper that starts with "We the people" commonly referred to as The Constitution.
If we want to end corruption and the status quo then we need to return to our roots. We need to do away with political parties and platforms. Every canidate should be indepentent. Everyone runs against each other in the primary and the top 2 vote getters are placed on the ballot for the general election. And that should hold true for the president also, in that case though it should be the top 4 canidates that make it on the ballot for the general election and there should be no running mates. The number 1 vote getter is President and the number 2 canidate is Vice-President.
The forefathers thought that true democracy would be inefficient and ineffective, wonder what they would think of how we have mutilated their ideas? They were thoughtful and careful in their establishment of our government. They created checks and balances, they divided the running of the government, they spread out the power to maintain equality. And they even provided for the states to be watch dogs of the federal government and vise versa.
But we have grown lazy and complacent. We do not follow the issues, we are too interested in the mud slinging. We do not question the canidates, we judge the sound-bites that someone else decided were the 'guts' of what was said. We listen to 'experts' and follow their lead instead of gathering the information and making the decissions themselves.
How did we get to this state and how far down do we have to go before we grab ourselves by the bootstraps and yank us back up where we belong?
24 November 2007
More Laws Less Enforcement Is Wrong
The Supreme Court is going to hear District of Columbia v. Heller. In March, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the ban on handguns in D.C., declaring the law unconstitutional. What is at stake is the interpretation of the Second Amendment, the right of individuals to bear arms.
I think this is an easy call. This is a clear case that it is so much easier for politicians to pass a law on paper and say that made things safer than to actually do the hard thing and tell voters that money has to come from somewhere to increase the manpower and abilities of law enforcement as well as over -hauling the corrections system of the country to actually rehabilitate those that can be and incarcerating those that cannot and executing the most heinous criminals in our midst. The Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. And this right is guaranteed for a very good reason, to protect the citizens of the country from the threat of a tyrannical government. Now there is an argument that we do not need that right anymore, but if we give up that right then which right should we give up next?
And the idea that we should limit the number and type of firearms that people have is also something that I am against. Again if we start limiting who can have what firearm then where do we draw the line? I have a very hard time with anything that infringes on individual rights. I do not believe in limiting freedom of speech or religion, even when I think that people abuse those rights. I do not believe in infringing on the protection of the 4th amendment against illegal search and seizures, not even in the wake of 9/11 and the GWOT. The thing that makes America great is our individual freedoms.
In regard to the argument about the 2nd Amendment, here is my stance---it is our right to own weapons so that if the need arises we are duty bound to act responsibly as citizens of this great nation and rise up against the tyrannical government and reestablish the government for the people by the people and of the people. If limits are placed on who can own what weapons and how many and when and where then we are shrugging our responsibility as citizens of this country to stand guard against any injustice committed against any individual of this country by the government or agents of the government. If we allow the slow methodical disarming of our citizens then there will be nothing to stand against unjust actions of the government. Yes the pen can be mightier than the sword, however sometimes you have to use the sword to back up the pen.
Now there is an argument that we need gun control/bans to prevent murder. No, if someone is going to commit murder than they are not concerned about obeying the law. And no matter what bans you put on firearms there will always be a black market that will provide the supply of weapons that are needed by criminals. Banning weapons does not significantly reduce the number of murders and violent crimes. The basic reason is that criminals are just that criminals and do not obey laws so all that such laws do is impose undue hardship on the law abiding citizens of our country.
If we are truly interested in making our streets safer from violent crimes then we need to start at ground level. The leaders of communities need to promote community involvement and awareness. And when a crime is committed anyone that has any information should come forward and help law enforcement bring those persons responsible to the courts. To ensure that law enforcement is capable of this, we need to make sure that we have the best law enforcement officers at every level. We need to make sure that they are the best trained and equipped and that they perform their jobs above reproach. They need to be compensated to the standard that we wish to achieve in their performance. At the level of the courts we need to push to have plea bargains taken off the table for repeat offenders. We need to see that the judges sentence each person convicted based on their expertise to what will provide the best chance of reformation for the individual without placing undue risk on the community. We need to have the resources to rehabilitate those persons that can be and provide them with the means to lead productive lives when returned to society instead of booting them out the gates of prisons with $24 and no where to go and no one to lean on. The judges also need to place those individuals that present as career criminals in prison for the duration of their lives, and those most heinous of criminals need to be executed.
In the corrections system we need to revamp the system from top to bottom. In the juvenile arena we need to demand that those detained are educated and mentored. We need to work with schools and business to provide futures for these minors before they are lost. We need to make sure that they have a support system when they are released and that they are monitored. And there should be no negativity if these same individuals can be placed in the military services or the Peace Corps or job corps to help make the transition from child to adult. In my opinion these options should be used more to help get these minors on their feet. In the adult system, some of the same things need to be adopted. If someone comes into the system with an addiction then it needs to be treated. If they come in without an education they need to be educated. If they come in without a skill then they need to learn one. And again upon their release they need to be supported and monitored completely to insure that they don’t return to the penal system. It should also be part of the condition of their release that they give back to the community in some way. And as a society we need to allow the persons that are successful to be members of the community without any bias or discrimination.
I think this is an easy call. This is a clear case that it is so much easier for politicians to pass a law on paper and say that made things safer than to actually do the hard thing and tell voters that money has to come from somewhere to increase the manpower and abilities of law enforcement as well as over -hauling the corrections system of the country to actually rehabilitate those that can be and incarcerating those that cannot and executing the most heinous criminals in our midst. The Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. And this right is guaranteed for a very good reason, to protect the citizens of the country from the threat of a tyrannical government. Now there is an argument that we do not need that right anymore, but if we give up that right then which right should we give up next?
And the idea that we should limit the number and type of firearms that people have is also something that I am against. Again if we start limiting who can have what firearm then where do we draw the line? I have a very hard time with anything that infringes on individual rights. I do not believe in limiting freedom of speech or religion, even when I think that people abuse those rights. I do not believe in infringing on the protection of the 4th amendment against illegal search and seizures, not even in the wake of 9/11 and the GWOT. The thing that makes America great is our individual freedoms.
In regard to the argument about the 2nd Amendment, here is my stance---it is our right to own weapons so that if the need arises we are duty bound to act responsibly as citizens of this great nation and rise up against the tyrannical government and reestablish the government for the people by the people and of the people. If limits are placed on who can own what weapons and how many and when and where then we are shrugging our responsibility as citizens of this country to stand guard against any injustice committed against any individual of this country by the government or agents of the government. If we allow the slow methodical disarming of our citizens then there will be nothing to stand against unjust actions of the government. Yes the pen can be mightier than the sword, however sometimes you have to use the sword to back up the pen.
Now there is an argument that we need gun control/bans to prevent murder. No, if someone is going to commit murder than they are not concerned about obeying the law. And no matter what bans you put on firearms there will always be a black market that will provide the supply of weapons that are needed by criminals. Banning weapons does not significantly reduce the number of murders and violent crimes. The basic reason is that criminals are just that criminals and do not obey laws so all that such laws do is impose undue hardship on the law abiding citizens of our country.
If we are truly interested in making our streets safer from violent crimes then we need to start at ground level. The leaders of communities need to promote community involvement and awareness. And when a crime is committed anyone that has any information should come forward and help law enforcement bring those persons responsible to the courts. To ensure that law enforcement is capable of this, we need to make sure that we have the best law enforcement officers at every level. We need to make sure that they are the best trained and equipped and that they perform their jobs above reproach. They need to be compensated to the standard that we wish to achieve in their performance. At the level of the courts we need to push to have plea bargains taken off the table for repeat offenders. We need to see that the judges sentence each person convicted based on their expertise to what will provide the best chance of reformation for the individual without placing undue risk on the community. We need to have the resources to rehabilitate those persons that can be and provide them with the means to lead productive lives when returned to society instead of booting them out the gates of prisons with $24 and no where to go and no one to lean on. The judges also need to place those individuals that present as career criminals in prison for the duration of their lives, and those most heinous of criminals need to be executed.
In the corrections system we need to revamp the system from top to bottom. In the juvenile arena we need to demand that those detained are educated and mentored. We need to work with schools and business to provide futures for these minors before they are lost. We need to make sure that they have a support system when they are released and that they are monitored. And there should be no negativity if these same individuals can be placed in the military services or the Peace Corps or job corps to help make the transition from child to adult. In my opinion these options should be used more to help get these minors on their feet. In the adult system, some of the same things need to be adopted. If someone comes into the system with an addiction then it needs to be treated. If they come in without an education they need to be educated. If they come in without a skill then they need to learn one. And again upon their release they need to be supported and monitored completely to insure that they don’t return to the penal system. It should also be part of the condition of their release that they give back to the community in some way. And as a society we need to allow the persons that are successful to be members of the community without any bias or discrimination.
22 November 2007
What a Waste of Goverment Money and Time
Well the City of Delray Beach must be one of the safest cities in South Florida and must have no major issues at all to resolve. Funny I think that I remember hearing that they were having noise issues as well as parking issues downtown. Instead of tackling the hard issues of resolving the parking issues and the noise issues, which if memory serves was related to motorcycles In the downtown area at night, they have decided to take on a much more menacing issue. What might that issue be? What issue might bump the parking and noise problems of downtown? What issue needs to be addressed with full attention and vengeance?
What issue indeed …………………………..
Delray Beach is banning baggy pants.
That is right, baggy pants. They are ridding their public buildings of the horror of baggy pants. They are banning the violent attacks of possibly seeing a male walking around showing their boxers above their pants. Well I certainly am thrilled to know that I won’t have to be subjected to such tragedies as seeing guys wearing ugly boxers anymore. That was just really impacting the way I live and totally interfering with conducting business at government offices.
It is nice to know that I can sleep better at night knowing that baggy pants are going to be banned in Delray.P.S. I want to know how much the plumber butt lobby paid to have a blind eye turned on them.
What issue indeed …………………………..
Delray Beach is banning baggy pants.
That is right, baggy pants. They are ridding their public buildings of the horror of baggy pants. They are banning the violent attacks of possibly seeing a male walking around showing their boxers above their pants. Well I certainly am thrilled to know that I won’t have to be subjected to such tragedies as seeing guys wearing ugly boxers anymore. That was just really impacting the way I live and totally interfering with conducting business at government offices.
It is nice to know that I can sleep better at night knowing that baggy pants are going to be banned in Delray.P.S. I want to know how much the plumber butt lobby paid to have a blind eye turned on them.
20 November 2007
I Don’t Think So
I was watching the Fox Report last night and they did a piece about the most dangerous and safest cities in the country. Way to go to Detroit and St. Louis for being tops on the most dangerous list. But hey it is only stats and they are at least a year old anyway. In the feature part of this report they went to Boston, where the mayor there has started a door to door campaign to inform the residents about the services available to them and the find out what they feel are the real issues. Leaving it right there it sounds like a good program, most of us would love to have a sit down with the government leaders and give them straight answers and shoot them hard questions. Let them really know what our two cents are.
One of the aspects of this program is to have the police officers go door to door also, which that only being said sounds good. It sounds like it gives the citizens a chance to know the boys in blue are real people and gives the boys in blue a chance to learn that not all the people on their beats are criminals.However, according to the report on Fox News, the primary purpose of the door to door by police is not for the above stated reason, but to ask permission to search the bedrooms of kids, without a search warrant or probable cause, looking for weapons. THANK YOU BUT NO THANK YOU!!!!
I have a real hard time with this program—the stated goal is to get weapons off the streets. I think that the bad public relations this will create will not only counter any gain on removing weapons from the streets , but will impede the investigations already in progress and will majorly obstruct future investigations in the city.
Think about this scenario—police officers entering the homes of citizens in the most crime ridden areas of Boston and asking to search the premises. There is NO polite or politically correct way to ask, simply by asking you are implying that the individual is a criminal or bad element of the community. These areas already distrust law enforcement and feel like they do not receive equal treatment by the police. And these are the same persons that you will need to give information and statements when there are crimes to investigate.
I wonder if someone asked the powers that be how many weapons might be recovered if they did the same door to door request to search in the less crime ridden neighborhoods. And I wonder just how many weapons they will actually remove from the streets with this project. I would say that the number will be minimal. Someone deserves a stupid award for this one—at least for not using common sense when they really thought this one out.
One of the aspects of this program is to have the police officers go door to door also, which that only being said sounds good. It sounds like it gives the citizens a chance to know the boys in blue are real people and gives the boys in blue a chance to learn that not all the people on their beats are criminals.However, according to the report on Fox News, the primary purpose of the door to door by police is not for the above stated reason, but to ask permission to search the bedrooms of kids, without a search warrant or probable cause, looking for weapons. THANK YOU BUT NO THANK YOU!!!!
I have a real hard time with this program—the stated goal is to get weapons off the streets. I think that the bad public relations this will create will not only counter any gain on removing weapons from the streets , but will impede the investigations already in progress and will majorly obstruct future investigations in the city.
Think about this scenario—police officers entering the homes of citizens in the most crime ridden areas of Boston and asking to search the premises. There is NO polite or politically correct way to ask, simply by asking you are implying that the individual is a criminal or bad element of the community. These areas already distrust law enforcement and feel like they do not receive equal treatment by the police. And these are the same persons that you will need to give information and statements when there are crimes to investigate.
I wonder if someone asked the powers that be how many weapons might be recovered if they did the same door to door request to search in the less crime ridden neighborhoods. And I wonder just how many weapons they will actually remove from the streets with this project. I would say that the number will be minimal. Someone deserves a stupid award for this one—at least for not using common sense when they really thought this one out.
19 November 2007
Common Sense Please
A couple weeks ago Gov. Crist was part of a delegation to South America; the purpose of the delegation was to promote trade with countries in South America. This is a goal that America needs to place higher on the priority list. Increasing our business relations with South America will improve our political relations with those countries. If we want to increase the security of our borders and help curb the ebb of terrorism and the power of narco-terrorism then we need to do as much as we can to promote the improvement of the standard of living, as well as the political stability, of these struggling democracies.
Once again I seem to be coming back around to the same topic. If we want the people of the ‘third world’ to be more like us, at least politically, we need to improve their standard of living. We cannot expect people to be concerned about the integrity of their national governments when they are going hungry, living without electricity and running water, being terrorized by local war lords and revolutionaries and drug cartels. We do not seem to grasp two things with the world; 1, not every one has all their basic needs met, and 2, not everyone wants to be just like us. In my opinion the first is not acceptable---I believe that everyone should have the freedom and security to live their lives and meet their basic needs without fear. As for the second, I do not believe that we need to force our way of life down the throats of others as the only way to create allies. People can think and live and be different from us and still be our allies. We would gain more respect from other countries if we showed a genuine respect and understanding of their cultures. The western world has a long history of thinking that the only civilized people are people that are just like them. That misconception has to be eliminated. People do not have to be living in 2 story brick homes with 2 cars and 2.3 kids, an IRA and trying to ‘keep up with the Jones’ to be good, intelligent, civilized people. The West has to realize that some of these people have had the same way of life for thousands of years, that does not make them unenlightened or ignorant; and there are things that we can learn from them-especially when it comes to respect. We have lost languages, cultures, and an immense amount of knowledge –we cannot recover any of this but we can learn from our arrogance and prevent the further loss of these priceless treasures. We as the human race need to value all peoples and cultures and preserve as much of them as we can. If we would try to do this we would see that it would help our economic and political goals.
When we go into ‘third world’ countries and build our factories and pay the workers the bare minimum instead of something descent we are showing a total disregard for them as people and their country as an ally and their culture as important. If we want to go into emerging countries to make more profit that is fine, but you can make more profit and still do right by the people of these countries. When big business goes in takes advantage of these people it provides ammo for anti-American propaganda by radicals like Chavez. We cannot afford that. On the flip side of that here in our country we impose high tariffs on imports from these countries but give favored trade status to China. How many toy and product recalls have we had in the last 6 months of items made in China? And we impose a $0.54 per gallon import tariff on ethanol from Brazil; why so that the few farmers in the Midwest can get the subsidies? Are we selling ethanol mixed gas nationwide? Are we keeping the gas prices so low that we don’t need to care about the environment? And do we have enough support in South America that we can snub our political noses at Brazil?
We need to shelve our political and economic egos and use some common sense and respect. We will find that the old adage about catching flies is true.
Once again I seem to be coming back around to the same topic. If we want the people of the ‘third world’ to be more like us, at least politically, we need to improve their standard of living. We cannot expect people to be concerned about the integrity of their national governments when they are going hungry, living without electricity and running water, being terrorized by local war lords and revolutionaries and drug cartels. We do not seem to grasp two things with the world; 1, not every one has all their basic needs met, and 2, not everyone wants to be just like us. In my opinion the first is not acceptable---I believe that everyone should have the freedom and security to live their lives and meet their basic needs without fear. As for the second, I do not believe that we need to force our way of life down the throats of others as the only way to create allies. People can think and live and be different from us and still be our allies. We would gain more respect from other countries if we showed a genuine respect and understanding of their cultures. The western world has a long history of thinking that the only civilized people are people that are just like them. That misconception has to be eliminated. People do not have to be living in 2 story brick homes with 2 cars and 2.3 kids, an IRA and trying to ‘keep up with the Jones’ to be good, intelligent, civilized people. The West has to realize that some of these people have had the same way of life for thousands of years, that does not make them unenlightened or ignorant; and there are things that we can learn from them-especially when it comes to respect. We have lost languages, cultures, and an immense amount of knowledge –we cannot recover any of this but we can learn from our arrogance and prevent the further loss of these priceless treasures. We as the human race need to value all peoples and cultures and preserve as much of them as we can. If we would try to do this we would see that it would help our economic and political goals.
When we go into ‘third world’ countries and build our factories and pay the workers the bare minimum instead of something descent we are showing a total disregard for them as people and their country as an ally and their culture as important. If we want to go into emerging countries to make more profit that is fine, but you can make more profit and still do right by the people of these countries. When big business goes in takes advantage of these people it provides ammo for anti-American propaganda by radicals like Chavez. We cannot afford that. On the flip side of that here in our country we impose high tariffs on imports from these countries but give favored trade status to China. How many toy and product recalls have we had in the last 6 months of items made in China? And we impose a $0.54 per gallon import tariff on ethanol from Brazil; why so that the few farmers in the Midwest can get the subsidies? Are we selling ethanol mixed gas nationwide? Are we keeping the gas prices so low that we don’t need to care about the environment? And do we have enough support in South America that we can snub our political noses at Brazil?
We need to shelve our political and economic egos and use some common sense and respect. We will find that the old adage about catching flies is true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)