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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)