Category Archives: International Affairs

An Absolut World Through the Reconquista

No, what you see above is not part of an underground La Raza goal planning briefing, it is part of the new advertising campaign for Absolut Vodka in Mexico.  Obviously playing on Mexican nationalist sentiments, Absolut implies that in a perfect world, about 1/2 of the United States would be Mexico.  This advertisement completely makes a mockery of national sovereignty and potentially only feeds the building sentiment in the SW U.S. and in Mexico about the re-conquering of “Mexico territory”. 

I am not one that typically calls for boycotts or silly actions aimed at making a political point.  I thought the call for a French boycott in 2003 was ridiculous and changing the name Frech Fries to Freedom Fries was even more so.  Even in this instance I do not call for the absolute boycott of Absolut, although I would fully support someone who made that decision on their own.  For me, the choice is easy, I don’t drink so I basically boycott all alcohol. Nevertheless, whether or not one chooses to boycott Absolut, at the least all consumers should contact Absolut and vent their disgust at such an ad campaign.  It is completely inappropriate. 

Now I recognize that this is just an ad campaign.  I seriously doubt Absolut vodka actually support the reconquista.  I also would not be so concerned about an ad campaign such as this if it were not playing on a real issue with a real movement behind it.  If they did the exact same ad with Canada claiming the Pacific Northwest or with Norway claiming Sweden, I wouldn’t really care because they are not really issues with any movement. But the reconquista movement is moving forward and is a real threat. 

I recognize that anyone that dares make such a claim is automatically labelled as racist.  Fine, call me racist.  Personally, I couldn’t care less what race, color, creed you are;  I just care about my country and preserving her sovereignty.  But even there I am not as hard core when it comes to illegal immigration or border control as many off my peers on the right.  However, I do believe that groups like La Raza have the ultimate goal of seeing SW U.S. return to Mexico.   Signs of the reconquista movement are everywhere, they were around back in the mid-1990’s as well. 

One of my favorite bands and perhaps the largest influence on me becoming politically minded was Rage Against the Machine (even though we disagree on practically everything).  They regularly sang about revolution and dropped jabs about reconquista and Mexican nationalism. 

In addition to La Raza, who tries to downplay their nationalist tendencies, there is also the Mexica Movement, who calls for the complete reconquest of North America by her indiginous people and the National Will Organization that calls for the standard reconquest of the American Southwest.  

While I personally think the reconquista movement is not a major threat at the moment, the more I read about it the more I think that there is the potential for trouble in the future; almost Islamic-fundamentalist like trouble.  Since the 1970’s and 80’s people have been talking about flooding the American SW with hispanics from Mexico in order to facilitate such a revolution.  While I think that on an individual basis, legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico come here with the intention of providing a better life for themselves and their families, there are well-organized organizations who are encouraging these movements for more sinister purposes. 

Ultimately, I am not ready to make the full leap into the conspiracy of the Reconquista, at least as a major movement, but it is something to be watched and monitored.  Controlling our borders is essential, but not to keep Mexicans out, but simply because we have laws about entering our country and they need to be upheld.  For me the issue isn’t immigration it is legal sovereignty.  As many hispanics, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, Asians, etc can come to our country as can make it for all I care, I just want them to do it legally. We have a process for a reason, use it.

 Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

P.S. The people living in the American SW would likely fight to death before allowing Mexico to take it over.  The SW is prosperous, modern, and generally well governed and free.  The last thing they want is a country with the poor leadership and infrastructure of Mexico taking it over.  Mexico can barely run the land they have, let alone attempting to take over a huge swath of the United States.  What a joke.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Equality, Illegal immigration, Immigration, International Affairs, Politics, Progress, Progressive

The Hypocricy of the Left; More Mass Graves in Iraq

There are many reasons that I have stated in the past for why I think we need to stay in Iraq and not leave until the job is done. All of the reasons I have stated are valid and legitimate and make compelling arguments, but none is more important or compelling than the simple obligation we have to protect and provide a measure of stability to the Iraqi people.    This one reason alone is why it is essential to stay the course in Iraq and I find it extremely hypocritical of the “anti-war Left” to demand that we withdraw our troops out now.

The Left is suppossed to be the champion of civil rights, of peace and freedom, they are anti-torture, anti-totalitarianism, they criticize the West for not doing enough to protect people in Sudan or Rwanda.  They yell and scream over injustices as the U.S. pursues it’s interests over the interests of the developing world.  And they try to guilt us into spending untolds amount of dollars to “save the environment” and save us from global warming, a theory that is still widely disputed in academia.  Yet they have the gall to not only accept, but seemingly welcome, the inevitable horrors and, dare I say, genocide that would likely occur if the U.S.-led coalition withdrew from Iraq today.   Why?  All because they hate George Bush and, let’s be honest, the hegemony of the United States. 

So why am I so riled up about this today?  Because yet again mass graves of innocent people have been uncovered in Iraq.  Mass graves filled with at least 50 bodies of average, everyday Iraqis who were killed by Al Qa’eda in Iraq (AQI).  Not only have 50 bodies been found but that is only 1/3 of the orchard where likely more bodies yet remain and there are at least two more orchards that are believed to be burial grounds as well. 

So how did this happen?  Why did AQI do this? Read the following:

In 2006, al Qaeda in Iraq declared Diyala province the center of its Islamic State of Iraq caliphate. The Himbus area, with its fruit orchards providing cover from aircraft, became a major weapons storage area and training center. And it ruled with an iron fist.

“When they first came into the area, they said they were mujahideen fighting the occupation forces. But later they started forcing people to give them money and forcing them from their homes. People who worked for the Iraq Army or the Iraqi Police were punished,” said Sheik Abbas Hussein Khalaf, the leader of nearby Taiyah village.

They imposed their rules: no music, no smoking, the woman had to wear the veil, and there were no wedding celebrations allowed. No one was allowed out after 5 p.m.”

Some people were shot in front of the people in the street, others were kidnapped, killed and put in the mass graves.”

One of them was a cousin, he said, the brother of the man who had escaped and told U.S. troops about the graves.

Mass executions, once associated with Saddam Hussein’s regime, became a tool of terror used by al Qaeda as it took over vast swaths of Iraq following the 2003 U.S. invasion.

So what makes you folks who are so oppossed to our continued presence in Iraq so confident that this same thing would not occur if we were to leave now?  or is it that you aren’t sure, but are so mad and ticked off at Bush and the U.S. that you don’t care or are blinded to the realities?  I suspect the latter. 

Do you think that AQI only did this because we are there and they are trying to get us out and once we leave they will be benevolent rulers?  If you do you are ignorant and stupid.   AQI was acting precisely as the Taliban acted in the 1990’s and there is no reason to suspect AQI would not do the same in future. 

Granted, things are going relatively well in Iraq right now.  It is far more stable that it was a year ago or in 2006 when these killings occurred.  But the security situation is still unreliable and uncertain, as evidenced by the recent upswing of violence in Basra. 

If the Left-wing of our country and around the world really cared about human rights, peace, and freedom they would stop demanding that we pull our troops home immediately.  They would stop and think about the humanitarian situation on the ground and the likely humanitarian crisis that would arise out of a result of our early exit.  

Now, I don’t care if you want to complain and hate on Bush, fine.  Do that all you want.  Blame him for getting us in to Iraq in the first place and criticize him all you want.  Even feel free to criticize our military commanders for poor strategy and planning at the beginning of the war if you want.  I don’t mind your criticism of the process or the initial decision making issues, but results are what matters now, especially when we are talking about life and death.  The left should be leading the call for us to see it through to ensure human rights and safety for every Iraqi person, those issues, so core to the current situation in Iraq, is what the left wing preaches everyday for the rest of the world, but apparently they consider the Iraqi people unworthy of the same support that is so freely given to the people in Darfur or other ravaged areas.  The left needs to do some real soul searching and refine their message in a manner that condemns the mistakes and ‘punishes’ those that made them in the whole Iraq process, but also call for whatever needs to be done to prevent a genocide in Iraq; starting with the maintainment of our troops to root out extremists like those associated with AQI.

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Conservative, Democrats, Election 2008, Genocide, Global Warming, International Affairs, Iraq, Liberal, Liberalism, Politics, Progress, Progressive, Uncategorized

Muslims Out Number Catholics Worldwide

The Vatican has just reported that Islam has overtaken Roman Catholicism as the largest faith in the world.  Apparently Muslims make up 19.2% of World population, while Catholics make up 17.4%.    This really should not be much of a surprise, I would have been more surprised if Catholicism was still ahead. 

I think there are a couple of key aspects that have been left out of the analysis in this report.  Sure, Catholicism is now outnumbered by Islam, but Catholicism only counts their own members, not members of break off sects (aka Protestantism) or other independent Christian faiths (aka Mormonism, JW, etc).   While it is likely that the number of Muslims includes all Muslims regardless of Sunni, Shiite, or any other affiliation. 

A more accurate comparison would have been to compare Catholicism with Sunni Islam while comparing Christianity as a whole with Islam as a whole.  If done in this way, Christianity makes up 33% of world population while Islam (still) makes up 19.2%.   A significant lead for Christianity.  

However, all is not necessarily well in Christendom.  The Western world, which contains a majority of Christians, have some of the lowest population growth rates in the world.  In some countries, there are nearly as many deaths as there are births in a given year.  Additionally, more and more people from Christian backgrounds are leaving religion altogether as they become more wealthy and have less of a need for religion. 

The growth rates of major Christian religions, such as Catholicism, Lutheranism, etcetera has diminished to a crawl;  really the saving grace for Christianity are the newer religions and movements within the umbrella.  The evangelical movement has gone through a boom period and independent faiths such as Mormonism and the Jehovah’s witness continue to have significant growth rates and are establishing a greater footprint in the community. 

But even the growth of those faiths and movements can’t keep up with Islam.  Undoubtedly, this 14% gap in population between Christianity and Islam will continue to shrink.  At some point in the not to distant future Islam will pass Christianity.  Islam continues to spread, they are essentially experiencing their own modern-day crusade (a topic for another article) and taking over countries as they go along.   Christianity cannot keep up with this.  It is a harsh reality that needs to be recognized and if the Christian world is concerned about there ought to be serious discussion about how to deal with it (and I don’t mean deal with it in terms of War or violence) and adjust.  It is a unique time for the world.  We are indeed witnessing the rise of the East, both the Near East and the Far East.  Could this century be the century of the East? Time will tell.

2 Comments

Filed under Christian, Christianity, International Affairs, Islam, Politics, Race, Religion

4,000 Deaths

In the last day U.S. deaths in Iraq has reached a milestone mark of 4,000.   While any death of a U.S. person, soldier or otherwise, is sad and unfortunate, this number should be a sign of the incredible ability of our military.  When taken in context of previous wars and years in country, 4,000 is an extremely low number and is laudable. 

We invaded Iraq five years ago this month.  We are averaging about 800 deaths per year.   That is nothing in the scheme of things when one analyzes War on a macro and historical scale.  Now I need to interject here and recognize that this is not “nothing” to those whom have lost a son, daughter, friend, sibling, etc.   The death of one of their own is very personal and painful and my heart goes out to them.

Nevertheless, this number is not a sign of abject failure and destitution.  On the contrary, it is a sign of success and is demonstrative of the incredible quality and ability of our military and their medical staff.  War is an awful and terrible thing.  There is nothing to like about it, yet it is sometimes a necessary thing.  We can go back and forth arguing over the merits of this particular war and why we are there, but ultimately, what it now comes down to for the troops on the ground is protecting themselves and the soldier at their side and ensuring a measure of hope and freedom for the Iraqi people.  They are doing a great, great job and, if we stand by them, will ultimately stablize Iraq enough to leave without Iraq turning into another Somalia.

Undoubtedly, today and this week, all the news will be about the 4,000 deaths.  The President will be attacked, McCain will be attacked, the war will be criticized, Obama and Hillary will promise to bring the troops home immediately.   We Americans love to get riled up and react to every talking point in the most negative way possible without ever thinking things through and trying to understand what the issue actually is telling us.  So let’s give some context to 4,000 deaths:

  • 1968 was the deadliest year of the Vietnam war, they had 16,592 deaths.  Four times more than we have in this war in five years
  • In the 3 years of the Korean War, the United states lost 36,516
  • In June 1944 in the Battle of Normandy, WWII, the United States lost 1465 people.  About 1/3 the number we have lost in 5 years of Iraq.
  • In the Battle of Gettysburg there were about 8,000 dead in three days of fighting.

The only war we have had with less casualties was the the Gulf War in 1991.  That spoiled us and set our expectations way too high as a people and caused us to have unrealistic expectations for the military and caused us to forget the realities of war. 

I recognize that the way we fight war today is different from the past, nevertheless, the numbers are telling.  It tells us that the money we spend developing new and smart weaponry, protecting our soldiers, and investing in continued R&D is paying off.  It tells us that our soldiers are more sophisticated and skilled with better leadership than at anytime in our history. 

All in all, things are not great in Iraq, but they are not dire either.  And regardless of what we all may think of why we went to war or the justness of it, it would be evil and disgusting if we pulled our troops out now only to allow Iraq to fall into utter chaos, ruled by vicious gangs and tribes – basically allowing Al Qaeda in Iraq to run rampant.  Instead of complaining and attacking our government and military for 4,000 deaths in five years, we should be remorsely impressed that there has ONLY been 4,000 deaths in this war, a war that consisted of invading a foreign country and occupying hostile territory for five years.  That is an impressive feat.  I applaud our Military, of which I am part, for their bravery, patriotism, and dedication to duty.

1 Comment

Filed under Election 2008, International Affairs, Iraq, John McCain, Military, Politics, Republicans, War

African Countries Better Than Zimbabwe

In an interview that was released last week, a Western reporter had the rare fortune to interview Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe.  While defending his country and his record he said something along the line of “Aside from South Africa, name me one African country that is better off economically than Zimbabwe?”  Sadly, but for reasons I understand, the reporter didn’t take the bait.  So I will do so here, if only to point out that Zimbabwe is about on par with Somalia in terms of livable countries and is a rat hole. (Data from CIA World Factbook, 2008)

Stats are in the order of: GDP Real Growth Rate (RGR), GDP Per Capita (PPP), Unemployment (UE), Poverty (P), Life Expectancy (LE), and AIDS Prevalence (AIDS)- Bold indicates significant stats.

Zimbabwe– RGR: -6%, PPP: $500, UE: 80%, P: 68%, LE: 39.5 yrs, AIDS: 24.6%

Botswana– RGR: 4.7%, PPP: $14,700, UE: 23.8%, P: 30.3%, LE: 50.5 yrs, AIDS: 37.3%
Zambia– RGR: 6%, PPP: $1,400, UE: 50%, P: 86%, LE: 38.44 yrs, AIDS: 16.5%
Namibia– RGR: 4.5%, PPP: $5,200, UE: 5.3% (is that right?), P: NA, LE: 43.11 yrs, AIDS: 21.3%
Mozambique– RGR: 7.5% PPP: $900, UE: 21%, P: 70%, LE: 40.9 yrs, AIDS:12.2%
Rwanda– RGR: 6%, PPP: $1,000, UE: NA, P: 60%, LE: 48.99, AIDS: 12.2%

Looking at this data, it can be difficult to separate Zimbabwe from some of their neighbors, however the most telling statistic is Zimbabwe’s -6% growth rate for 2007, while all of her immediate neighbors are growing at at least 4.5 % annually.  Additionally, one statistic that is not included above due to its lack of inclusion in the World Factbook is inflation rate.  Zimbabwe currently has the worlds highest inflation, upwards of 100,000%.  (Note, I included Rwanda in list above to show a country that was in the midst of Genocide just about 10 years ago to demonstrate how some are rising, while Zimbabwe is falling).

The Factbook also ranks countries based on various stats, let’s look at how some African Countries rate on the economic indicators above: (Where the country stands in World Rankings is the number given)

GDP Real Growth Rate
Best in Africa: Angola – #4
Botswana: #118
Zimbabwe: #217
Worst in Africa: Zimbabwe (Only Gaza and the West Bank are worse in the World)

GDP Per Capita
Best in Africa: Equitorial Guinea- #12 ($44,100, Gotta love that Oil!)
Botswana: #74
Zimbabwe: #229 (2nd to last in the World)
Worst in Africa: Congo, Democratic Republic of, #230

Unemployment
Best in Africa: Namibia, #63
Botswana: #170
Zimbabwe: #197 (3rd from last in the world)
Worst in Africa: Liberia, #198

So, Mr. Mugabe, it is pretty clear that you have completely destroyed your country over the last ten years. A country that was once the bread basket of Africa is now worse than Somalia and Sudan on nearly every level. What a mightly fall Zimbabwe has taken.

Robert Mugabe is among the worst people in the world, yet he refuses to recognize his own ineptitude and the realities that his country faces. Right next door in Botswana is Africa’s new shining star. They certainly have their own issues, like dealing with AIDS, but they are improving. Mugabe and the rest of Africa would do well to look at the Botswana model and apply it themselves.

1 Comment

Filed under Africa, International Affairs, Politics

Addressing War, National Interest, and Iraq-Part 1

On a previous post that I wrote, oddly enough one about Josh Romney possibly running for congress, a debate has broken out in the comments section about war and President Bush.  Anytime this is discussed between me and someone who wants us to withdraw immediately from Iraq, a few of the same arguments are made, two of which are stated in comment below, given to us by SLCondensed:

I guess my problem is I can’t honestly justify attacking a country for its oil when there are so many worse countries and regimes around the world. The situation in Darfur is much worse than it ever was in Iraq, and we don’t do something about it why?

I posted a fairly brief response to this comment, but feel that there is so much more involved with this comment that it justified a whole post here.  The first comment SLCondensed writes comes down an issue of national interest and this is what will be addressed in Part 1 (the comment about Darfur will be addressed in Part 2).  After reading that sentence there are a few questions that need to be asked: 

1. Why did we go to war in Iraq?
2. Did we go to war in Iraq for Oil?
3. Were there worse regimes and countries than Iraq?
4. Considering how much conflict there is in the world, what responsibility does the U.S. have to intervene?  What is the threshold for such an intervention? How should the U.S., being the industrialized world’s security provider, determine when military intervention is acceptable?
5. Does the reason we went to Iraq in the first place even matter to the situation today?

Regarding why we went to war in Iraq, there was not one single reason.  Sure, the Bush administration sold us that there were WMDs and that was really the only reason given, but it was so much more than that.  First, I need to remind the reader that EVERYONE believed Iraq had WMDs before we invaded, everyone (except Saddam).  The question wasn’t, “Does Iraq have WMDs?”, it was, “how much of a threat are those WMDs?”  So I don’t want to hear anything about Bush lied, what a crock.

Anyway, here is the list of reasons why I think we went to Iraq: 1. WMDs (9/11 was still fresh on our minds), 2. Surround Iran with U.S. forces 3. Oil and Gas, 4. Send a message to other despotic regimes (which worked magically, just about 9 months after Iraq started Libya gave up it’s WMD program, perhaps Bush’s greatest acheivement and solidified my vote for him in ’04), 5. Revenge against Saddam for trying to assassinate Bush ’41, 6. To provide freedom to the Iraqi people, 6. To finally force people to take Western threats seriously (I mean, how many times can you say, “you better do this or else” and never follow through-lookin’ at you U.N.), 7. To fight terrorists somewhere not named the United States.

Some of those reasons are more honorable than others, some are more realistic than others, some are childish, but ultimately I believe all of those things were considered by the Bush administration during the decision making process.  Of course, the Administration could not come out and say all those things, it would have been political suicide. No President, whether GOP or Dem, would be that stupid. 

Question 2 was answered in question one, of course the need for oil played a part in our decision to go to war in Iraq.  So what?  The need for energy and fuel is essential to any society, the whole reason we have any interest in the Middle-East at all is because of energy.  If they didn’t have oil or gas we would view them and treat them the way we do Mali and Sudan.

Question 3, certainly there were worse regimes in the world, but not many.  North Korea, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Somalia, and Haiti to name a few.   But this brings us back to national interest and it’s role in our decision making process, which I will discuss in full in Part II.

Question 4,  these questions have no cut and dry answer.  But I will certainly share my opinion.  The way I view the current world is I see the U.S as the world’s only superpower and essentially, as the military for Canada, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand.   Each of these geographies, whether we or they like or not, rely on the U.S. predominantly for their security.  The reason they can get away with having such miniscule military forces is because they know the U.S. is there to back them up and we will so long as the reason is just.  This is a good scenario for both parties, it allows us to maintain our place in the world and grow and expand our economic interests.  It allows them to focus their more limited resources on providing for the people socially and economically.  The fact the U.S. acts in this role is precisely why the developed world blossomed.  Now these realities may upset you or you may like them, but the fact remains that this is the reality of the world in which we now live.

So, with the U.S. having such a large role in the world, both economically and militarily, it puts us in a place of responsibility.  How to use that responsibility is a question of great debate and the cause of much frustration and animosity, both on the part of America and the rest of the world.  The fact is, despite our current position as the world’s hegemon, we still have limited resources, we can’t do all things and we can’t be involved in everthing; nor should we.   Thus, all decisions are usually to be made based upon national interest.  Every country in the history of the world operates this way.

With the U.S. in such a unique and powerful position, we also have to show restraint.  Just because we have freedom and democracy does not mean that we have to force every other country to institute the same.  Forcing democracy seems like an oxymoron.  At the same time, the spread of democracy is in our national interests so we encourage democracy and try to demonstrate the value of it. 

Similarly, both because of national interest/limited resources and because we need to allow countries to largely work out their own issues, we just can’t and shouldn’t get involved everywhere.  Sometimes it is justified, but determining that justification is difficult.  I will address this much more in Part II.  Ultimately, though, the U.S. needs to make decisions based upon what is best for the U.S.

Question 5, ultimately SLCondensed’s comment basically was saying that we need to leave Iraq because we never should have been there in the first place.  Whether that reasoning is true or not, it has absolutely no relevance on the current situation.  The anti-Iraq people’s favorite argument against Iraq is this reason we are there thing and it is utterly ridiculous. The fact is, we are in Iraq, we destroyed their government, and we decided that we were going to help rebuild it and to provide freedom.  Essentially, we broke so we are going to fix it.

Why we went to Iraq in the first place does not change the fact that we are there.  Pulling out all of our troops and causing an even worse humanitarian crisis because you disagree of our original justification for the interaction is ridiculous, ignorant, and naieve.   Further, we are now winning.  Why are we going to pull out when victory and success is in our sights?

But you may say, what determine’s victory in Iraq? I would argue that victory is a country that is relatively stable, can provide for the basic needs of the people, and has a semblance of democracy.  We don’t need Iraq to be like the U.S. or even like Turkey right away, we need Iraq to just be able to largely support itself, defend its people from radicals, and provide an environment for continued economic development.

This leads me to briefly discuss U.S. history in war.  The United States has a large history of doing terrible in wars at the beginning but pulling out the victory in the end.  Let’s run down that history.  The U.S. had no business winning the revolutionary war.  We lost battle after battle and very nearly lost the war in the first year.  The war lasted about 8 years, in 1776 things were awful, yet by 1783 and ’84 we had come back and won. 

The War of 1812 was near disaster as well.  Our Navy was terrible and we lost many battles early on, but managed to pull it out in the end.  The Civil War is the perfect example.  From 1860 to 1863 the Union army was terrible, many people criticized the war and wanted us out.  had we listened to them the United States would be two countries. Fortunately we had a President that had resolve and refused to cower to public pressure.  Eventually, we won some big battles and won the war. 

In WWII the German military had the upperhand for the first year or two of our involvement, but again, American determination resulted in victory.  This takes us to Vietnam.  The reality in Vietnam is that when we gave up, we were on our way to winning, things were looking up.  The only reason we lost the War was because our politicians back home caved to public pressure.   We would have been outright victorious a short time later had we seen it through.

The only two wars that we haven’t been behind in were WWI, because we came in late and gave the Brits and French the boost they needed to break the stalemate with the Germans, and Iraq I, we faced a ridiculously weak military and only required Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.  (By the way, that was a War that was solely for oil, I wonder where all you were then?).

Today, we are going through a similar pattern to what we SHOULD be used to, except for the fact our people are historically ignorant.  The first 3 years of the “war” (I don’t even consider it a war, it more a peacekeeping and stability mission, we won the war when the Iraqi Army collapsed and Baghdad fell) were disasterous.  We made a lot of mistakes, just like the Lincoln administration did in the 1860’s, but year four has been a resounding success and year 5 is starting out much the same; even the Political situation is starting to stablize.  Yet so many of you still want us to throw in the towel.  It makes no sense!

As a result, the only conclusion I can come to as to why you want us to give up actually has nothing to do with Iraq or the realities there, it is that you hate and despise President Bush and want whatever it takes to bring him down to occur (short of assassination of course).   I am confident that had Kerry won in 2004 and followed the exact same path that Bush has taken in this second term, today you would be loving Kerry.  The reality is that so many of you are so blinded by your vitriol for Bush that you fail to recognize that the fastest way for us to get out of Iraq and the best way to ensure that a humanitarian crisis will be averted is by finishing the job there.  It reminds me of a common phrase our training instructors told us in Air Force Basic Training, “the fastest way out of here is to graduate.”   Things are going well in Iraq, sure they aren’t perfect, but they are still going well (you can tell that by the limited coverage Iraq gets in the media).  Give it a chance and try to look at the situation realistically.

6 Comments

Filed under 9/11, Air Force, Anti-War, Army, Congress, Conservative, Democracy, Democrats, Election 2008, Genocide, History, International Affairs, Iraq, Liberal, Liberalism, Marines, Media, Military, Myanmar, Politics, Progress, Progressive, Senate, Terror, terrorism

Can’t Bush Be Given at Least a Little Credit?

Christiane Amanpour and her CNN cohorts released a report about North Korea’s nuclear program on Monday.  They were given a tour of a known nuclear powerplant that North Korea admits they were using to build a nuclear bomb.  Today that plant is empty and desolate but Amanpour rather than giving any credit to the Bush administration and their handling of the situation, simply decided to make fun of the President. Consider the following paragraph:

For a nation President Bush labeled as part of the “axis of evil,” it was not an impressive sight: a dilapidated concrete hulk, built with few resources back in the early ’80s.

Basically, we are supposed to laugh and say, “ha, ha, Bush is an idiot.  He claims they are evil and dangerous but their nuclear plant is empty.  Moron.”

Nevermind the fact that the very next paragraph in the article she acknowldeges this:

But it did produce plutonium, enough to make a few bombs and to test-fire a nuclear weapon 18 months ago.

Hmmm, so 18 months ago that same plant was fully operational and was making bombs, but Bush and his policy get no credit?  So what happened then. Did Kim Jong Il just decide to become a benevolent dicatator and lose his ambition for a nuke for the good of the world?

I doubt it.  In fact Amanpour continues to tell us why North Korea did it:

For all of this, North Korea expected a million tons of heavy fuel oil, a lifting of sanctions and removal from the U.S. list of terrorist sponsors. This has not happened yet, so North Korea has slowed down the disabling process at Yongbyon.

The United States says Pyongyang hasn’t yet fully accounted for its past nuclear activities. However, both sides seem determined to overcome this stumbling block and reach out in other ways, too.

So basically, North Korea decided to dismantle it’s nuclear program because the U.S. and other countries offered benefits.  That sounds an awful lot like it is due to U.S. policy dictated by the Bush administration. 

I find it quite telling that CNN and Amanpour would fail to give Bush any credit for such a turn of events.  I also find it outrageous that every other news source is ignoring this North Korea story, instead they are talking about the NY Philharmonic Orchestra playing in Pyongyang.  This is a major story and a major victory, not just for Bush, but for the U.S. and the world as a whole.  The sad thing is, Clinton’s agreement with NK was a complete failure, but if it were as successful as Bush’s it would have lauded and praised, but simply because it is Bush it is ignored and cast aside.  What a sad state for our society and media. 

As a side note, purely discussing the NK nuclear program, I am still quite skeptical that they have dismanteled their nuclear program.  I am not saying they haven’t, but I would not be the least surprised to find out that they have a secret plant elsewhere.  Also, it is quite possible that now that they have their multiple nukes, they are content and decided to appease the U.S.   I mean, how many nukes do you need to destroy Seoul.  All we have heard about is a plant being dismantled, not about bombs.

13 Comments

Filed under Election 2008, International Affairs, Media, Military, Nuclear, Politics