The Hollywood Elitists have nothing on some Austrailian celebrities.Please click here and read this item by Aussie blogger "Crapping on whatever I feel like."
It doesn't surprise me that spousal assault is justifiable to some people because the war is worse. It is just a pattern of behavior that seems to be universal among elitists, not only in the US, but universally. These people continue to show on a daily basis how out of touch with reality they really are.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Distracted
I was going to post something about Barry Cooper and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. That is in the works, but not today. I was loading some music onto my
mp3 player, and ripping some cds I borrowed from the library, and while listening to the music, I found myself watching, in utter fascination, the video images generated by the Windows Media Player in "Battery: Randomization" mode. I had never seen this before, so I just couldn't break away long enough to write anything important. You see, this is a brand new computer, courtesy of my Mom and Dad as a Christmas gift, and it is one sweet machine, so this is the first time I've used Windows XP at home.
It's almost like watching a lava lamp. I know...I should get a life.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Who Wins Or Loses?
The war in Iraq should not be a political issue in the United States. It is not a matter of President Bush being right or wrong, nor is it an issue of those who oppose the war being right or wrong. It is only the result of our actions in Iraq that is the issue, and if the politicians who oppose the mission continue to involve themselves in the war, it is they who would lose.
They would lose, because if they succeed in causing the US to withdraw from Iraq prematurely, they would be seen as being responsible for the inevitable slaughter of the minority population in that country. That would not bode well for their chances for reelection in 2008. If the Iraqi forces succeed in taking control of the country's security operations by November, which is the current goal, those who involve themselves in opposing the war politically will be seen as losers. If the government in Iraq falls into anarchy, and Iraq becomes the battleground involving more nations in the region--and likely world-wide involvement in a much larger and much more costly conflict--those who politically oppose the current mission in Iraq would be seen as losers.
It is interesting to note that while Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, many of those who opposed the policy, including John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, were blaming the failure on not having enough troops in Iraq, but now that Rumsfeld is gone, they are actually quoting his statement that "more troops without a military objective would just create more targets," in posing their objection to the "way forward."
Granted, military involvement alone cannot solve the problem of Iraq, diplomacy is sorely needed. But we have to be careful on how we conduct this diplomacy, and at what level. Diplomacy is necessary for the US mission to be seen as one of peacekeeping, rather than one of aggression or occupation. If the politicians really want to bring our troops home, they should begin referring to our involvement in Iraq as a peacekeeping mission. This would help change the perception of many of the people in Iraq who oppose the US mission in that country. It is already being done in the Anbar province, where marines working with the local governments and within the Iraqi security forces have succeeded in establishing a viable police force, and has helped to create much needed jobs in that region. Creating jobs is very important, because much of the unrest has been caused by unemployment. This strategy of the marines in Ramadi, by the way, is one of the suggestions in the Iraq Study Groups report that has been implemented, and in fact was being implemented weeks before the report was released.
Diplomacy, as well as the deployment of military forces, is defined by the separation of powers implicit in the Constitution is the responsibility of the Executive, not the Legislative branch of government. It is within the rights of members of Congress to voice their opposition to policy, but unless they can come up with a better plan to create stability in the region, their opposition will be duly noted and nothing more. It is undiplomatic for the members of Congress to refer to the mission as an escalation, because that increases the perception in Iraq of the American forces there as being aggressors or occupiers, which is counter productive to the mission.
Much of the diplomatic function belongs to the Iraqi government. It is that government which needs to talk to Iran and Syria to try go get them to stop their involvement in the insurgency. The five Iranians who were arrested in northern Iraq, recently, were not part of a diplomatic mission, but were agents of Iranian special forces sent there to recruit and train insurgents. The Iraqi government needs to establish some sort of deal with Iran, to tell them to stop this practice.
Saudi Arabia has stated that they would support the Sunni insurgency, if the US were to begin withdrawal from Iraq prematurely. This would begin a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which would eventually involve the entire world. Russia and France would support Iran, while China, Egypt, Turkey, the US, and much of the EU would have to come out in support of Saudi Arabia.
The President has called on the Saudis to become more involved in establishing stability in Iraq, and diplomacy on the part of the United States could really work here. We do not want the Saudis to support the insurgency, we want them to support, or at least recognize, the Iraqi government. As Natan Saransky stated in his book The Case For Democracy we could do without Saudi oil better than the Saudis could do without oil revenue. Our support of the Saudi Arabian economy could be used as a bargaining chip in getting them to contribute to the stability of Iraq.
Seventy-five percent of the Iranian population is pro American and opposes their own government, by all reports. If we were to establish diplomatic relations with that government, the attitude in
Iran would be "the friend of my enemy is my enemy," and recruitment by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations would increase. The opposition movement in Iran would die, because the rogue government in Iran would be legitimated, and use that legitimacy to support the murder and imprisonment of the opposition in Iran.
This could change, though. As I write this, there are some in the Iranian Supreme Islamic Council who are calling for the impeachment of President Ahmadinejad. If this were to come about, this may mean a more moderate stance by Iran in relations with the rest of the world. In that case, we may be able to have a diplomatic relation with that country, and we may be able to enlist their support for security in Iraq.
All in all, it isn't a matter of anyone winning or losing politically. If we can meet our goal of creating a successful Iraqi security force by November, we can begin withdrawing forces from Iraq. There are those in Congress who want to see this fail, because they see any successful policy of the President as being an attack against them. They should stay out of it--they will only lose no matter what happens in Iraq.
A successful Iraqi government does not mean the President has won anything, merely that his policy has been successful. What it does mean, however, is that we will see a more stable environment in that region, and the whole world wins.
They would lose, because if they succeed in causing the US to withdraw from Iraq prematurely, they would be seen as being responsible for the inevitable slaughter of the minority population in that country. That would not bode well for their chances for reelection in 2008. If the Iraqi forces succeed in taking control of the country's security operations by November, which is the current goal, those who involve themselves in opposing the war politically will be seen as losers. If the government in Iraq falls into anarchy, and Iraq becomes the battleground involving more nations in the region--and likely world-wide involvement in a much larger and much more costly conflict--those who politically oppose the current mission in Iraq would be seen as losers.
It is interesting to note that while Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, many of those who opposed the policy, including John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, were blaming the failure on not having enough troops in Iraq, but now that Rumsfeld is gone, they are actually quoting his statement that "more troops without a military objective would just create more targets," in posing their objection to the "way forward."
Granted, military involvement alone cannot solve the problem of Iraq, diplomacy is sorely needed. But we have to be careful on how we conduct this diplomacy, and at what level. Diplomacy is necessary for the US mission to be seen as one of peacekeeping, rather than one of aggression or occupation. If the politicians really want to bring our troops home, they should begin referring to our involvement in Iraq as a peacekeeping mission. This would help change the perception of many of the people in Iraq who oppose the US mission in that country. It is already being done in the Anbar province, where marines working with the local governments and within the Iraqi security forces have succeeded in establishing a viable police force, and has helped to create much needed jobs in that region. Creating jobs is very important, because much of the unrest has been caused by unemployment. This strategy of the marines in Ramadi, by the way, is one of the suggestions in the Iraq Study Groups report that has been implemented, and in fact was being implemented weeks before the report was released.
Diplomacy, as well as the deployment of military forces, is defined by the separation of powers implicit in the Constitution is the responsibility of the Executive, not the Legislative branch of government. It is within the rights of members of Congress to voice their opposition to policy, but unless they can come up with a better plan to create stability in the region, their opposition will be duly noted and nothing more. It is undiplomatic for the members of Congress to refer to the mission as an escalation, because that increases the perception in Iraq of the American forces there as being aggressors or occupiers, which is counter productive to the mission.
Much of the diplomatic function belongs to the Iraqi government. It is that government which needs to talk to Iran and Syria to try go get them to stop their involvement in the insurgency. The five Iranians who were arrested in northern Iraq, recently, were not part of a diplomatic mission, but were agents of Iranian special forces sent there to recruit and train insurgents. The Iraqi government needs to establish some sort of deal with Iran, to tell them to stop this practice.
Saudi Arabia has stated that they would support the Sunni insurgency, if the US were to begin withdrawal from Iraq prematurely. This would begin a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which would eventually involve the entire world. Russia and France would support Iran, while China, Egypt, Turkey, the US, and much of the EU would have to come out in support of Saudi Arabia.
The President has called on the Saudis to become more involved in establishing stability in Iraq, and diplomacy on the part of the United States could really work here. We do not want the Saudis to support the insurgency, we want them to support, or at least recognize, the Iraqi government. As Natan Saransky stated in his book The Case For Democracy we could do without Saudi oil better than the Saudis could do without oil revenue. Our support of the Saudi Arabian economy could be used as a bargaining chip in getting them to contribute to the stability of Iraq.
Seventy-five percent of the Iranian population is pro American and opposes their own government, by all reports. If we were to establish diplomatic relations with that government, the attitude in
Iran would be "the friend of my enemy is my enemy," and recruitment by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations would increase. The opposition movement in Iran would die, because the rogue government in Iran would be legitimated, and use that legitimacy to support the murder and imprisonment of the opposition in Iran.
This could change, though. As I write this, there are some in the Iranian Supreme Islamic Council who are calling for the impeachment of President Ahmadinejad. If this were to come about, this may mean a more moderate stance by Iran in relations with the rest of the world. In that case, we may be able to have a diplomatic relation with that country, and we may be able to enlist their support for security in Iraq.
All in all, it isn't a matter of anyone winning or losing politically. If we can meet our goal of creating a successful Iraqi security force by November, we can begin withdrawing forces from Iraq. There are those in Congress who want to see this fail, because they see any successful policy of the President as being an attack against them. They should stay out of it--they will only lose no matter what happens in Iraq.
A successful Iraqi government does not mean the President has won anything, merely that his policy has been successful. What it does mean, however, is that we will see a more stable environment in that region, and the whole world wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
