I regret to inform you (again) of yet another editorial full of mindless and ignorant dribble. This one comes from the President of the Peace Network of the Ozarks, Dave Davison. This one is just about as ridiculous as the one from Roger Webb (Be sure to check that one out, if you enjoy a good laugh).
Alright, lets get down to it. Mr. Davison contends that it cannot possibly be rational to call shame on three people who "had the courage" to raise an impeachment sign during a Springfield Cardinals baseball game. Well, first off, it was a veterans night. A night in which those veterans would be honored for their service. Is the timing a coincidence? It's possible, but improbable. He also believes that it's especially an honorable act because of the the fact that "a president... has committed so many unconstitutional acts and cost the lives of so many people." What was unconstitutional? "We ask" you Mr. Davison. What. Was. Unconstitutional? Has Bush been punished? Surely if it was truly unconstitutional, then he would have had the slap down of the Supreme Court, right? But, Halliburton probably owns that, too
You write that this president has cost the lives of so many people, but maybe a review of history would do you some good. In no other war, have we lost so few people over such a long time. Sure, we lost some and it's tragic that it had to happen. But it is arguable that this was in the nation's interest (hence there would be no controversy).
Mr. Davison accuses Bush of "diliberately an falsely associating 9/11 with Saddam." There are those that say the Iraq had no connection to 9/11, such as Mr. Davison. That is not the point, however. Mr. Davison jumps from 9/11 to Iraq in order to "prove" that there was no connection. He misleads as so many do. 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, we can agree on that, correct? After 9/11 we became very interested in weapons of mass destruction because of the worry that terrorists would get their hands on such weapons, we can also agree on that. Now, here's the good part. Who, I ask, had WMDs (since he used them) and who was being quite uncooperative with those agencies that would make sure he didnt have them? What is Saddam Hussein? DING DING DING DING! What do we have for him? The point is Saddam Hussein funded the families of suicide bombers (its the terrorists, stupid). The point IS that Saddam Hussein threatened neighboring countries on many occasions and had no problem using chemical warfare. Furthermore Hussein had no problem funding terrorists. Thus, while he may have had no connection to Al Qaeda, he did have connections. This is where Mr. Davison and others jump the gun and refuse to face the facts. The War on *TERROR* is not the "War on Al Qaeda." The idea is to snuff out as many terrorists as possible to usher people away from this occupational choice. Also, the United States had an interest in stabilizing the region and Iraq, which I will admit has not quite materialized, which it may still do. Also, the United States had an interest in making sure that the oil supply of Iraq remained stabile. In the hands of a man who would spend the money for terrorists or WMD's and would consistently remain our enemy, it did not make sense to leave power in his hands. Sure the country was in order (through fear), but the disgusting remains of that regime (rape rooms, torture rooms, mass graves) seem to justify to me that we at least have done some good, if not the above. It is also in our interests to leave Iraq with a friendly democratic government in hopes that democracy will spread and that we have an ally in the Middle East who would act as a stabilizer. A risk and a chance for something better.
Anyway, a little more dribble before reasoned analysis. Mr. Davison writes that Bush has pushed an illegal war. How was the war illegal? Davison writes later that it violates international law, and thus is illegal. Let me clue Mr. Davison in to the reality of this world and the reality of the international realm. There are no laws. Think back to when school described the beginning of man before civilizations emerged. Hobbes wrote, "The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone" where people's lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes was talking about individual man, but the same sort of deal applies to nations (which are single entities). There are no laws in the international realm. Simply power reigns in the international realm. I am not advocating for "might makes right." I am simply stating that arguing this point on illegality is very flawed. The laws that do matter are those of the Constitution and the law book. The President went to war with Iraq with the express permission of the Congress of the United States, who had all the same access to information that the President does. That means that the war is actually legal. Alright, now if we're all lucky that little lie will stop being repeated (yeah, right). More later.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Six Years
It is good to remember people and events that taught you something. I think most Americans would say that they learned something about themselves or others because of 9/11. I don't feel obligated to commemorate the event since I was so far from it when it happened, knowing nobody who died and probably nobody who was related to someone who died. I do feel obligated to point out some of the terrible things that have sprouted since that day and the awful way in which some people, including our representatives, choose to "honor" those that died.
"Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters.
(www.foxnews.com, April 19, 2007)
The last troops arrived June 15, 2007, according to Al Jazeera. Two months before the plan was even instituted, Harry Reid proclaimed our troops to be failing. Furthermore, Patraeus has demonstrated that the surge did produce results.
Those words were supposedly "a botched joke." I don't think John Kerry is so inept as to trample his words that badly. Not to mention his past treatment of the military and current treatment of this one speaks volumes as the the truth of the "botched joke."
"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs," Kerry said Sunday. "Whether you like it or not ... Iraqis should be doing that."
Words mean everything. Words describe how we are feeling and how someone else feels. They are also used to describe situations and make connections to other ideas. Duh, right? Well, Senator Kerry used the words "dead of night, terrorizing" to describe what our soldiers are doing and then to say that Iraqi's should be "terrorizing" their women and children. Is his contention that our soldiers are terrorizing people and thus terrorists? Maybe, maybe not. I suppose it is possible that he was only talking about the specific act of breaking into homes? I doubt it seriously because the act of terrorizing is an act of causing terror. Who does that? In addition, what is the difference between terrorizing and war or security? War is terrible and it does cause terror. But in the context of the global war on terror, terrorists do these things, not soldiers. These soldiers do not break into people's houses and murder and/or maim and/or behead the Iraqi's. They root out terrorists and terrorist strongholds. Why would our soldiers even bother to break into every person's house looking for something that 9 times out of 10 isn't going to be there? Are they causing terror? Only insomuch as war causes terror, but by breaking into people's homes, no, I don't think so. Plus, tack this quote to the rest of Kerry's descriptions of our soldiers and that adds some weight to the argument.
"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."
Barak Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/wireStory?id=3475874) August 14, 2007
So that's all our military personnel are doing over in Afghanistan? They are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians." What a patently disgusting comment to make. Accusation, I should say, since there is no (uh huh, NO) evidence to suggest that we are over in Afghanistan bombing people's villages and killing the citizens and that's it. And this man is running to be a president? Is he even half qualified to run the military?
Senator Schumer, before the report was released by General Patraeus, made the above statement. He stated that our troops were "(unable) to protect these tribes" of Iraq. Maybe if you lived in a Third World nation, you could say that the military is inept. But how is it that the most powerful military in the world is inept in securing Iraq, whereas those great warlords did it. It's an outright lie. The Iraqi people are turning in terrorists because they are sick of being bombed by them. They are sick of the kidnappings, and the fighting. They are helping more and more to stem the tide of bombings and killings with the help of our troops.
Moveon.org with willing accomplice New York Times printed this full page ad on the exact day that Patraeus was set to begin his testimony. They (moveon.org and NYT) had no real idea what Patraeus would be saying and what he would be recommending. But apparently that makes no difference to those with only politics on the mind. General Patraeus (was) confirmed unanimously by the Senate. Such people who call him a liar today called him qualified in the beginning. What changed? Iraq was going badly at first and now its going better. So instead of praising the progress, or even dismissing it, Patraeus has to have his character and integrity assassinated? It's disgraceful to even utter the words our Congress has about a 4 star general who is succeeding in his mission.
These are just a few examples of borderline traitorous speeches made by some of our elected representatives and a political group. Granted, I tend to register "conservative" on the scale, but if Republicans (who have hardly been that conservative) were doing this and a more conservative political group was defaming an honorable general, they would get the same labels and the same criticisms. It is wrong. Wrong because this general has a clean service record. Wrong because our troops are still fighting the war and if we are still fighting then it is not lost. Wrong because the destruction of the mission leaves our troops with yet another loss to be ginned up for comparison (think Vietnam). Wrong because we promised the Iraqis a better life with freedom to choose what they want to do and be. And most important of all, it's wrong because the United States does not accept defeat. We do not just accept defeat and walk off licking our wounds. If we lose something, we get back on the horse and ride. It is one thing that separates us from them.
So the next time you may be thinking of just quiting because its cost us more money than we thought or more lives than we wanted, remember that America has the capability to do what it sets out to do. Remember that our word is on this and our reputation is on this and what else do we have if not that? And remember that our people are on that battefield still fighting on, still working to make sure that we finish what we started. Exercise your freedom of speech by choosing not to exclaim that the "war is lost" or that you believe the military is raping and pillaging Iraq. And certainly don't do that if you want to be called "patriotic" as well. It is not patriotic to speak for and work for your country's loss.
"Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters.
(www.foxnews.com, April 19, 2007)
The last troops arrived June 15, 2007, according to Al Jazeera. Two months before the plan was even instituted, Harry Reid proclaimed our troops to be failing. Furthermore, Patraeus has demonstrated that the surge did produce results.
Those words were supposedly "a botched joke." I don't think John Kerry is so inept as to trample his words that badly. Not to mention his past treatment of the military and current treatment of this one speaks volumes as the the truth of the "botched joke."
"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs," Kerry said Sunday. "Whether you like it or not ... Iraqis should be doing that."
Words mean everything. Words describe how we are feeling and how someone else feels. They are also used to describe situations and make connections to other ideas. Duh, right? Well, Senator Kerry used the words "dead of night, terrorizing" to describe what our soldiers are doing and then to say that Iraqi's should be "terrorizing" their women and children. Is his contention that our soldiers are terrorizing people and thus terrorists? Maybe, maybe not. I suppose it is possible that he was only talking about the specific act of breaking into homes? I doubt it seriously because the act of terrorizing is an act of causing terror. Who does that? In addition, what is the difference between terrorizing and war or security? War is terrible and it does cause terror. But in the context of the global war on terror, terrorists do these things, not soldiers. These soldiers do not break into people's houses and murder and/or maim and/or behead the Iraqi's. They root out terrorists and terrorist strongholds. Why would our soldiers even bother to break into every person's house looking for something that 9 times out of 10 isn't going to be there? Are they causing terror? Only insomuch as war causes terror, but by breaking into people's homes, no, I don't think so. Plus, tack this quote to the rest of Kerry's descriptions of our soldiers and that adds some weight to the argument.
"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."
Barak Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/wireStory?id=3475874) August 14, 2007
So that's all our military personnel are doing over in Afghanistan? They are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians." What a patently disgusting comment to make. Accusation, I should say, since there is no (uh huh, NO) evidence to suggest that we are over in Afghanistan bombing people's villages and killing the citizens and that's it. And this man is running to be a president? Is he even half qualified to run the military?
Senator Schumer, before the report was released by General Patraeus, made the above statement. He stated that our troops were "(unable) to protect these tribes" of Iraq. Maybe if you lived in a Third World nation, you could say that the military is inept. But how is it that the most powerful military in the world is inept in securing Iraq, whereas those great warlords did it. It's an outright lie. The Iraqi people are turning in terrorists because they are sick of being bombed by them. They are sick of the kidnappings, and the fighting. They are helping more and more to stem the tide of bombings and killings with the help of our troops.
Moveon.org with willing accomplice New York Times printed this full page ad on the exact day that Patraeus was set to begin his testimony. They (moveon.org and NYT) had no real idea what Patraeus would be saying and what he would be recommending. But apparently that makes no difference to those with only politics on the mind. General Patraeus (was) confirmed unanimously by the Senate. Such people who call him a liar today called him qualified in the beginning. What changed? Iraq was going badly at first and now its going better. So instead of praising the progress, or even dismissing it, Patraeus has to have his character and integrity assassinated? It's disgraceful to even utter the words our Congress has about a 4 star general who is succeeding in his mission.
These are just a few examples of borderline traitorous speeches made by some of our elected representatives and a political group. Granted, I tend to register "conservative" on the scale, but if Republicans (who have hardly been that conservative) were doing this and a more conservative political group was defaming an honorable general, they would get the same labels and the same criticisms. It is wrong. Wrong because this general has a clean service record. Wrong because our troops are still fighting the war and if we are still fighting then it is not lost. Wrong because the destruction of the mission leaves our troops with yet another loss to be ginned up for comparison (think Vietnam). Wrong because we promised the Iraqis a better life with freedom to choose what they want to do and be. And most important of all, it's wrong because the United States does not accept defeat. We do not just accept defeat and walk off licking our wounds. If we lose something, we get back on the horse and ride. It is one thing that separates us from them.
So the next time you may be thinking of just quiting because its cost us more money than we thought or more lives than we wanted, remember that America has the capability to do what it sets out to do. Remember that our word is on this and our reputation is on this and what else do we have if not that? And remember that our people are on that battefield still fighting on, still working to make sure that we finish what we started. Exercise your freedom of speech by choosing not to exclaim that the "war is lost" or that you believe the military is raping and pillaging Iraq. And certainly don't do that if you want to be called "patriotic" as well. It is not patriotic to speak for and work for your country's loss.
Friday, September 7, 2007
The Enemy (NOT FOR THOSE EASILY OFFENDED) TERRORIST VIDEOS
The following videos are very, very, very graphic. Please DO NOT WATCH
unless you are very sure that you wish to see them. They are an
eye-opening view into minds and methods of the terrorists that we are
fighting against. Again, they are valuable for an understanding, but
they are extremely graphic. Extremely graphic.
http://www.aliennationreport.com/NICKBERG.html
http://www.aliennationreport.com/JACKHENSLEY.html
The Alien Nation Report has several videos that you may also view, if just half of one is not enough.
This is a link to another beheading video in which a child does the beheading...
http://www.aliennationreport.com/TALIBANBEHEADING.html
unless you are very sure that you wish to see them. They are an
eye-opening view into minds and methods of the terrorists that we are
fighting against. Again, they are valuable for an understanding, but
they are extremely graphic. Extremely graphic.
http://www.aliennationreport.com/NICKBERG.html
http://www.aliennationreport.com/JACKHENSLEY.html
The Alien Nation Report has several videos that you may also view, if just half of one is not enough.
This is a link to another beheading video in which a child does the beheading...
http://www.aliennationreport.com/TALIBANBEHEADING.html
9/11 Video with Kevin Cosgrove
Kevin Cosgrove was communicating with 911 Services after the second tower was hit.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
The Evil Bush Administration and the Vast Conspiracy Surrounding Dick Cheney!!!!
Click on the title to read the mindless incessently regurgitated dribble from the pen of one Roger Webb. Its worth reading simply for entertainment value. Perhaps it should be made into a movie - think "Enemy of the State" or "Conspiracy Theory."
I don't even know where to start with something that is so wild, yet posed as something... academic? Serious?
The first lie in this idiotic piece came from the second sentence. Webb writes:
In addressing the contention that Iraq and al Qaeda were not connected, which was found false by a political scientist by the name of Christopher Carney, read the below site for links between Saddam Hussein and his government to members of al Qaeda. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp) Please read the article to educate yourself. It debunks the first idea of the painfully repetitious drum beat of Bush-haters.
The second lie is also in the second sentence - that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, that is to say biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. It is well known that Iraq had and used chemical weapons on numerous occasions. It is well known that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. All of the sudden, Saddam Hussein, an aggressive and wildly defiant leader just decided to give up all those weapons and even the nuclear program. But he was still defiant in letting inspectors in to any place they felt necessary to go. But hey, if you hate Bush, just give Hussein, or hell, even al Qaeda the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, many others on the opposite side of the political spectrum have repeated Bush's claims to WMD's in Iraq. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp) Did they lie or was the intelligence bad? They have access to as much intelligence as Bush does. If thats the case, then all sides lied or the intelligence was flawed. Or maybe the intelligence wasn't flawed. There have been reports of some chemical weapons being found, albeit a very small amount. That does not mean that Hussein did not hide them or ship them out of the country. How about that for a conspiracy theory, since thats all we are talking about anyway.
Webb contends that Iraq was no threat to our national security. Iraq waged two wars on countries that supply oil to the United States - Kuwait, a friendly nation, and Iran, after a deterioration of relations the prior two years, not so friendly. Furthermore, Iraq attempted these invasions in order to place itself as the leading Arab nation and largest power base in the Gulf. In addition to this, Saddam used chemical warfare, a crime against humanity. Saddam routinely attacked his own people, mostly the Kurds. Iraq, at the very least, was developing nuclear technology. If you really think this Mr. Webb, then with what little respect you deserve, You're wrong. And not just wrong, dangerously short sighted. In fact, horse with blinders comes to mind.
"The real powers at Halliburton." Okay, with this short statement I immediately know that Mr. Webb does not like corporations, since they are the "real powers." Furthermore, he thinks Bush and Cheney are just puppets for the Halliburton Puppetmaster. Please. This is so painful to read, simply because of the idiocy dripping from each ill-concieved notion.
This is the next and probably the most incessantly ignorant phrase that Bush-haters just love to tout. "Cheney... was a lot smarter than Dubya." There are no stupid men or women who can make it to the White House. None. That means any president at all has to have at least a passing intelligence to make it. If you show the kind of ignorance that these people attribute to Bush, people will brow beat you out of the PRIMARIES. There is this equally ignorant idea that Bush has surrounded himself with smart people who can carry him and catch (most) of his idiotic moments or ideas. Again, use the mushy gray mass, it will serve you well even if it hasn't thus far. It can. I promise. Bush got to be the president because he surrounded himself with competent people who could take up much of the workload so that he could be free to deal with the issues. Yes, the man is inarticulate. Stupid? No.
Webb then goes on to spout yet another lie about Cheney. "It is generally agreed that Cheney is the most powerful and influential VP ever," he says. Maybe in the lunatic conspiracy theory circles he travels in. The Vice President's ONLY power is the ability to vote as a tie breaker in the Senate, if that ever even happens. And if he's there. Perhaps there is a second power. He inherits the presidency if something happens to Bush. Other than that, what power does he have? He goes around and makes speeches. So what? That sounds to me like "the most powerful and influential VP ever." This is pure insanity, and that it made it into the Newsleader says a lot about the paper. Webb is so factually inept its disgusting. And... there's more.
Webb thinks that it is reasonable to assume that Dick Cheney offered himself to the Vice Presidency because those in Haliburton had some interests and he wanted to fulfill those interests. Oh yeah, and Bush didn't actually choose Cheney. He just had to accept him. Cheney pushed and shoved his way against a presidential candidate and poor old Bush just didn't have the backbone to choose someone else. Garbage. And, I'm sorry Mr. Webb. It isn't quite as reasonable as you would think. Remember that old addage about assuming?
Cheney was given severence pay of 35 million for being a productive person. He ran his job effectively and was given that money. He grew the business, made himself valuable. It's not as if Haliburton knew that we would be in Iraq and they would make all that money back by their puppets Dick and George... or is it??? Hmmmmm.... Oh yeah, and we also never went to the moon. Bah.
"We were not greeted as liberators," says Webb. Thats why they keep asking for us to stay until the job is done? No, no one likes another country's people, much less military showing up and running the show. No one. Its obvious. Perhaps, and I'm only speculating, but if we continue and succeed in winning, we will be seen as liberators later on.
"We have lost the respect of most nations," proclaims Webb. Lets first start off thinking about how this world is organized. The international system is anarchic, which is to say that there are no real rules. That means that states or certain organizations are individualistic players seeking their own interests and their own survival. If there is resources enough for some allies (or other "individuals" who see things our way or us theirs), then they can help out. That means when some countries have differing goals or differing allies, then there is potential for conflict. That also means that we never had the respect of anyone accept our allies. And allies switch and change as often as interests and problems arise. Did France ever really like us? Insofar as we had the same interests. Come the Iraq War, did France respect us? No, they had interests in Iraq, namely the Oil for Food program. Same for Russia, same for Germany. So lets remember that 35 nations followed, yes followed, us into Iraq because it was in their best interests. That is all that the world works on, and we would be wise to remember that. The world is made up of people but not a united people and certainly not a whole people. The world is also made up of factions that have become "countries" or groups that try to fight for a better life. Just like individual people, some win, some lose. These countries still respect our military, or they would stop us, don't you think? That is all the respect we will ever gain from another country. Respect for our military.
"The National Debt is staggering," says Webb. I agree. Sometimes there are things more important than money, and we are certainly in very little danger of hurting ourselves.
"3,700 soldiers and Marines have been killed, tens of thousands have lost limbs or suffered other life-altering injuries and we cannot calculate the cost of the serious consequences resulting from the disruption in the lives of the spouse and children of every person serving in Iraq", states Webb. So the moral of the story is to just let other nations be aggressive and fight for what they need or what they believe in, but we shouldn't, because after all, the costs of war are incalculable. Again, sometimes sacrifices must be made and if we decide (like Republicans AND Democrats did) to go to war, then we must make those sacrifices as small as possible. And we have done that here. 3,700 lives lost in a war over 4 years? Its a minuscule amount of American sacrifices in comparison to any other war in our history.
Of course, typical of a conspiracy theorist, Mr. Webb has to reminisce about what could have been if those people down in Florida hadn't been so stupid that they couldn't figure out how a ballot worked. They ignored the arrows in favor of "the second candidate" on the left. I have a link to a diagram and explanation of what happened, though I will say that it is a biased explanation. The diagram shows all. (http://www.asktog.com/columns/042ButterflyBallot.html)
All in all, Mr. Webb has a serious problem with associating reality with dreams and conspiracies revolving around everything he hates most. It makes for a good thriller, but at the very least an unlikely reality. Try using some common sense, Mr. Webb. Try thinking these things out before writing into a supposedly respected newspaper. And last but not least, try to dissociate the world of secret, smoke-filled rooms, shadow government, and political pawns from the real world. Real conspiracy theories of the proportions you propose, are extremely unlikely and that you pose it as serious commentary says volumes about your politics and objectivity.
I don't even know where to start with something that is so wild, yet posed as something... academic? Serious?
The first lie in this idiotic piece came from the second sentence. Webb writes:
Why did we invade Iraq, a country that had no connection to al-Qaida, that had no weapons of mass destruction and that posed no threat to our security?
In addressing the contention that Iraq and al Qaeda were not connected, which was found false by a political scientist by the name of Christopher Carney, read the below site for links between Saddam Hussein and his government to members of al Qaeda. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp) Please read the article to educate yourself. It debunks the first idea of the painfully repetitious drum beat of Bush-haters.
The second lie is also in the second sentence - that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, that is to say biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. It is well known that Iraq had and used chemical weapons on numerous occasions. It is well known that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. All of the sudden, Saddam Hussein, an aggressive and wildly defiant leader just decided to give up all those weapons and even the nuclear program. But he was still defiant in letting inspectors in to any place they felt necessary to go. But hey, if you hate Bush, just give Hussein, or hell, even al Qaeda the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, many others on the opposite side of the political spectrum have repeated Bush's claims to WMD's in Iraq. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp) Did they lie or was the intelligence bad? They have access to as much intelligence as Bush does. If thats the case, then all sides lied or the intelligence was flawed. Or maybe the intelligence wasn't flawed. There have been reports of some chemical weapons being found, albeit a very small amount. That does not mean that Hussein did not hide them or ship them out of the country. How about that for a conspiracy theory, since thats all we are talking about anyway.
Webb contends that Iraq was no threat to our national security. Iraq waged two wars on countries that supply oil to the United States - Kuwait, a friendly nation, and Iran, after a deterioration of relations the prior two years, not so friendly. Furthermore, Iraq attempted these invasions in order to place itself as the leading Arab nation and largest power base in the Gulf. In addition to this, Saddam used chemical warfare, a crime against humanity. Saddam routinely attacked his own people, mostly the Kurds. Iraq, at the very least, was developing nuclear technology. If you really think this Mr. Webb, then with what little respect you deserve, You're wrong. And not just wrong, dangerously short sighted. In fact, horse with blinders comes to mind.
"The real powers at Halliburton." Okay, with this short statement I immediately know that Mr. Webb does not like corporations, since they are the "real powers." Furthermore, he thinks Bush and Cheney are just puppets for the Halliburton Puppetmaster. Please. This is so painful to read, simply because of the idiocy dripping from each ill-concieved notion.
This is the next and probably the most incessantly ignorant phrase that Bush-haters just love to tout. "Cheney... was a lot smarter than Dubya." There are no stupid men or women who can make it to the White House. None. That means any president at all has to have at least a passing intelligence to make it. If you show the kind of ignorance that these people attribute to Bush, people will brow beat you out of the PRIMARIES. There is this equally ignorant idea that Bush has surrounded himself with smart people who can carry him and catch (most) of his idiotic moments or ideas. Again, use the mushy gray mass, it will serve you well even if it hasn't thus far. It can. I promise. Bush got to be the president because he surrounded himself with competent people who could take up much of the workload so that he could be free to deal with the issues. Yes, the man is inarticulate. Stupid? No.
Webb then goes on to spout yet another lie about Cheney. "It is generally agreed that Cheney is the most powerful and influential VP ever," he says. Maybe in the lunatic conspiracy theory circles he travels in. The Vice President's ONLY power is the ability to vote as a tie breaker in the Senate, if that ever even happens. And if he's there. Perhaps there is a second power. He inherits the presidency if something happens to Bush. Other than that, what power does he have? He goes around and makes speeches. So what? That sounds to me like "the most powerful and influential VP ever." This is pure insanity, and that it made it into the Newsleader says a lot about the paper. Webb is so factually inept its disgusting. And... there's more.
Webb thinks that it is reasonable to assume that Dick Cheney offered himself to the Vice Presidency because those in Haliburton had some interests and he wanted to fulfill those interests. Oh yeah, and Bush didn't actually choose Cheney. He just had to accept him. Cheney pushed and shoved his way against a presidential candidate and poor old Bush just didn't have the backbone to choose someone else. Garbage. And, I'm sorry Mr. Webb. It isn't quite as reasonable as you would think. Remember that old addage about assuming?
Cheney was given severence pay of 35 million for being a productive person. He ran his job effectively and was given that money. He grew the business, made himself valuable. It's not as if Haliburton knew that we would be in Iraq and they would make all that money back by their puppets Dick and George... or is it??? Hmmmmm.... Oh yeah, and we also never went to the moon. Bah.
"We were not greeted as liberators," says Webb. Thats why they keep asking for us to stay until the job is done? No, no one likes another country's people, much less military showing up and running the show. No one. Its obvious. Perhaps, and I'm only speculating, but if we continue and succeed in winning, we will be seen as liberators later on.
"We have lost the respect of most nations," proclaims Webb. Lets first start off thinking about how this world is organized. The international system is anarchic, which is to say that there are no real rules. That means that states or certain organizations are individualistic players seeking their own interests and their own survival. If there is resources enough for some allies (or other "individuals" who see things our way or us theirs), then they can help out. That means when some countries have differing goals or differing allies, then there is potential for conflict. That also means that we never had the respect of anyone accept our allies. And allies switch and change as often as interests and problems arise. Did France ever really like us? Insofar as we had the same interests. Come the Iraq War, did France respect us? No, they had interests in Iraq, namely the Oil for Food program. Same for Russia, same for Germany. So lets remember that 35 nations followed, yes followed, us into Iraq because it was in their best interests. That is all that the world works on, and we would be wise to remember that. The world is made up of people but not a united people and certainly not a whole people. The world is also made up of factions that have become "countries" or groups that try to fight for a better life. Just like individual people, some win, some lose. These countries still respect our military, or they would stop us, don't you think? That is all the respect we will ever gain from another country. Respect for our military.
"The National Debt is staggering," says Webb. I agree. Sometimes there are things more important than money, and we are certainly in very little danger of hurting ourselves.
"3,700 soldiers and Marines have been killed, tens of thousands have lost limbs or suffered other life-altering injuries and we cannot calculate the cost of the serious consequences resulting from the disruption in the lives of the spouse and children of every person serving in Iraq", states Webb. So the moral of the story is to just let other nations be aggressive and fight for what they need or what they believe in, but we shouldn't, because after all, the costs of war are incalculable. Again, sometimes sacrifices must be made and if we decide (like Republicans AND Democrats did) to go to war, then we must make those sacrifices as small as possible. And we have done that here. 3,700 lives lost in a war over 4 years? Its a minuscule amount of American sacrifices in comparison to any other war in our history.
Of course, typical of a conspiracy theorist, Mr. Webb has to reminisce about what could have been if those people down in Florida hadn't been so stupid that they couldn't figure out how a ballot worked. They ignored the arrows in favor of "the second candidate" on the left. I have a link to a diagram and explanation of what happened, though I will say that it is a biased explanation. The diagram shows all. (http://www.asktog.com/columns/042ButterflyBallot.html)
All in all, Mr. Webb has a serious problem with associating reality with dreams and conspiracies revolving around everything he hates most. It makes for a good thriller, but at the very least an unlikely reality. Try using some common sense, Mr. Webb. Try thinking these things out before writing into a supposedly respected newspaper. And last but not least, try to dissociate the world of secret, smoke-filled rooms, shadow government, and political pawns from the real world. Real conspiracy theories of the proportions you propose, are extremely unlikely and that you pose it as serious commentary says volumes about your politics and objectivity.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
10 Tips From the Religion of Climate Change: How Best To Sin No More
1. Move only if you absolutely have to and if you have to move, do not drive an SUV (John Edwards http://www.wlos.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.nc/22b7034c-www.wlos.com.shtml). Also, do not walk to the place you need to go (Chris Goodall http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece).
2. If you have to eat, eat veggies because meat productions is worse for emissions (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1856817). In addition, try not to eat too many veggies to save for ethanol (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/07/ethanol_and_foo.html).
3. Instead of flipping on the AC or turning on the heater, try doing without. The less coal or natural gas you use, the better the environment gets (http://environment.about.com/od/faqglobalwarming/f/globalwarming.htm).
4. Try building a house out of less wood, or halting your use of paper by writing in the dirt or on walls. Deforestation hurts the Earth's ability to absorb carbon emissions (http://environment.about.com/od/faqglobalwarming/f/globalwarming.htm).
5. Instead of using a toilet, try burying waste. This will save an enormous amount of water (http://nyc.gov/html/dep/html/ways_to_save_water/dodont.shtml).
6. Because of the large amount of chemicals and toxins involved in some cleaning supplies, use environmentally friendly cleaning supplies only if absolutely necessary (http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2007/07/downgrading-you.html)
7. Compact Flourescent Bulbs are better for the environment, but its even better to simply not use electricity (http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=608)
8. To cut down on harmful emissions, try not belching, passing gas, or releasing any form of excrement because methane, a gaseous component which is harmful to the atmosphere, is released (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_8_58/ai_82554146).
9. Recycle everything you can. For example, a used diaper (look to #8 to save even more!) could fertilize your lawn. Reclaim the water from urine by creating a still. Also, try reusing old cereal boxes and the like for paper.
10. To make the supreme sacrifice, simply choose not to breed in order to end your line of carbon emissions with you (http://www.vhemt.org/)
2. If you have to eat, eat veggies because meat productions is worse for emissions (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1856817). In addition, try not to eat too many veggies to save for ethanol (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/07/ethanol_and_foo.html).
3. Instead of flipping on the AC or turning on the heater, try doing without. The less coal or natural gas you use, the better the environment gets (http://environment.about.com/od/faqglobalwarming/f/globalwarming.htm).
4. Try building a house out of less wood, or halting your use of paper by writing in the dirt or on walls. Deforestation hurts the Earth's ability to absorb carbon emissions (http://environment.about.com/od/faqglobalwarming/f/globalwarming.htm).
5. Instead of using a toilet, try burying waste. This will save an enormous amount of water (http://nyc.gov/html/dep/html/ways_to_save_water/dodont.shtml).
6. Because of the large amount of chemicals and toxins involved in some cleaning supplies, use environmentally friendly cleaning supplies only if absolutely necessary (http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2007/07/downgrading-you.html)
7. Compact Flourescent Bulbs are better for the environment, but its even better to simply not use electricity (http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=608)
8. To cut down on harmful emissions, try not belching, passing gas, or releasing any form of excrement because methane, a gaseous component which is harmful to the atmosphere, is released (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_8_58/ai_82554146).
9. Recycle everything you can. For example, a used diaper (look to #8 to save even more!) could fertilize your lawn. Reclaim the water from urine by creating a still. Also, try reusing old cereal boxes and the like for paper.
10. To make the supreme sacrifice, simply choose not to breed in order to end your line of carbon emissions with you (http://www.vhemt.org/)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
