The current war funding bill, what little I know of it, is generally a good bill. Sure, there is some pork in it, as with all bills. But when you scrutinize it, even the pork isn’t all that bad, for the most part. A good deal of it is involving relief for farmers that have suffered through recent droughts, flooding, temperature extremes, etc. It’s easy to criticize such measures as that. Pay ten dollars for a grapefruit and you will see them in an entirely different perspective, however.
No, the problem with the bill isn’t the porks-it’s the dorks. The kind of dorks that just had to insist on a withdrawal of our forces in Iraq that oh my, what the fuck do you know, just happened to have been slated for the October before the next elections in 2008. My, what an amazing coincidence.
Of course, the bill will be vetoed, then we’ll see what happens. We’ll see what happens for example to the money allotted by the Democrats for veterans health care, and for making sure the troops receive the appropriate training before they are sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, like I said, it’s a good bill, were it not for that one provision. Take that one provision out, and it could well be one of the best bills ever considered, and certainly one of the best ones ever passed by Congress. But what good is it? You can go out on a date with the most beautiful woman the world has ever seen, she can fall madly in love with you and be willing to do anything you want. She can be charming, witty, and intelligent. She can make every man's head turn and every woman green with envy with just a glance. Despite all this you can rest assured she is all yours. But if you take her to your bedroom and lustfully undress her only to see maggots crawling out of her pussy, what good is it?
Well, in the case of this bill it's not quite that bad, but only because it is not too late. When Bush vetoes it as we all know he will, this provision can be excised, which it should be. Then, the Democrats can pass this bill otherwise intact. Bush wouldn’t dare then veto it on the grounds of pork, if he does, I will agree he’s as fucking stupid as a lot of people say he is. But he’s not that stupid, so he wouldn’t.
By excising this provision,the Democrats will have salvaged their chances of winning the ’08 elections, which if they win, then they can devote their agenda to ending the war on their terms, with control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress, it would be an almost sure bet the war would be ended by the next mid-terms.
Otherwise, if this provision is kept, the Democrats might be sabotaging their chances of winning, at the very least it will be a huge negative against them, and the Republicans will probably win for this as well as other reasons. Then, the war will more than likely go on longer, which may or may not be as big a catastrophe as a premature withdrawal. Still, it will go on longer than it will if the Democrats win. But with this provision in an otherwise excellent bill, they have pretty much screwed themselves.
I have never fucked a woman with maggots crawling out of her pussy, and it’s just as unlikely that Bush will ever pass this bill with this provision intact. As for the Democrats, I hope they are experiencing one hell of an orgasm right now, because they sure are fucking themselves.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
The Bread Basket Of The Middle East
It just occurred to me, in addition to being one of the wealthiest states in the world in regards to it's oil reserves, Iraq could well revert to it's ancient status as a land of fertility and abundance, with just a modicum of help from us. Of course, first we have to ensure a peaceful existence for the people before any kind of economic vitality can take hold. But Mesopatamia, Sumer, ancient Assyria and Babylon, was long noted as the "Fertile Crescent", as the rich soil that lay between the Tigris and Euphrates provided the nourishment for the developing of the worlds first, most ancient of civilizations.
Three thousand years later, of course, the land may not be that fertile, through centuries of overuse, and out and out abuse and neglect. But this fertility might be restored, with scientific and technological aid from the U.S. This is an important point to consider, as well as the prospect of resettling what may hopefully be left of the so-called "Swamp Peoples" so brutally displaced by Saddam throughout the years of the tyrants reign, despite the fact that these were indigenous people to the land between the rivers since time immemorial. If at all possible, care should be taken to revive this ancient and time honored tradition, in addition to restoring the abundance potential of the region.
This would be important to us, as well. As it would provide an agricultural trade base for Iraq throughout the whole of the Middle East, and serve more than anything to demonstrate the benefits of economic as well as political reform, and could provide a partner in the much needed relief efforts in regards to the famines that, at one time or another, seem to ravage the general area of Africa and South Central Asia.
Of course, efforts have to be made to get this off the ground, after peace and security is established. A good start would be in opening up contracts to companies outside the U.S., and others in the U.S. Caterpillar, for example, as well as John Deere, in addition to other agricultural and construction corporations. By allowing contractual bidding between different corporations, the U.S. can still assist the Iraqis in providing security and oversight, and in more importantly ensuring that the people of the country don't get hosed by crooked would be robber barons who might make crooked back-room deals with the inevitable corrupt politician. As well as providing potential havens for would-be saboteurs and political buccaneers. These problems taken into consideration, it could only be beneficial to opening up the bidding for business contracts, and perhaps more importantly, opening up the flow of capital in the form of loans and grants to qualified entrepreneurs within Iraq, who might help to build the nations economy for the benefit of, first and foremost, the Iraqi people.
I can even envision the return of the ancient splendor of Nebudchadnezzars "Hanging Gardens of Babylon", and maybe even a return to the old days of paganism, in it's more positive aspects. Of course, I realize that would doubtless be expecting way too much. For the time being, at least.
Three thousand years later, of course, the land may not be that fertile, through centuries of overuse, and out and out abuse and neglect. But this fertility might be restored, with scientific and technological aid from the U.S. This is an important point to consider, as well as the prospect of resettling what may hopefully be left of the so-called "Swamp Peoples" so brutally displaced by Saddam throughout the years of the tyrants reign, despite the fact that these were indigenous people to the land between the rivers since time immemorial. If at all possible, care should be taken to revive this ancient and time honored tradition, in addition to restoring the abundance potential of the region.
This would be important to us, as well. As it would provide an agricultural trade base for Iraq throughout the whole of the Middle East, and serve more than anything to demonstrate the benefits of economic as well as political reform, and could provide a partner in the much needed relief efforts in regards to the famines that, at one time or another, seem to ravage the general area of Africa and South Central Asia.
Of course, efforts have to be made to get this off the ground, after peace and security is established. A good start would be in opening up contracts to companies outside the U.S., and others in the U.S. Caterpillar, for example, as well as John Deere, in addition to other agricultural and construction corporations. By allowing contractual bidding between different corporations, the U.S. can still assist the Iraqis in providing security and oversight, and in more importantly ensuring that the people of the country don't get hosed by crooked would be robber barons who might make crooked back-room deals with the inevitable corrupt politician. As well as providing potential havens for would-be saboteurs and political buccaneers. These problems taken into consideration, it could only be beneficial to opening up the bidding for business contracts, and perhaps more importantly, opening up the flow of capital in the form of loans and grants to qualified entrepreneurs within Iraq, who might help to build the nations economy for the benefit of, first and foremost, the Iraqi people.
I can even envision the return of the ancient splendor of Nebudchadnezzars "Hanging Gardens of Babylon", and maybe even a return to the old days of paganism, in it's more positive aspects. Of course, I realize that would doubtless be expecting way too much. For the time being, at least.
We've Got To Pay For This One Day
Another troubling aspect of the Iraqi War is the funding, which is surely, and not too slowly, draining our reserves, our financial ones, that is. We are going more and more into debt everyday. All because our buffoon of a president, who got us into this mess to begin with under false pretenses (possibly knowingly, but that's another issue) further refuses to fund the war. With this in mind, I have come to the conclusion that there is one, and only one, solution to this dilemma. And that is simply to do something Bush has sworn to never do, which is, raise taxes. Not on the middle class. Not on the working poor. But, quite simply, on those who make more than 200,000 dollars a year. They should be hit immediately with a special ten per cent tax, to fund the war. And, in order to prevent them from passing this tax along to the consumer, we may have to initiate a temporary Price Control Agenda. Not by law, but by levying a further tax on any business or corporation that raises it's prices, or cuts back on it's work force, in the aftermath of this.
If the nation would do this, if Congress would pass this law, which they might have to pass over Bush's veto with a two thirds majority (which might not be all that hard to accomplish as one might initially think) not only would the war be adequately funded, we could probably in the meantime keep all over necessary spending sufficiently funded, and at the same time ensure that the war would soon be brought to a reasonable conclusion. In fact, if this were made the permanent law of the land, I have a feeling the nation would find itself embroiled in very few, if any, wars. And what wars we were to become involved in,you can rest assured, would definitely be necessary.
Moreover, this would be one way to equally share the burden of war, as for the most part it is the sons and daughters of the working poor and middle class who fill the ranks of the military. The wealthy are seldom to be found on the ground in military conflicts. Yet, they seem to be the ones who are the quickest to push for military action. It is the big business corporations who profit in the way of military contracts, but it is the blood of the poor and middle class that is being shed to fight the wars. This policy would eliminate that disparity.
If a policy such as this isn't enacted, on the other hand, the mountain of debt that will be accrued over the years might turn this nation into just another Third World debtor nation, where the wealthy lord it over everybody, and there is no middle class to speak of. Just islands of serfdom in an ocean of feudalism.
If the nation would do this, if Congress would pass this law, which they might have to pass over Bush's veto with a two thirds majority (which might not be all that hard to accomplish as one might initially think) not only would the war be adequately funded, we could probably in the meantime keep all over necessary spending sufficiently funded, and at the same time ensure that the war would soon be brought to a reasonable conclusion. In fact, if this were made the permanent law of the land, I have a feeling the nation would find itself embroiled in very few, if any, wars. And what wars we were to become involved in,you can rest assured, would definitely be necessary.
Moreover, this would be one way to equally share the burden of war, as for the most part it is the sons and daughters of the working poor and middle class who fill the ranks of the military. The wealthy are seldom to be found on the ground in military conflicts. Yet, they seem to be the ones who are the quickest to push for military action. It is the big business corporations who profit in the way of military contracts, but it is the blood of the poor and middle class that is being shed to fight the wars. This policy would eliminate that disparity.
If a policy such as this isn't enacted, on the other hand, the mountain of debt that will be accrued over the years might turn this nation into just another Third World debtor nation, where the wealthy lord it over everybody, and there is no middle class to speak of. Just islands of serfdom in an ocean of feudalism.
Guantanamo-The Perfect Training Facility
I feel that a great many of detainees of Guantanamo could probably be allowed to leave. Some, for example, that were merely innocent bystanders in Afghanistan, citizens of that place, or even those that may have been low level soldiers or mid-level officers of the Taliban. Sure, it would be taking a chance, however, it would at least be an effort on the part of the U.S. to show some kind of conciliatory move, even if some of these folks had indeed taken up arms against us. After all, how would we feel if suddenly we found ourselves surrounded by an invading army from another nation?
On the other hand, there are those that should be brought to trial. Not in our court system, however, but through the use of military tribunals, if there is evidence to warrant this. An example would be fighters who were taken on the fields of Afghanistan, who were from other nations, such as Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Whether they are Al-Queda members or sympathizers, or higher level Taliban members, they should be brought to trial, with of course some judicial oversight and review.
As for those who might have pertinent information, we have every right to extract that information by any means available, in my opinion. They are combatants who target civilians, who are not legitimate members of a recognized military or nation. Therefore, their rights under our constitution, and as far as I'm concerned under international law, ends where begins my rights to live my life in safety and security, for myself and my family. Guantanamo should therefore be closed to any scrutiny by any outside entity, such as Amnesty International, The International Red Cross, or any other group, foreign or domestic, who deigns it fitting to interfere, on whatever pretext, in our national security affairs.
However, I do not condone excessive brutality, unreasonable torture. By the same token, there might be a better way, a way to totally break their spirits. Simply make Guantanamo the training area of choice for the future Iraqi Army. Once the incarcerated terrorists see the resolve, the dedication, that the average Iraqi civilian goes about the process of training in order to protect the security of their state, the love and patriotism they exhibit for the prospect of finally living in an open, democratic society based on the rule of law, and equal protection under the law, of justice for all, a good many might come to see reason, if for no other reason than simple shame. If not, part of the Iraqi training can be in the area of enemy interrogation. The thought of suddenly finding themselves alone in a room of Iraqi military, American trained interrogators, might make some open up out of terror at the consequences, and others more out of the simple religious bonds that supposedly exist on at least a latent level amongst all Muslims.
If that fails, we can always go back to Christina Aquillierra.
On the other hand, there are those that should be brought to trial. Not in our court system, however, but through the use of military tribunals, if there is evidence to warrant this. An example would be fighters who were taken on the fields of Afghanistan, who were from other nations, such as Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Whether they are Al-Queda members or sympathizers, or higher level Taliban members, they should be brought to trial, with of course some judicial oversight and review.
As for those who might have pertinent information, we have every right to extract that information by any means available, in my opinion. They are combatants who target civilians, who are not legitimate members of a recognized military or nation. Therefore, their rights under our constitution, and as far as I'm concerned under international law, ends where begins my rights to live my life in safety and security, for myself and my family. Guantanamo should therefore be closed to any scrutiny by any outside entity, such as Amnesty International, The International Red Cross, or any other group, foreign or domestic, who deigns it fitting to interfere, on whatever pretext, in our national security affairs.
However, I do not condone excessive brutality, unreasonable torture. By the same token, there might be a better way, a way to totally break their spirits. Simply make Guantanamo the training area of choice for the future Iraqi Army. Once the incarcerated terrorists see the resolve, the dedication, that the average Iraqi civilian goes about the process of training in order to protect the security of their state, the love and patriotism they exhibit for the prospect of finally living in an open, democratic society based on the rule of law, and equal protection under the law, of justice for all, a good many might come to see reason, if for no other reason than simple shame. If not, part of the Iraqi training can be in the area of enemy interrogation. The thought of suddenly finding themselves alone in a room of Iraqi military, American trained interrogators, might make some open up out of terror at the consequences, and others more out of the simple religious bonds that supposedly exist on at least a latent level amongst all Muslims.
If that fails, we can always go back to Christina Aquillierra.
The United States Of Iraq
Contrary to current belief, the American system of representative democracy would be the perfect model for Iraq, with only a small amount of fine tuning. There is good news here, possibly. The fact that Iraq is a multi-ethnic country could be a harbinger for true freedom, of majority rule with minority rights respected by law, and even allowances made for representation and participation. It doesn't necessarily have to be a harbinger for civil war, disruption, chaos, and an eventual Shi'ite domination over the minority Kurds, Sunnis, and others.
Hopefully, the nation will adopt a Bill Of Rights, guaranteeing freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and religion. And other legal rights guaranteed for all. Once this is established, it would be a simple enough matter to carve the nation up into a series of states, each with it's own equal number of Senators, and a House of Representatives commensurate with each individual states population. Some of these states will ofcourse be Sunni, others Shi'ite, still others Kurdish, and there should even be a state that is predominantly Assyrrian, and one more that is Chaldaean, or one that is a combination of both. There may be states with a mix of ethnicities, two or more, with none marking a clear majority. Such a state as this might prove to be the model of how well the future Iraqi State might function-or fall apart at the seams.
Whatever the case, the U.S. model might well be the only prospect for the survival and success of the future Iraqi State, and the only thing that might keep it from eventually descending into civil war, with an ultimate return to a tyrannical Ba'athist regime-or what could even prove worse, a Shi'ite (or for that matter Sunni dominated Islamic fundamentalist theocracy.
Hopefully, the nation will adopt a Bill Of Rights, guaranteeing freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and religion. And other legal rights guaranteed for all. Once this is established, it would be a simple enough matter to carve the nation up into a series of states, each with it's own equal number of Senators, and a House of Representatives commensurate with each individual states population. Some of these states will ofcourse be Sunni, others Shi'ite, still others Kurdish, and there should even be a state that is predominantly Assyrrian, and one more that is Chaldaean, or one that is a combination of both. There may be states with a mix of ethnicities, two or more, with none marking a clear majority. Such a state as this might prove to be the model of how well the future Iraqi State might function-or fall apart at the seams.
Whatever the case, the U.S. model might well be the only prospect for the survival and success of the future Iraqi State, and the only thing that might keep it from eventually descending into civil war, with an ultimate return to a tyrannical Ba'athist regime-or what could even prove worse, a Shi'ite (or for that matter Sunni dominated Islamic fundamentalist theocracy.
What Do You Say To A Potential Recruit?
Frankly, I tell them the way it is. I tell them, if you join the military, don't necessarily believe everything the recruiting officer tells you. Once your time of enlistment is up, it is a part of your military contract (one that no one will go out of their way to point out to you) that you will be expected to stay past that expiration time, if needed. In fact, you might even be expected to serve for two or three terms, maybe even more. Joining the national Guard and Army Reserves, in the meantime, is no assured way to get out of combat. It may have been at one time. But that was in the distant past. Now, it is almost a sure thing you will be called to duty in Iraq. As of the present, there is no end in sight to this situation. As a result of this, recruitment is down, across the board, in the traditional military, as well as in the Guard and Reserves.
Parents, as well as some peace activist organizations, have lately taken to protesting the presence of military recruiters on high school and college campuses. As a result, some of these groups are being branded as unpatriotic. Personally, I have mixed feelings about the war, but one thing I am definitely clear on. When a naive young man or woman, particularly one fresh out of high school, is led to enlist in the armed services of this country, be it for patriotic reasons, altruistic ones, or merely out of a sense of respect for family tradition, or even for the more selfish reasons a good many especially poorer recruits choose this route (see the world, education, job training-or simply for a temporary paycheck) then the military has a moral and ethical obligation-and as far as I'm concerned a legal one-to live up to the terms of their contract. By keeping these young people in past their originally agreed time of enlistment, they are breaking faith with their soldiers, their parents, and the American public. And it is counterproductive. They have made matters worse as far as enlistment goes by this action, when a simple substantial increase in pay would help to solve the problem. Ensuring that they are properly supplied with the equipment they need in a timely manner would help at least as much.
If it smells like a lemon, it only makes good lemonade with the right amount of sugar and water.
Parents, as well as some peace activist organizations, have lately taken to protesting the presence of military recruiters on high school and college campuses. As a result, some of these groups are being branded as unpatriotic. Personally, I have mixed feelings about the war, but one thing I am definitely clear on. When a naive young man or woman, particularly one fresh out of high school, is led to enlist in the armed services of this country, be it for patriotic reasons, altruistic ones, or merely out of a sense of respect for family tradition, or even for the more selfish reasons a good many especially poorer recruits choose this route (see the world, education, job training-or simply for a temporary paycheck) then the military has a moral and ethical obligation-and as far as I'm concerned a legal one-to live up to the terms of their contract. By keeping these young people in past their originally agreed time of enlistment, they are breaking faith with their soldiers, their parents, and the American public. And it is counterproductive. They have made matters worse as far as enlistment goes by this action, when a simple substantial increase in pay would help to solve the problem. Ensuring that they are properly supplied with the equipment they need in a timely manner would help at least as much.
If it smells like a lemon, it only makes good lemonade with the right amount of sugar and water.
Bush Will Never Learn-Or Is He Just Drunk?
Drunk with power, that is. Down in the polls across the board, and particularly it seems over his handling of the war in Iraq, which most Americans now believe is not worth the cost, Bush insists that we stay the course, and not impose an "artificial time line" for withdrawal. Both of these points are certainly understandable from a strategic point of view, but then he veers off into the zone of the unreasonable by insisting that we do not need to send more troops. He asserts that if the generals conducting the war ask for more, they will get it, but goes on to point out that an increase might cause the Iraqis to think we are there to stay. He promises that the Iraqis will eventually be trained and equipped in sufficient numbers to defend their own country. But it would seem to me the best way to accomplish this goal, in addition to securing the country, finally, and making serious headway insofar as reconstruction goes, would be by doing the very opposite of what Bush promises, maybe even doubling the troop strength in Iraq, and giving them the tools they need to do the job. Then, getting out of their way and allowing them to do it. With an increased number of troops, the job of training Iraqis can be done more quickly, and more efficiently.
Of course, the true reason for doing this is probably because Bush understand all too well that, since this is an unpopular war, the American people would like to see fewer, not more, troops in the country. If so, this would be an abrupt about face for a president who once promised not to lead by following the polls.
Of course, the true reason for doing this is probably because Bush understand all too well that, since this is an unpopular war, the American people would like to see fewer, not more, troops in the country. If so, this would be an abrupt about face for a president who once promised not to lead by following the polls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)