Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts

Monday, January 22, 2007

My Fellow Americans


State

of the

Union




Advice for the Commander in Chief


President George W. Bush will be giving his State of the Union speech on Tuesday. I want to give him advice on what to say about the War in Iraq and how to say it.

I understand that Bush may essentially ignore this topic in his speech. It is rumored that he wants to concentrate more on subjects on which he can agree with the Democratically controlled Congress. This would be a major mistake. It would be a tragically missed opportunity for Bush to communicate with the American people.

Let's assume that the rumors are wrong, and that Bush will speak meaningfully about the War in Iraq.

If this were so, then I'm sure Mr. Bush has heard all kinds of ideas on what to say about Iraq and how to say it, and is deeply concerned with getting it right; but that he believes he doesn't need any extra advice from the blogosphere on it.

I think he's wrong. He's needed sound advice on communicating the War in Iraq for years. In fact, much of the good that he has done in the world gets no credit precisely because of the way he has explained himself to the American people, on a host of issues





—and the way he has explained himself is the product of his judgment and his taking into consideration the advice of his advisers and handlers. They have done a miserable job of communicating all these years. Yes, there have been some good moments when Bush rose to be a good communicator, as in right after 9/11. We were all with him then. However, he has lost us many times since then.

So, Mr. President, here is some advice from a blogger, one representative of the wisdom of your people.


click to show/hide the rest of the post



Iraq

Forthcoming and Tight-Lipped

With Iraq, the President needs to be forthcoming, and tight-lipped. He needs to give the nation the feeling that he knows the realities of Iraq. He cannot say too much, as he doesn't want to tip off our enemies about strategies and tactics. He does want to say enough, though, so that Americans know he has planned for all contingencies.

A Plan for All Contingencies

This has been missing until now. Bush has always said that Iraq would be tough, but he has seemed surprised by the insurgency and its extent. He should not be surprised by anything. He and his war planners ought to have worked out in advance contingencies for every worst-case scenario that can be imagined. Then, he needs to communicate to the American people that he has a plan for each scenario. Again, he cannot be specific, but he can prepare the American people for the worst, and ask them to be mentally prepared for it.

Strategies and Tactics

I must say that Bush often gives the impression that he is always going with one plan, and one plan only. He chooses this plan out of many proffered to him by his generals and experts. He does not seem to be aware of the unintended consequences of war. He seems single-minded in his pursuit of victory.

It's not wrong to be single-minded in pursuit of victory. He does, though, need to know that the formula for that victory might be complicated. A good general, or war leader, will attack, retreat, adjust, surround, invade, thrust, divide the enemy—a whole host of strategies and tactics, depending on the progress of the battle and the war. Bush seems to be rigid in implementing one plan at a time, instead of being light on his feet, willing to do whatever it takes to win.


Communicating

In order to gain flexibility in fighting this war, such as in adding 20,000 troops to the field, Bush needs to level with the American people enough to gain their trust. He cannot just say, "Trust me," because the America people do not trust him anymore on the war in Iraq. They need a rationale. They need to understand the stakes. They need to be partners in the decision-making and the sacrifices.

Asking for Sacrifice

This leads me to my final point. Bush has ignored a fundamental principle of waging a successful war. He has not involved the American people in any meaningful sacrifice for the war effort. His idea has been to "make it easy" on us while we fight this difficult war. He wants to keep us safe, reassure us, and let the American military do their thing to bring victory to the people.

He is wrong. He needs to engage the American people directly in the war.

Whether this means National Service, or drives to make extra armor for the troops, or volunteers to fulfill nonessential duties for servicemen to free them for essential duties, whatever.

I've heard interviewers directly ask Bush about this issue, and he has a deaf ear for it. There are some issues where he is oblivious, and this is one of them.

click to hide most of this post


Conclusion


President Bush:
  • Do talk about Iraq at length.

  • Level with the American people as much as you can, and give them the feeling that you have a plan for all contingencies.

  • Think of a way or ways to involve the American people in the sacrifice for this war.
If you do these things, your poll numbers will rise; the confidence of the American people in you will strengthen; and you will get more of what you ask from Congress and from the American people. This means we will have a better chance of winning the war.

If you accept my advice, I expect a large check in compensation. Thanks.

Good luck, Mr. President.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Monday, January 15, 2007

Kingly Thoughts



Martin Luther King, Jr.




I cannot do justice to the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., so I will just talk a little about how he would have felt about a couple of relevant issues to our world today.

Content of Their Character


First, he wanted us to judge people by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin.

He made it quite clear in his lifetime that he was not out to replace one kind of racism with another.



So, I believe he would have been supportive of leaders like Bill Cosby, Juan Williams, and Larry Elder, African-Americans who call for blacks and whites to behave responsibly, get educated, work hard, and treat people with dignity and respect, regardless of color, avoiding the crutch of victimhood. I believe he would have been against many of his so-called disciples, like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who have preached victimhood to their followers, and sought to divide blacks and whites. Martin Luther King did not work through self-pity, nor anger.


On Iraq


Martin Luther King would have been against the Iraq War probably. He was against all war. I'm not sure if he would have been completely against the First Iraq War, tossing Saddam out of Kuwait, but I'm sure he would have been against the Second War, the invasion.

The Efficacy of Nonviolence


With all due respect, I don't see how Dr. King's tactic of nonviolence would have worked with Saddam Hussein, and this to me shows the limitations of the Peace Movement in general. Nonviolence worked for Mahatma Gandhi and his followers in India because a whole country rallied alongside him to bring down a foreign control over an unwilling teeming mass. Gandhi had one impossible task, to unite his followers in a mission to resist nonviolently. He had a ready audience, though, that just needed a tactic. Violence, as in terrorism, might have worked there too, but Gandhi was right that nonviolence in that case was more effective, and more humane.

Nonviolence would not have worked with Saddam, however, as he would have just beheaded the protestors, as opposed to the "civilized" Brits in India.

When people start to care about things, then you can use nonviolence as a tactic. The Brits cared about people, to a certain extent. They cared bout world opinion; about their finances; and about being the noble imperialists they wanted to be. They cared about law and order, the smooth running of India, and a whole host of things. They also did not want to be seen as cruel.

Saddam cared only about Saddam. He didn't care about people, even his own family; about world opinion; about being noble, as in his mind butchering people was the will of Allah; nor about the finances, as he had all the oil he needed. Nothing could touch him.


Conclusions


Nonviolence is a beautiful tactic, and it works in some situations. When it can be used, it ought to be. We can thank Gandhi and King for demonstrating its efficacy in appropriate situations. Gandhi brought down a whole nation using it; and King started the Civil Rights Movement, which perhaps also needed the hard edge of Malcolm X for completion.

Nonviolence works especially well against decent people who have evolved into abusers, or with abusers who have a spark of decency in them. It's a great tactic to wake the conscience of a nation. It might also work in situations where a mass strike might hurt someone's pocketbook.

It doesn't work well with monsters and tyrants. It cannot awake the conscience nor touch the hearts of those that have neither. Plus, it won't affect those who have nothing to lose from it.

Therefore, nonviolence was an appropriate tactic for India at the time, and for the Civil Rights Movement in the beginning. It is not approprate today for Iraq, Iran, Korea, nor for terrorism, in my opinion.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Sunday, January 14, 2007

The Iraq Conundrum



Fight or
light



Showdown


US military may join Iraq against militia leaders: The Boston Globe. Bush authorization could spark deadly confrontations, By Farah Stockman and Bryan Bender, Globe Staff, January 14, 2007.
WASHINGTON -- US military officials say the Bush administration has given them new authority to target leaders of political and religious militias in Iraq who are implicated in sectarian violence,





including the powerful Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Such a showdown, key to Bush's plan to increase the number of US troops in Baghdad, could spark a deadly confrontation with Shi'ite militias, which enjoy widespread popularity in Shi'ite neighborhoods. It could also erode support for the fragile government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has agreed to the plan.

Senior US and Iraqi officials said last week that Maliki has pledged to confront the militias with the help of additional US troops. But many analysts doubt that Maliki has the will or the firepower to take on Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is blamed for much of the tit-for-tat violence in the capital.

In recent months, Maliki and other top Iraqi officials routinely vetoed US raids on Sadr's operations, fearing the reaction of his legion of followers. Maliki's government kept a list of militia leaders who were off-limits to US troops, a senior Pentagon official told reporters in a background briefing in Washington, but now Maliki has agreed that the list would no longer be used.

Bush said on his recent 60 Minutes interview:

click to show/hide the rest of the post


"I think history is going to look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better."

Questioned about the instability in Iraq, Bush said: "Well, no question decisions have made things unstable."

And in his most recent radio address:

Bush said choices made after invasion eroded Iraq's security:

Bush also said his new plan could succeed, because, "American forces will have a green light to enter neighborhoods that are home to those fueling sectarian violence." Until now, US forces have been restricted by the Iraqi prime minister from operating freely in the Sadr City area that is home to a powerful Shi'ite militia. But Bush said those restrictions had been lifted and that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has promised that he would not tolerate interference with security operations."

Does This Mean We are Finally Going to Start Fighting in Iraq?


This whole development is astonishing to me. It illustrates that my charge that we have been fighting a politically correct war has been correct. This is shameful. This is only one part of the war, and in it, we have been prohibited from going after the real troublemakers in Iraq by the Maliki government.

click to hide most of this post


What Bush Should Have Done


Bush should have said, "Look Mr. Maliki, do you want us to stay here in Iraq? If you do, then this is what we must do to win this war. If you don't want to let us do these things, then we have no choice but to leave."

Instead, Bush allowed our troops to stay in the danger zone with their hands tied behind their backs. Another example of Bush trying to be a diplomat, a good guy.

Yes, I know that I am not privy to details on the ground, and that things are not as simple as I am making them. I also realize that going after renegade Shias might ultimately topple Maliki. My answer is that Maliki will fall anyway if things continue as they are.

Also, things are not as complicated as they are making them either. The proof of this is that Maliki, out of desperation, has finally agreed to let the U.S. troops fight like they need to. This could have happened years ago, if Bush had been demanding and tough as nails, which is what we need there.

We ought to be fighting to win, without regard to politics. Until and when we do this, we cannot progress in such a morass of a war. Can you believe that Bush and the military leaders cannot see this?

Remember MacArthur? The guy went too far, but he knew how to win wars. Patton? Eishenhower?

Now, instead, we have Bush, ordering our troops not to make anyone unhappy, while they are sitting ducks for I.E.D.'s and snipers.

Give me our unleashed WWII commanders, or our unfettered Sherman or Grant.

If not, then let's get out.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post:
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Saturday, January 13, 2007

Making America Love Soccer is like Making Iraq Love Peace


Bend it like
eckham.


Soccer and the War in Iraq


I was listening yesterday to one of my favorite conservative radio talk show hosts, Al Rantel, who is gay by the way, on KFI in Los Angeles. He discussed a parallel between the signing of David Beckham for the Los Angeles Galaxy soccer team, with a 250 million dollar contract, and the war in Iraq. Al's point was that people in the U.S. are getting all excited about Beckham coming here and being able to "bend" things (Bend It Like Beckham) enough to make soccer a major sport in America. Al was scoffing at this, saying that soccer will never be big here. Trying to remake America into a soccer-loving country will never happen.

Making a Silk Purse from a Sow's Ear


He declared the same kind of thing can be said about Iraq. We, the United States, are trying to remake the Iraqis into behaving civilly, and this too will never happen. They've been butchering themselves for centuries, and the only thing that has ever brought "tranquility" there has been brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein who were more brutish than the populace.




Saddam was able to terrorize the barbarians of Iraq into a relatively peaceful existence. Al was apologetic for having to say such a thing about a people, but he explained we had to face reality. Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity for peace there, the Shias and Sunnis are drilling holes in each other's heads, chopping off arms, and putting out eyes. It is truly barbaric.


Super Bowl versus the World Cup


Al has a point on both issues. America loves football, basketball, and baseball. Nothing tops the Super Bowl, the NBA playoffs, and the World Series.

America does not love soccer, and despite the influx of all those illegals, soccer remains and will remain a second-tier sport here, forever. More people will buy tickets to see the Galaxy for a while, but that interest will peter out quickly. Not many people will be watching the World Cup.


The only time America got excited about soccer was when our sexy girls won the FIFA Women's World Cup in 1999, with the beautiful world-class forward Mia Hamm, and the sexy defender Brandi Chastain, who, after she kicked the winning penalty shot for the U.S. win against China, joyously ripped her top off, revealing bare skin and her black sports bra. We were truly rooting for the girls, as they were not just cute, but talented. Interest in men's and women's soccer in America has waned since then.


The Beckham Hype


David Beckham himself is partly a hype-job. He was recently removed as the captain for the British national team, and he sat mostly on the bench for his last team, Real Madrid. He's kind of like the equivalent of tennis star Anna Kournikova, a pretty boy, with a pretty wife, Posh Spice, former member of the pop singing group Spice Girls, with great advertising value but questionable soccer skills.

Once a Barbarian?


Likewise, no matter what we do, no matter the opportunities for peace, the Iraqis, and the Palestinians I might add, may never opt for peace, and may forever opt for barbarism. I'm sorry to have to agree with Al, but I need to face reality. This is not to say that all Muslims are barbaric. After all, Egypt made peace with Israel, and Jordan has been civilized, and many other Muslim countries too, like Dubai, and Lebanon for the most part. But there are pockets of barbarism that persist—namely Iraq, and Palestine, among others. I wish this were not true.

Make my Life; Prove me Wrong


At the moment, though, I remain pessimistic. This does not negate my judgment that going into Iraq was a good thing. Getting rid of the dangerous tyrant Saddam Hussein was a plus for the world, regardless of the Iraqis squandering this opportunity. All I can say is, prove me wrong Palestine. Prove me wrong, Iraq. I'd love for you to do it.

A Black Bra, Bend It for a While, then the Real Stuff


As for soccer, forget it, I'm watching the Super Bowl, unless you bring me another Hamm, Chastain and friends club. I'll watch Beckham once or twice, and then turn to one of the other real sports.

Send Beckham to Iraq


Hey, I got it! Iraqi's love soccer. Send Beckham to Iraq with his gorgeous wife, and maybe that will get the Iraqis thinking about something other than violence. Then, maybe Americans would start to watch soccer too!

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Thursday, January 11, 2007

Con and Pro on the New Bush Plan for Iraq


Bush plan for Iraq: 20,000 new troops; Iraqi control by November.


Considering the New Plan


I believe that paz y amour's response to yesterday's post Scoundrel-osity, about the Democratic demogoging of the issue of the new Bush plan for Iraq, is a good explanation of one way of thinking about Bush's idea to inject 20,000 new troops into the Iraq situation. I'll use paz' response as the first part of this post, and then I'll add my take on Bush's plan. Don't forget to check out paz' blog, the path.

One Argument Against the Plan: paz y amour


Forgive me for saying that I saw this post coming a mile away once I saw Eddie Kennedy spouting off about hijacking funding. I have to agree that he's being despicable with this latest antic. At the same time though, I feel another "Why Bush is an Idiot" post coming on. Here's my take on the whole "surge" idea:

Military Advice

A) Apparently, there is a large contingency of GENERALS and MILITARY leaders at the Pentagon saying that an increase of troops of only 20 thousand is a bad idea.




These are the people who have been shot/shot at in combat, know military strategy better than any of us and are the ones that should be trusted, right?


click to show/hide the rest of this section


The Baker Commission

B) A bipartisan committee of past presidential cabinet members came up with a series of suggestions to help the current president through this mess. These are people who have successfully worked through international crises in the past and are people who's opinions SHOULD be trusted, right?

and


Iraqi Cooperation

C) Military leaders are going along with this plan contingent on (yet another) promise from the Iraqi government to give full cooperation and support politically and militarily. This "promise" should be trusted, right? Uhh, right....

Troop Morale

Despite the reservations and recommendations of the military and Iraq committee, the president wants to INSTEAD slowly put more troops into Iraq- meaning the SAME soldiers are RETURNING to Iraq before they planned/intended to. That's a surefire way to boost morale!

A Bad Plan and a Lack of Leadership

Obviously we don't have the numbers on the ground to overrun an insurgency and another 20 thousand isn't significant enough. We'd probably need 200 thousand to make a difference (in Gulf War 1, we had 600 thousand troops!). The problem isn't in a lack of political support, lack of funding or a lack of materials, it's a lack of LEADERSHIP. The president has shown his ineptitude in this conflict (as you will agree) and obviously STILL has no viable plan to make it as successful as possible. I just wish those "demagogues" (Eddie et al.) would say that the "plan" to put a few more troops on the ground sucks and a much better one needs to be put into place rather than trying to use political muscle to get Bush to capitulate.

paz y amour

click to hide most of this section


One Argument For the Plan: Rock


I'm not going to go into great detail in defending the plan, as I really am ignorant of many inside details that would be necessary for me to say with confidence that it would or wouldn't work.

Valid Arguments Against the Deployment

Paz' major points that 20,000 troops will not be enough and that our troops are already deployed to the breaking point are valid. I've heard one estimation that we would need about 100,000 additional troops just in Baghdad alone to secure that city.

The Iraqi Variable

The one variable, though, that could save the day is Iraqi cooperation with the plan.



The Iraqis are not dumb. They see the writing on the wall. They follow American politics closely, and know that the American people have had it with the war and will not tolerate much more of it.

click to show/hide the rest of this section


Part of the plan is to transfer complete control over Iraqi security to Iraqi forces by November. This is the great unknown. Can the Iraqi's do it? Are they willing to do it? Their military and police are riddled with traitors to the cause, insurgents in hiding who "protect" the Iraqi people during the day, and kill them at night. Is Malaki willing to go after these folks and rid the military and police of them? Is he willing to take on Moqtada al-Sadr, the enemy of peace?

This is the major test for Iraq. American impatience with the war might be a good thing, in that it kicks Maliki in the butt and lets him know it's now or never for him. It's do or die for Iraqi democracy under a unified government. Time has run out.

Safety for Our Troops

I think giving Maliki until November is a reasonable time period. In the meantime, while 20,000 more troops is not enough, it will make our soldiers safer. Despite this, this year will be the bloodiest of all in Iraq, as the insurgents smell victory, and will step up their attacks. Adding 20,000 troops will not tamp down the violence so much as prevent the violence from killing even more Americans than would occur without the troops.

Those opposed to the deployment want our "footprint" in the area to decrease, so that we are perceived less as the occupiers. This makes sense. However, the insurgents are not dumb either. They know our footprint is decreasing anyway, despite the extra 20,000 troops. They know their main enemy now are Iraqis, not Americans. That's why I don't think the extra 20,000 troops will anger anyone more than they are angry now. The effect will mainly be to help keep some semblance of order, to allow the Iraqi government to gear up, and to protect American soldiers from suffering any more casualties than is necessary.


Troop Morale

Whose morale are we talking about? If you are a National Guard and your length of service in Iraq is extended, or if you are activated to go there, your morale might not be high, this I grant. However, do ask the troops on the ground what they think too. I believe that if you query American soldiers on the ground whether a troop increase is a good thing or not, more than 90% of them will say it is a good thing. If I were there, I'd want more buddies around me, wouldn't you?

click to hide most of this section


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Scoundrel-osity


D

emagogue:

A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

Demagoguery:

(from Greek demos, "people", and agogos, "leading") refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, fears, and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalistic or populist themes.

P

olitical Opportunism:

A political style of aiming to increase one's political influence at almost any price, or a political style which involves seizing every and any opportunity to extend one's political influence, whenever such opportunities arise.

Troop Surge for an Unpopular War


Sixty percent of Americans, apparently, do not approve of sending additional troops into Iraq. Concomitantly with this,several Democrats who had been weeks ago clamoring for Bush to fight a more effective war, now are saying they won't support a surge in troop levels.




I am sometimes disappointed in my fellow Americans. I don't think that enough of them realize the importance of winning the war in Iraq. They just want the problem to go away.

Demagoging Iraq


I am more than disappointed in some of the Democrats, and Republicans, who are talking of not funding the surge. They claim they support the troops, yet it can hardly be supportive to deny our troops extra help in fighting the war.

Can you be against a troop surge and still be a person of integrity? Yes, of course, if you really believe in your heart that we should just get out of Iraq now. The problem I have is not with these true believers in withdrawal; rather, I have a problem with those who are just tired of Iraq, unaware of its importance, or who are looking for political opportunity. It's quite a coincidence that several politicians are suddenly getting so vocal against the war at the same time that Bush's poll numbers are down, and when the American people seem to be disapproving of the war. It smacks of political opportunism and demagoguery of the worst sort. The victims of it are the soldiers in Iraq, and the American people, who will be less safe if we lose the war.


Integrity, Spinelessness, Scoundrel-osity and Evil


I think in a time of war if you vote according to the most recent polls, instead of voting according to what you think the troops need, that you are a scoundrel. I think in the case of some politicians, like Edward Kennedy, that the man is just pure evil. He sees the American people want the troops out, and now all of a sudden he becomes very visible in fighting for just that. He doesn't give a fig about our soldiers, nor about America. He has only one goal, that the Republicans be humiliated and that the Democrats expand their power. He is a despicable man.

Democrats remain split in their approach to Iraq, which gives me some hope for the party. They got their Blue Dogs elected, and some of them, along with the notorious Nancy Pelosi and other realists-for-the-moment, seem to be leaning towards acting responsibly with regard to the war. I personally will be grateful to her and others like her for this sign of character. I will not forgive, nor forget, the Democrats and Republicans who are demagoging Iraq, and showing a lack of spine.

Edward Kennedy will go down in my history as the Benedict Arnold of his family.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Tuesday, January 9, 2007

Village of the Damned


Fear



The Only Thing to Fear, Is Fear Itself


One of the differences in mentality between liberals and conservatives I see all the time is that liberals operate out of fear, while conservatives operate out of conviction. Liberals are always worried that someone won't like us, so they want to avoid offending people. This includes the bad guys, like terrorists. They don't want to offend them. They don't want to make them angry. Who knows what they would do to us if they got upset?

One of the problems with this basic stance of theirs is that, while it is morally wrong, it is often correct in terms of reality. What I mean by this is that people do really hate us when we stand up for ourselves.



The same goes for Israel. This, in my opinion, should never stop us nor Israel from doing the right things, but it does add fuel to the fires that liberals create with their propaganda.

Case in point: I found this very interesting article in the BBC News about a village of Saddam Hussein's.


He's Everywhere, He's Everywhere


India's 'Saddam Hussein' village: By Amarnath Tewary, BBC News, Lakhanow village, Bihar.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

It is a typical nondescript village - like many others - in the northern Indian state of Bihar.

It consists of unplastered brick houses, dusty lanes, thatched structures and dirt-laden children with no shoes and running noses.

There appears to be little running water or other infrastructure.

But there is one thing about the village of Lakhanow - and other settlements in the area - that makes them strikingly different.

Sunni Muslims


Ejaj Alam - a small-time civil contractor in his mid-30s - provides the answer: he has decided to re-name his three-year-old son. Instead of being called Majhar Alam, Mr. Alam has opted to call the boy Saddam Hussein in honour of the former Iraqi leader who was executed on 30 December.

"God willing, one day our village will be full of Saddam Hussein's," says Ejaj Alam.


Stalin's and Lenin's in India


What is more, the child will not be the only Saddam Hussein in the neighborhood. There are more than 20 other Saddam Hussein's in Lakhanow alone. Local people say there are more than 100 Saddam Hussein's in 27 adjoining villages dominated by mostly Sunni Muslims. There is even a family with one son called Saddam Hussein and a younger sibling called Osama Bin Laden.

And, now after the recent high profile and much photographed execution of the Iraqi leader, the villagers of Lakhanow have decided to name all the newborn baby boys after him.

"George Bush can hang one Saddam Hussein but we will create an army of Saddam Hussein's. Let him come to our village and see how Saddam Hussein can never be executed," local leader Ayub Khan said.

There is no talk here of the former Iraqi leader's appalling human rights record, no mention of the people he murdered and no references to his numerous "miscalculations". All that is brushed aside by the Saddam Hussein personality cult.

Close to the village is the only private school, Dini Academy, where almost 100 Saddam Hussein's come to read, write and know more about the former Iraqi leader.

"It was during the Gulf War we came to know about the bravery and valour of the Iraqi president who mustered courage to defy American diktats," Mr Nizamuddin said.

On the day of the execution, all the Saddam Hussein's of the area congregated in the village mosque to pray for his soul.

Then they staged a procession and burnt effigies of George Bush.

But there is one problem in having so many Saddam Hussein's, says villager Mohammed Hassan Abbas.

"In the playground we have Saddam Hussein running after Saddam Hussein, behind Saddam Hussein who is ahead of Saddam Hussein but too far from Saddam Hussein... it can all get a little confusing," he said.

Clash of Civilizations


This is an example of the fact that we are truly engaged in a clash of civilizations. The mentality in some parts of the world is so alien to our Western civilization as to seem like it comes from Mars or Pluto, or from a not-so-parallel universe.

One thing that stands out is that they, as opposed to Western countries, are heavily into groupthink. They dress, act, and talk alike; believe en masse in the same things; and speak with one voice about such things as hatred for America. When they get in a group, they chant in unison and display universal hatred for the demons of the West.


Dealing with Other Cultures


I despise cultures like this, as they seem so inhuman to me, and as I admire the individuality of the Western persona.

Still, these kinds of cultures abound, and I, and we, must deal with them. Hatred, I know, is not the answer. Neither, though, is fear. I don't think it is moral or courageous for us to be afraid of them, and so avoid doing what we must do in the world. Regardless of whose feelings get hurt, we must defeat the Saddam Hussein's of the world.

On the other hand, I think we in the West do make a mistake when we don't at least try to understand these cultures.


Cultural Naiveté


One of our problems in countries like Iraq is that we are culturally naïve. We don't understand their system of tribal leadership and so on. So any war effort is doomed to fail, because we don't really have a feel for how things work there. It seems like we did a better job with this in Afghanistan.

click to hide most of this post


We Must Reach Out


One of the liberal fears is that we are creating more terrorists than we are killing. I say, so what? As long as we are doing the right things, I don't care.

I do care, though, that we, in addition to waging our just war, reach out to these other cultures and try and make friends. We need, in my opinion, to talk to them, create a dialogue with their leaders, and, without kowtowing to their demands, show them respect as human beings.

I don't think we can prevent villages of Saddam Hussein's from sprouting up here and there. I do think, though, that we can do like the terrorists do to gain favor. Like the PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah do—we can extend the hand of friendship; we can build roads and schools; donate medicines and foods; and provide schoolbooks, with text that doesn't proclaim George Bush and America as the Great Satans.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post:
, , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Monday, January 8, 2007

Bush Report Card


Today, I'd like to grade George W. Bush on his performance in office as President of the United States, on the issues that are important to me. I don't pretend to be the authority on this, but present my opinions as one interested voter who is attempting to be honest about his feelings. I invite you to grade him also, on all or some of these issues, or on other issues that might be more important to you; and of course your opinion is just as valid as mine. When speaking of this kind of a grade, there is no such thing as the truth, but rather there is our collective wisdom.

The Initial Decision to Invade Iraq


A+



I believe that the Middle East is changed forever because of this decision, and that there is now a chance for peace in that region because of it.

Conduct of the War in Iraq


D



Actually, I'd give Mr. Bush an F except for the fact that he is finally firing generals and thinking hard about a new strategy. Maybe he'll get it right this time, and then I'll give him a higher grade.

The initial days of the war were a spectacular victory for the U.S., but we went in with too few troops to even guard the arms caches that we discovered. Hence, those looted arms are now the I.E.D.'s that kill our soldiers. We banished the soldiers of Saddam's army and they are now the insurgents. We had too few troops to hold ground we had taken. For example, in Fallujah, we'd go in, wipe out the terrorists, then they'd come back when we'd leave. This was not an effective strategy. I could go on, but I think this war was not waged intelligently.


Conduct of the War in Afghanistan


B



We did a better job in Afghanistan, but the same argument can be made about too few troops. The Taliban is making a comeback; they are using heroin to fund their ventures; and Al-Queda is salivating for the day when the U.S. leaves the area.

Immigration


F-



President Bush is single-handedly ruining our country by turning it into a Third-World nation. I want to make it clear that I am not talking about race. Race and color do not enter into my equation. I'm talking about flooding our nation with uneducated people with no skills, no allegiance to our country, no desire to learn English, and no interest in becoming American. I'm talking about increasing our underclass, prison population, gang membership, and entitlement demands.

Our country has about the dumbest immigration policy in the world. If you are English, check it out, you cannot hope to become a citizen of the United States, even if you have a Ph.d. or an M.D. If you are a gang-banging, drug-running, human-trafficking Mexican, though, we will soon be giving you amnesty. Again, I want it made clear that if you are a doctor, I want you, regardless of your race. If you are a heroin-dealer, I don't want you, regardless of your race. Why on earth do we, the United States of America, under the leadership of George Bush, give preference to the drug dealers, or even just to the underclass, over people that could elevate our nation?


click to show/hide the rest of the post


Taxes


A


Finally an issue where Bush is acting like a conservative, and holding the fort against the communist left and their class warfare.

The Environment


B


I don't think Bush is ruining the environment as the left believes. I think he could be more proactive about alternative fuels, though, as this is also a security issue. I think that Kyoto is unnecessary. Still, going green is not a bad thing, so I don't mind if we move in that direction, as along as we are sane about it.

Vision for America


F


Bush is one of the worst communicators ever in office, not only because of his inability to express himself, but also because of his penchant for secrecy. He is a bit patronizing and reveals only the barest of his thinking on matters. What comes out is a repetition of themes instead of a real discussion with the American people. He pays for this with low poll numbers and a lack of support for his policies.

Social Security Reform


D


The demagogues of the left are winning on this issue because Bush has never adequately explained his position. It's amazing how over half the nation can be so ignorant on this issue, but that's what the Democrats depend on. You could invest your SS funds by throwing darts at a list of stocks and come out way ahead in any thirty-year period over what Social Security will pay you, but the demagogues on the left scream, "He's trying to take your Social Security away," and their non-thinking followers believe it. I don't know if Reagan could have sold the issue any better, but he could have at least made a clearer case for it.

Health Care


B


I give Bush credit for staving off the coming socialism that the Democrats will bring. Here, again, though, Bush has not adequately explained the conservative side of this issue. People are left feeling that government can provide every person in America with gold-standard health care, free, and that it's not doing it just because they're mean and love big business. Health care deserves a credible solution, but it will take an insightful man or woman with great communicative skills to create and legislate it.

Our Reputation in the World


A


Here I differ with most of America, and with most of the world. Oh, well. I am aware that our reputation is not good in the world at present. I don't blame Bush though. I blame the left, the Democrats, the press, and half of the American people. They are the ones who have besmirched our name. Instead of backing their president, they have sided with the idiots in Europe who condemn us for being imperialists, when in reality we are a good nation that battles evil and protects the good. Going into Afghanistan was a good and noble thing. Invading Iraq was a good and noble thing. Standing by Israel is a good and noble thing. We ought to be lauded. Instead, all of Europe and half of America bash us.

click to hide most of this post


My Overall Grade for Bush's Performance


C-



My estimation of the importance of going into Iraq is so high that my grade for Bush is lifted to a C-. I doubly admire him for doing this since most of the world is against him on this issue. The other major issue that is important to me, though, is immigration, and Bush fails miserably on it. So much so, that I teeter on the brink of giving him an overall grade of D- or even an F because of it.

The Future


I have some hope for Iraq, as Bush is finally trying to become a Lincoln, firing his generals and looking for an effective strategy. I have no hope on the immigration issue. The American people are just not paying attention to it. We will wake up one day in a bi-lingual nation with a huge underclass, much more Third-World than even now.

As far as the other issues go, that's what '08 will be about. I see no great Republican champion on the horizon. The fight for the Democratic soul looks interesting, as the Blue Dogs battle the mad dogs of the far left.

Overall, though, we must always remain hopeful. This is the obligation for citizens in a democracy.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,