It's been awhile since I've wrote. There were quite a few things going on since January, many things worthy of writing about. A close friend of mine father died and it seems like I kind of got in a rut after that. My own father died about 13 years ago and I still miss him a lot. We had kind of a rough time during my teenage years and we were just starting to get to where we enjoyed each other's company and respected each other's differences shortly before he died. There is a lesson here for all you that still have your fathers around.
Some of the things Cheney was saying during TV interviews before Obama come into office I was really surprised that Bush didn't pardon him or the rest of his buddies before he left office. Cheney pretty much admitted that he approved the torture of detainees and a lot of the other illegal things that went on while he was in office. Cheney complained publicly that he was pretty upset with Bush not fully pardoning Libby who was involved in disclosing the name of the CIA agent who's husband spoke out against starting the war in Iraq. I was amused when Cheney was in a wheelchair at Obama's inauguration, supposedly from moving boxes. Think about it, here is a guy that was second in command, and arguably maybe first in command, moving his own boxes when he left office. Why do you suppose he was moving his own boxes? Could be that he didn't trust anyone else carrying his boxes because of what was in them? You know that was kind of suspicious when he had a fire in his office too. I never did hear what they figured was the cause of the fire. I bet there is a place somewhere that a lot of papers were burned to keep them from ending up in the wrong hands, and I'm not talking about the hands of would be terrorists.
I also been watching what's been going on with Obama's Administration to see which direction he is going to go and how much he will, or be able to fix from the Bush Administration. While Obama has been doing much to try to fix what was wrong from the Bush Administration, he is still trying to preach that we should be looking forward and not back when it comes to the illegal activities of the Bush Administration. I still feel that this is the wrong decision on Obama's part. We can not go forward without finding what all it is that needs fixing. If we let Bush and his buddies get away with the things they did while in office, future presidents will figure that they have the right to do the very same things as Bush did. At least hope isn't fully dead as many people both in and out of politics are still pushing that we need to investigate what all the Bush Administration done behind closed doors and if there are illegalities charges brought up. We can only hope that Obama will do the right thing in this situation and appoint an independent investigation on this topic. Actually for a lot of this they don't need more investigations because they already have reports from past investigations concluding that Bush took us into war illegally on false information.
There are other things I disagree with the Obama on, but in general I agree on many of the things he's doing. At least Obama is trying a different path instead of the stay the coarse plan that Bush pretty much stuck with. I'm ok with the closing down of the secret prison in Cuba and not sending detainees to countries that do torture. I agree of the process of telling everyone involved that torture is not an option. What did we gain with the Bush Administration's approval of torture? We got some of the worse criminals outside the Bush Administration that we can not try in court because of the torture. I also agree with the gradual getting our troops out of Iraq, a place that we never should have been in the first place.
Maybe this is enough for now to get the creative juices flowing. Don't forget to check back again.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Peace on Earth Goodwill Towards Man
I know the United States is as bad as any of the rest the countries, but during this holiday season when supposedly we are to think of peace and feel love towards our fellow human beings it is too bad that there are so many people in so many countries at war with each other. If I were to pray for anything it would be for the world population to be at peace with each other. It all seems so senseless for us to kill each other.
The very area of the world that first promoted peace and goodwill to the world is one of the areas that is most caught up in the fighting. The U.S. is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia just had a squabble with Georgia and is supplying Iran with missiles and showing support for Cuba, Israel is fighting with the Gaza strip, the British, Pakistan, and India are all either fighting or building up troupes to fight, the pirates in Somalia, almost everyone is involved in one way or another in various wars and confrontations with other countries. What good is it? What is war good for? Who really profits by war other than the small handful of arms suppliers and how much do they promote war between the different countries of the world?
Think of the world's economic problems, the problems with pollution, the dwindling non-renewable resources. Think of all the money that is wasted fighting each other. Think of the grief war causes in loss of life and limb, and the falling of financial markets. Russia bankrupted itself keeping up the cold war with the United States. It is all such a waste. Think of all the money being spent on the machines of war, the amount of oil used in powering these machines.
Now think of all the good that could be done if all this money spent warring was instead spent trying to find solutions to the world's problems. Think about if all the human resources spent on trying to destroy each other and our resources was instead used to improve the lives of people around the world, how much good could be done and how much better prepared we could all be when oil and other renewable and non-renewable resources does run out. We work together in space with people from the same countries that we fight on the ground.
We are all people, all human beings. We might be different colors and speak different languages, but we are all the same. We all have pretty much the same goals. We all want to find someone to love. We all want to raise our families, we want to provide for our families. We want to take pride in what we do to provide for our families. We all morn when we lose loved ones. We all want to be healthy and have our basic necessities met. We want to have a clean, dry, warm places in which to live, we want to be free of diseases and disabilities. When we take up arms and kill people we are killing people who are just like us in more ways than they are different than us. The people who are killed all have mothers, fathers, family and friends that will miss them when they are gone.
We must all try to figure out how to end this madness.
The very area of the world that first promoted peace and goodwill to the world is one of the areas that is most caught up in the fighting. The U.S. is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia just had a squabble with Georgia and is supplying Iran with missiles and showing support for Cuba, Israel is fighting with the Gaza strip, the British, Pakistan, and India are all either fighting or building up troupes to fight, the pirates in Somalia, almost everyone is involved in one way or another in various wars and confrontations with other countries. What good is it? What is war good for? Who really profits by war other than the small handful of arms suppliers and how much do they promote war between the different countries of the world?
Think of the world's economic problems, the problems with pollution, the dwindling non-renewable resources. Think of all the money that is wasted fighting each other. Think of the grief war causes in loss of life and limb, and the falling of financial markets. Russia bankrupted itself keeping up the cold war with the United States. It is all such a waste. Think of all the money being spent on the machines of war, the amount of oil used in powering these machines.
Now think of all the good that could be done if all this money spent warring was instead spent trying to find solutions to the world's problems. Think about if all the human resources spent on trying to destroy each other and our resources was instead used to improve the lives of people around the world, how much good could be done and how much better prepared we could all be when oil and other renewable and non-renewable resources does run out. We work together in space with people from the same countries that we fight on the ground.
We are all people, all human beings. We might be different colors and speak different languages, but we are all the same. We all have pretty much the same goals. We all want to find someone to love. We all want to raise our families, we want to provide for our families. We want to take pride in what we do to provide for our families. We all morn when we lose loved ones. We all want to be healthy and have our basic necessities met. We want to have a clean, dry, warm places in which to live, we want to be free of diseases and disabilities. When we take up arms and kill people we are killing people who are just like us in more ways than they are different than us. The people who are killed all have mothers, fathers, family and friends that will miss them when they are gone.
We must all try to figure out how to end this madness.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Iraqi Government Does What U.S. Government Can't
The Northwoods Politic
I get most of my news from the Associated Press and The New York Times. Today I noticed that the Iraqi Government appears to be doing something that our Congress can't seem to do. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is standing up to President Bush in regards to the Iraqi/U.S. agreement that Washington was trying to get approved by July 31st.
According to what I've read, the UN agreement for troops being in Iraq ends at the end of December, but the Bush Administration has been pushing Iraq for an agreement to allow U.S. troops to stay in Iraq before the end of July. The reason for this is obvious, Bush wants to get a concrete agreement with Iraq before he leaves office at the end of the year. According to the Bush Administration, they claim that they don't need Congress approval even if they decide to have full status of forces agreement with Iraq. The administration has been pretty mum about what the points of the U.S./Iraq agreement not wanting to have a bunch of resistance from Congress until after the agreement is signed.
Most of what we hear about the proposed agreement is coming from the Iraqi side, our government won't inform us of what they want with Iraq for stipulations. Some of the points that the Iraqi government has taken offense to are:
1.) The U.S. authority to carry out military operations within Iraq.
2.) The ability to arrest Iraqi citizens without Iraqi government's permission.
3.) Getting legal immunity for private security contractors.
4.) Control of Iraqi air space.
5.) Setting a time table for U.S. troop withdrawals.
It sounds like Washington might have dropped the immunity stipulation in regards to the private contractors, but nothing is set in stone yet. Washington has been pretty secretive about what it wants compared to what the Iraqis want. The Iraqis want control of their airspace and basically want the U.S. out of Iraq as soon as possible it sounds like. Even with Iraq talking about wanting withdrawal timetables, U.S. Ambassador Crocker has said, "We are looking at conditions not calendars, and both sides are in agreement on this point. So it doesn't appear like anyone in the U.S. is listening to what Iraqi leaders are wanting. I guess that they are just supposed to trust our government not to infringe on Iraqi rights just like we are supposed to trust our government to follow our constitution. Washington continues to say withdrawals would only be linked to conditions on the ground.
In the last couple days Iraq leaders have made headlines in their standing up to Washington against their perceived danger of turning into indentured servants of the United States. Some of the headlines are:
1.) Iraqi Raises the Idea of Timetable for U.S. Withdrawals
2.) Iraq Demands Pullout Timetable in U.S. Defense Pack Talks
3.) Iraq Insists on Withdrawal Timetable
The United States might bring the Iraqis factions together after all, but it will probably be done by pissing them off about us so much that they will unite against us.
While Iraq and the United States are trying to make some sense out of what to do with the agreement, Israel, the United States, and Iran are having a pissing contest in the gulf. First Isrial carried out maneuvers showing that they could feasibly get to Iran to start a war, then the U.S. and Iran both announced that they would do maneuvers in the gulf with a chance of starting an international incident. Iran stated that it would close out the traffic from the gulf if attacked, so the U.S. sent a convoy to the area to show that they would attack if any sign that the Iranians would put up a blockade. It's kind of like watching a bunch of young boys playing in a playground except that the stakes are much higher.
Friday, June 20, 2008
With a Little Help For My Friends
There has been scant information regarding the 2008 American/Iraqi agreement that President Bush wants to have in place by July 31st when the current agreement that the UN has for having military troops in Iraq expires. What information that has come out is mostly from the Iraqi government commenting publicly in frustration of their disagreements with what President Bush proposed and wants in the agreement.
I was reading that the agreement that the Bush Administration has been trying to pass on the Iraqi government is very similar to what the British tried to enforce back in the 30's. as seen below.
1930 Pact Between Iraq and Britain
1.) Iraq had to consult with Britain on security issues.
2.) Iraq had to allow Britain use of all road, airports, ports, railways, and rivers.
3.) Iraq had to allow Britain to have two major military bases within Iraq.
4.) Britain could station troops through out Iraq.
5.) Iraq had to grant personnel immunity from Iraqi laws and prosecutions.
Proposed 2008 Pact between Iraq and United States
1.) Would allow officials to detain or arrest suspected terrorists with out the approval of Iraqi government.
2.) Would allow the United States complete control over Iraqi airspace.
3.) Would allow approximately 58 U.S. military bases in Iraq.
4.) Would give the U.S. troops, contractors, and personnel immunity from Iraqi laws.
The pact of 1930 did not go well, the Iraqi populations rioted in the streets and protested violently. The 2008 pact will undoubtedly be met with about the same enthusiasm. With the lesson of the history of the pact in 1930 why would anyone propose basically the same pact? One reason is by calling our occupation in Iraq a pact the Bush Administration claims that the process doesn't have to go through with getting Congressional approval to stay in Iraq. Something the administration is pretty concrete about. Also by not having to get approved by Congress the Bush Administration is hoping to keep most terms of the pact secret, most likely until the end of their term in office, at least until after the pact is agreed on. KBR, a large contractor who Vice President Cheney was formally a chief executive over working for Halliburton, for food and housing for the troop has just received a big $150 billion, 10 year contract for a Iraq.
The answer became clear about a day later when news that the five major oil corporations have been awarded no bid contracts for working Iraq's oil reserves. It wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to figure out, ok we'll concede some of these crazy issues in our proposed pact if you give my buddies in the oil industry non bid contracts to work your oil fields.
Speaking about oil industry buddies... President Bush lately has been pushing to have federally owned land and the coastal shelves opened up to drilling for oil saying that we need this to bring down the price of gas, but here's the kicker, the companies that make the big drilling rigs are already five years behind on their orders for deep water oil drilling rigs. If American oil companies put in their orders for oil rigs right now, it would be over five years before they would posess any new oil rigs. American oil interests already own the drilling rights on big areas of land that they are not utilizing yet. So why is it that there is a push to open coastal areas to drilling now? Well we have to set our oil buddies up now before the Bush Administration leaves office this fall, it has nothing to do with the price we are paying for gas right now. In fact many of the articles are carefully worded as this move would' "help surpress the high price of gas", that means to slow the rising of the cost of gas, not the reduction of the cost of gas.
It's just business as usual for the Bush gang. Their eithics seem to be that nothing is wrong with gouging the American public and their tax contrabutions and giving as much of that money as possible to their friends in high places before leaving office. Oh what a way to get by with a little help for my friends.
I was reading that the agreement that the Bush Administration has been trying to pass on the Iraqi government is very similar to what the British tried to enforce back in the 30's. as seen below.
1930 Pact Between Iraq and Britain
1.) Iraq had to consult with Britain on security issues.
2.) Iraq had to allow Britain use of all road, airports, ports, railways, and rivers.
3.) Iraq had to allow Britain to have two major military bases within Iraq.
4.) Britain could station troops through out Iraq.
5.) Iraq had to grant personnel immunity from Iraqi laws and prosecutions.
Proposed 2008 Pact between Iraq and United States
1.) Would allow officials to detain or arrest suspected terrorists with out the approval of Iraqi government.
2.) Would allow the United States complete control over Iraqi airspace.
3.) Would allow approximately 58 U.S. military bases in Iraq.
4.) Would give the U.S. troops, contractors, and personnel immunity from Iraqi laws.
The pact of 1930 did not go well, the Iraqi populations rioted in the streets and protested violently. The 2008 pact will undoubtedly be met with about the same enthusiasm. With the lesson of the history of the pact in 1930 why would anyone propose basically the same pact? One reason is by calling our occupation in Iraq a pact the Bush Administration claims that the process doesn't have to go through with getting Congressional approval to stay in Iraq. Something the administration is pretty concrete about. Also by not having to get approved by Congress the Bush Administration is hoping to keep most terms of the pact secret, most likely until the end of their term in office, at least until after the pact is agreed on. KBR, a large contractor who Vice President Cheney was formally a chief executive over working for Halliburton, for food and housing for the troop has just received a big $150 billion, 10 year contract for a Iraq.
The answer became clear about a day later when news that the five major oil corporations have been awarded no bid contracts for working Iraq's oil reserves. It wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to figure out, ok we'll concede some of these crazy issues in our proposed pact if you give my buddies in the oil industry non bid contracts to work your oil fields.
Speaking about oil industry buddies... President Bush lately has been pushing to have federally owned land and the coastal shelves opened up to drilling for oil saying that we need this to bring down the price of gas, but here's the kicker, the companies that make the big drilling rigs are already five years behind on their orders for deep water oil drilling rigs. If American oil companies put in their orders for oil rigs right now, it would be over five years before they would posess any new oil rigs. American oil interests already own the drilling rights on big areas of land that they are not utilizing yet. So why is it that there is a push to open coastal areas to drilling now? Well we have to set our oil buddies up now before the Bush Administration leaves office this fall, it has nothing to do with the price we are paying for gas right now. In fact many of the articles are carefully worded as this move would' "help surpress the high price of gas", that means to slow the rising of the cost of gas, not the reduction of the cost of gas.
It's just business as usual for the Bush gang. Their eithics seem to be that nothing is wrong with gouging the American public and their tax contrabutions and giving as much of that money as possible to their friends in high places before leaving office. Oh what a way to get by with a little help for my friends.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
News Shorts
News Shorts
This week I have found a few things I have issue with. First off there are a couple of quotes from our King George. Yes that's right, I said king instead of president, but the way I see it he acts more like a king than a president, a president that has been sworn in to serve the American people and up hold the constitution:
"It's this ideological struggle against cold blooded killers who kill people to achieve their political agenda." - King George
This was the king's statement in talking about his terrorist enemies, but couldn't it also be true in describing the actions of the king himself? How many Americans and Iraqis have died since we have overthrown Saddam to "free" the people of that country? How many prisoners have died from the torture and inhuman treatment they had suffered as a result of being captured by American forces?
"They can't stand to live in a free society, that's why they try to fight free societies" - King George
Another quote from King George. Again, oh how I would love to ask him how he can say something like this when he has been the one of the most secretive presidents. Secret wire tapping, secret data bases on Americans, secret prisons to hold prisoners without rights or charges for years at a time... What about white house emails? Why can't we ask questions of former aids? Why can't people sue telecommunication companies? Can you see who is fighting against a free society? A hint: You don't have to go as far as overseas.
Bush and Oil
After talking to the Saudi leaders about getting more oil produced to help lower oil and gas prices in America, King George is said that he was going to, "take the explanation back to his own experts and see if it conforms.." What does Bush figure that is going to do? If his experts have a different conclusion are we going to invade yet another country? Such a silly man.
Arlen Specter
He's at it again, wanting a congressional investigation on the Patriots video taping opposing football teams to gain an advantage. Just like the investigation into baseball... Tell me, what does this have to do with the running of our government? What difference is it to me, or millions of other Americans if the Patriots video taped the other teams? I'm not trying to excuse them if they did, but wouldn't they be breaking a league rule, not a federal offense? Shouldn't it be up to the league to investigate a matter such as this and to take the necessary steps to enforce their own rules? It just doesn't seem like the tax payers should have to pay for investigations of sports teams or individuals, it has nothing to do with our government. With there being so many other, more important things that tax payer money could be spent on, what is the justification to spend it investigating professional sports, an organization that has plenty of money to be investigating its issues itself should it choose to do so.
This week I have found a few things I have issue with. First off there are a couple of quotes from our King George. Yes that's right, I said king instead of president, but the way I see it he acts more like a king than a president, a president that has been sworn in to serve the American people and up hold the constitution:
"It's this ideological struggle against cold blooded killers who kill people to achieve their political agenda." - King George
This was the king's statement in talking about his terrorist enemies, but couldn't it also be true in describing the actions of the king himself? How many Americans and Iraqis have died since we have overthrown Saddam to "free" the people of that country? How many prisoners have died from the torture and inhuman treatment they had suffered as a result of being captured by American forces?
"They can't stand to live in a free society, that's why they try to fight free societies" - King George
Another quote from King George. Again, oh how I would love to ask him how he can say something like this when he has been the one of the most secretive presidents. Secret wire tapping, secret data bases on Americans, secret prisons to hold prisoners without rights or charges for years at a time... What about white house emails? Why can't we ask questions of former aids? Why can't people sue telecommunication companies? Can you see who is fighting against a free society? A hint: You don't have to go as far as overseas.
Bush and Oil
After talking to the Saudi leaders about getting more oil produced to help lower oil and gas prices in America, King George is said that he was going to, "take the explanation back to his own experts and see if it conforms.." What does Bush figure that is going to do? If his experts have a different conclusion are we going to invade yet another country? Such a silly man.
Arlen Specter
He's at it again, wanting a congressional investigation on the Patriots video taping opposing football teams to gain an advantage. Just like the investigation into baseball... Tell me, what does this have to do with the running of our government? What difference is it to me, or millions of other Americans if the Patriots video taped the other teams? I'm not trying to excuse them if they did, but wouldn't they be breaking a league rule, not a federal offense? Shouldn't it be up to the league to investigate a matter such as this and to take the necessary steps to enforce their own rules? It just doesn't seem like the tax payers should have to pay for investigations of sports teams or individuals, it has nothing to do with our government. With there being so many other, more important things that tax payer money could be spent on, what is the justification to spend it investigating professional sports, an organization that has plenty of money to be investigating its issues itself should it choose to do so.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Terrorism
Terrorism: n. violence committed to achieve a political end....
Wouldn't that be like if one country would invade another to spread democracy?
You know I just feel terrible for what America has done to Iraq. It started off with a farce of the twin towers that had nothing to do with Iraq, moved to weapons of mass destruction that never were, to mission accomplished that never was. From pictures of Iraq it looks like we have totally demolished their infrastructure, city buildings, roads, utilities and this is what we do to people we supposedly save? People we want to push democracy on?
Bush still goes on about the progress we have made in Iraq, but unless our objective is to totally flatten all of Iraq, I don't see it. 2007 was the worse year since the beginning of the war for American casualties, the number of dead Americans now about 4000, Iraqi deaths over 1 million. There has been a lull in deaths of Iraqis, and of coarse Bush takes credit there, but from what I've read this has more to do with the different factions separating themselves from each other than an improvement in political processes. The amount of money spent on the war could have took care of many of our domestic problems, health care, education, housing, just think what kind of America we could have if we invested the kind of money we have threw away in a five year war where we are no better off, and in a lot of ways worse off, then we were when we first invaded Iraq.
The media is doing a grave disservice to the American people, there is hardly any coverage of the protests against this war and the present administration. Not only does this affect the people's will by letting them know that they are not alone in their objections of the way things are run, but it give the wrong impression to foreign people and governments that the American people are alright with the way the government is going, when there is really in reality a small percentage of Americans that back the president's vision of what we are doing in Iraq. The news paper that stands above the rest in exposing Bush and his administration's illegal activities is the New York Times. I bet Bush and Chaney hate the New York Times. In fact many times after an illegal activity has been exposed the Bush administration has been more upset about the fact that someone leaked the story than that illegal activities are going on.
What really gets me is how a president or administration can openly disregard laws and pick and choose what laws they want to follow. It disappoints me that the congress can call out these abuses, but the DOJ can decide that it's not going to push the issues or enforce the laws. What good are laws in this case? What did our veterans fight for if it wasn't our ideals and rights granted by our constitution? Where is the America for the common person, and what are the rules?
Wouldn't that be like if one country would invade another to spread democracy?
You know I just feel terrible for what America has done to Iraq. It started off with a farce of the twin towers that had nothing to do with Iraq, moved to weapons of mass destruction that never were, to mission accomplished that never was. From pictures of Iraq it looks like we have totally demolished their infrastructure, city buildings, roads, utilities and this is what we do to people we supposedly save? People we want to push democracy on?
Bush still goes on about the progress we have made in Iraq, but unless our objective is to totally flatten all of Iraq, I don't see it. 2007 was the worse year since the beginning of the war for American casualties, the number of dead Americans now about 4000, Iraqi deaths over 1 million. There has been a lull in deaths of Iraqis, and of coarse Bush takes credit there, but from what I've read this has more to do with the different factions separating themselves from each other than an improvement in political processes. The amount of money spent on the war could have took care of many of our domestic problems, health care, education, housing, just think what kind of America we could have if we invested the kind of money we have threw away in a five year war where we are no better off, and in a lot of ways worse off, then we were when we first invaded Iraq.
The media is doing a grave disservice to the American people, there is hardly any coverage of the protests against this war and the present administration. Not only does this affect the people's will by letting them know that they are not alone in their objections of the way things are run, but it give the wrong impression to foreign people and governments that the American people are alright with the way the government is going, when there is really in reality a small percentage of Americans that back the president's vision of what we are doing in Iraq. The news paper that stands above the rest in exposing Bush and his administration's illegal activities is the New York Times. I bet Bush and Chaney hate the New York Times. In fact many times after an illegal activity has been exposed the Bush administration has been more upset about the fact that someone leaked the story than that illegal activities are going on.
What really gets me is how a president or administration can openly disregard laws and pick and choose what laws they want to follow. It disappoints me that the congress can call out these abuses, but the DOJ can decide that it's not going to push the issues or enforce the laws. What good are laws in this case? What did our veterans fight for if it wasn't our ideals and rights granted by our constitution? Where is the America for the common person, and what are the rules?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)