Nobody is Listening

For some reason people want to continue to talk about spreading democracy in Iraq. What people are failing to recognize is that the Iraq war is providing the same motivation to the people that attacked us on 9/11. Bin Laden and his fighters are upset at U.S. foreign policy and our presence on their soil. So they flew planes into our buildings. Our response was to send 150,000 troops into the same region they want us to leave. Makes sense right?

My problem is not with people who say that they support the war (even though I am not sure why we are there). My problem is with people that say we were attacked because "they" hate freedom and democracy. When people say this you can immediately dismiss them as ignorant and uneducated on the issue. If people in the U.S. are to lazy/stupid to read into the issues of the Middle East then they would be better serving the community by not speaking on the issue at all. All of the information to educate yourself on the issue is readily available.

I do not claim to be an expert by any means but I do claim to have read into the issue. One thing that is very clear is that our war on terrorism is not as black and white as people might like to think. There are some very complex social and political issue at hand. People in the U.S. need to define their goal in this war. Is the goal to keep us safe on our own soil? If that is the goal then I believe we are going about it the wrong way. It has been stated very clearly by Bin Laden why he attacked us. Read his letter here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

I am not sure why it doesn't get any press, but the reason is not because we are non-believers or because Bin Laden hates democracy. I think Bin Laden and his followers would prefer to just be left alone. In his eyes, we have not left him this option. I am NOT condoning Bin Laden or his actions I am just pointing out that he is fighting for a cause HE believes in and is not out to just randomly kill people for NO reason.

Michael Scheuer in the video above is an expert on why the "terrorist" attack us. Watch the video.

Valentine's Day

Story from http://www.foxnews.com/ concerning the possible ban on Valentine’s Day by Kuwait hardliners.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330333,00.html

My questions to you are: Why do we care if the people of Kuwait are allowed to celebrate Valentine's Day? Don't enough people in the States complain that Valentine's Day is just a "Hallmark Holiday"? I know some people out there will write "At least we have a choice if we want to participate in the holiday or not", and I get that. One can only assume the point Fox News is trying to make by posting this article. I believe they are trying to push the point that societies across the Middle East are starting to lean towards fanaticism. Do people really care how Kuwait decides to handle this holiday in their country? Isn't Saint Valentine and Valentine's a Christian holiday?

This is just another in the long list of growing examples that we have of the media in the U.S. trying to push our American agenda on other countries.

Saying one thing and doing another

I love how one of the arguments for justifying the war in Iraq is that we are liberating the people and letting them enjoy personal freedoms that they have not been able to experience under Sadaam. Well if that is how we really feel and we don't want to be viewed as hypocrites then we should add Saudi Arabia to the list of countries we are going to invade next.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3321637.ece

Oh wait, we are friendly with them even though they don't have a democracy and don't treat people equally. To be clear this does not bother me at all. Saudi Arabia should be allowed to do what they want. They are a sovereign nation that does not need to be told that they have to model their government and laws like the U.S. However, if the U.S. is going to "spread" democracy (using term spread very loosely) and liberty then they might want to consider sanctioning the Saudi's for the way they treat their citizens. Didn't we just slap sanctions on Burma for their government cracking down on a democratic protest by the monks? We don't care about Burma because they offer us nothing.

Why are they smiling?

First watch the video.

My biggest problem that I have with the two GOP frontrunners is that they do not address the VALID questions that Ron Paul asks. During this video clip they both sit and smurk while Paul brings up excellent points that they will not address. My goal isn't neccessarily to drum up support for Paul, but rather to get people to ask questions that the politicians seem to ignore.

1) What is the goal of our foreign policy?

2) Why do we have troops in 130 different countrys around the world?

3) If the U.S. is claiming to be peaceful nation by do we outspend every other nation by billions on our military?

4) If the U.S. is a peacful nation why do we need military bases in Italy, Germany, Japan, England, etc? What wars have been going on the last 50 years that would require us to keep troops in all these countrys? If we needed to stage a war over seas wouldn't our friends be more than happy to help us by letting us use there land for logistics if the war was just?

5) Is the taxpayer money better served supporting all these bases or would it be put to better use by spending it in America?

6) Our the citizens better off paying to repair a bridge in Iraq or a bridge in Minnesota?

I would like some of these questions answered by Mr. Romney and Mr. McCain. It would be nice to actually see some ideas out of these guys instead of them arguing with each other about issues that really have no bearing on the future.

Why are they smiling? What questions did ask that were so funny? Do they think they are not relevent? I think the moderators will be better serving the country if they would press the front runners on what they think is so funny. This is not the first time this has happend to Paul either. Before Giulianni wasted all that money in one state and lost he used to laugh at Paul during the debates but was then proven to be completly ignorant by Paul.

Nothing in this country will change if we keep electing people whos fundementals are wrong. There is really no difference between Obama, Clinton, McCain, or Romeny. This of course is a generalization but they all believe in the same bloated role of the federal government.

Ron Paul - Electability - Censored by Fox 1-10-08

A perfect example of what's wrong

The other day I was on my way to work in the morning and stopped into a convenient store to pick up a cup of coffee. As I made my way to the coffee in the back corner I overheard another customer talking to the store clerk who is Pakistani. The customer told the clerk that he had heard the U.S. might put some troops into Pakistan if the Pakistani army requested help. He then told the clerk that it would be a good thing. Some people might not have read a whole lot into that little conversation but it wrung very loud in my ears.

It is usually the assumption that if the U.S. is sending troops somewhere they are helping another government fight of "evil doers". I think there are some aspects of a troop deployment that must be taken into consideration that are generally not thought of by people who just casually accept that we are putting troops into another country to fight AL-Queda.

There has been a lot of turmoil in Pakistan lately. With a declaration of martial law (which has been lifted) and the assassination of the former prime minister Bhutto, Pakistan is walking a thin line between peace within itself and civil unrest. Much of this unrest results from the fact that the current President Musharraf acquired power through a military coup. This coup de tat occurred in 1999 when he ousted the democratically elected Prime Minister Sharif. This effectively make Musharraf a dictator.

If U.S. troops were to be deployed into Pakistan at the request of Musharraf the situation would be viewed in two completely lights. From the view points of American citizens this would be another leg in the war on terror just as my friend in the convenient store pointed out. Americans feel justified in sending troops anywhere to root out AL Queda and this is very understandable given the events of 9/11. This is as far as it goes from the view points of Americans. It is as simple as "They flew planes into our buildings and killed innocent women and children". The problem arises when you view the other side of this conversation. I can't personally speak for Pakistani citizens however I will attempt to use basic logic to surmise what the outcome will be.

I think it would be safe to assume that if the U.S. put troops into Pakistan that an average Pakistani would connect the U.S. with Musharraf. I believe that from the Pakistani point of view they would see the U.S. as hypocrites. On the one hand the U.S. says that they support democracy and freedom but in the Pakistani situation they are sending aid and supporting a dictator who took over by force and suspended the constitution. How could this be? Because support is dwindling and the U.S. is viewed as allied with Musharraf by the regular citizens of Pakistan, when he does lose power either through force or elections (if they are allowed) the U.S. might be in an awkward position. Why would any normal citizen of Pakistan support the U.S.? They have seen their constitution suspended twice and a Prime Minister who was ELECTED thrown out of office by the head of the military. This is exactly the kind of situation that creates hatred towards the U.S. abroad in the first place.

Because Americans tend not to view themselves from the viewpoint of other people they would not realize that they are viewed as being allied with a military dictator therefore creating resentment among the citizens of Pakistan.

Is This the Way it Was Supposed to Be?

What were the intentions of our founding fathers? Could they possible have envisioned the government they started turning into a behemoth of a bureaucracy? No one can say for sure how they would react to the current situation plaguing our government, but we could probably assume how they would react to a number of programs that the federal government is involved in. If the politicians are truly working because they say that they love the country and owe the public service, why do they keep raping and pillaging the very document that they are swearing to uphold? We the public need to stop buying into all the crap and start asking some serious questions. Here is a link to a video that shows one politician asking some questions and sharing some ideas that not so long ago would have been mainstream.