British Sailors Freed!!

I am personally glad that the British sailors have been freed by the Iranians.  Even more so that no shots were fired and (hopefully) no one got hurt.

The whole purpose of this incident was for Iran to send a message to the world - We'll do as we please, no matter what the UN says.  After that point was made and they got all the propaganda they could out of it, the sailors were freed.

What will be interesting is when the next deadline for the Iranians to comply with ceasing nuclear development comes and goes.  What will the Iranians do next?

Britain's Hostage Crisis

Great Britain is in trouble. Fifteen of it's military people are being held hostage by the Iranians, and there is no answer as to when they would be released. Worse is that several of the sailors & marines have issued statements condemning their own government. Worst is an Associate Press poll which states that the English people do not favor military action to get their people back even if negotiations fail.

It really doesn't matter if you believe the British or Iranian accounts for the reason the sailors were taken. The facts are is that they were taken from under British guns without a shot, presumably in Iraqi waters, and did so with the expressed knowledge of the British government as the commander of the warship repeatedly asked for permission to fire in defense of the men and women under his command, and was denied. In my mind, that would depress the morale of the British armed forces, and I certainly hope that a similar situation would not occur if any aggressor tried to board and/or take American military personnel.

What is important is that Iran is showing the world that they will abide by no one's rules but their own. Calls for the cessation of Iran's nuclear program by the Useless Nations were met with defiance. Iran will continue down this path no matter what the UN does with it's sanctions (of which Iran would tell them what to do with them).

Europe is now getting a taste of what they have been defending. The EU has Iran as one of its biggest trading partners, and Iran is thumbing its nose at the EU. Of course, the EU is expressing shock and outrage at Iran's actions, but do you think that there would be anything that they would do to come to Britain's aid? HAH!! Don't hold your breath!!

The fact is that Europe has been inundated with Muslim immigrants, and they are demanding that the various governments of the EU accommodate them! With the flap over the Mohammad cartoons and the riots in France, the nations of the EU is on perilous grounds. They do not need a uprising to screw up their domestic and economic tranquility, so now they will look to the UN to solve the problem.

And who will the UN look to? After they get done with issuing resolutions and sanctions, they would look to the US to help enforce them. To which I would say “go away.” Their actions as a group of nations during the 10 years between the Gulf Wars is atrocious and abysmal, and they definitely have not supported the US in our enforcement of their resolutions.

While I realize that Great Britain is one of our best allies in the world, they also have to stand up for themselves. Allowing a third-rate nation take its soldiers when there was the opportunity to defend them was idiocy at its worst. Should the US support them if they ask for it – yes, but the US should not be leading the charge.

The EU needs to figure out what to do for themselves with this problem with Iran and other countries like it. In the case of Iran, should they develop a nuclear weapon capable of fitting on top of a missile, and drop it somewhere in Europe because someone published another Mohammad cartoon...

And by the way, kissing a** and making nice won't do it. It was tried around 70 years ago, and it didn't work.

Iraq, Iran, al-Qaeda, and the United States

Behind the curve again, but I really wanted to see how the reactions of the media, Congress, and the public would be to President Bush's speech in which he laid out plans for Iraq before I threw in my 2 1/2 cents worth in a long post...

Last week, President Bush announced that there would some 22,000 troops sent to Iraq to stabilize the region and to assist the Iraqis in securing their country. Is this too little, too late? Many people out there think that this could be the case, and that opinion includes all the political spectrum - left, right, conservative, liberal, and everyone in between. One poll stated 60% opposed, and another stated 70%.

In many respects, it depends on how the troops are deployed, and what "Rules of Engagement" (ROE) they would have to follow. Considering that the previous ROE handicapped our troops in protecting themselves and restricted what they could do, the new ROE is a welcome relief. But our troops will still need to watch their backs as the media & arm-chair generals second guess every move that they make & every round they fire while ducking sniper fire & IED explosions.

I've stated in previous posts that I am not thrilled that we are in Iraq, but in some respects, it was inevitable that the United States would be drawn into the Middle East in some sort of prolonged military action. What!?! No, I'm not kidding, but very serious. Lest you forget, the United States is extremely concerned about the stability of the Middle East. Besides the new terrorist concerns, there is still the energy sources of the Middle East that the economy of the United States (and the majority of the world) depend upon. Of course, this is only one person's opinion, but bear with me.

Those of you may remember that in 1979, the Shah of Iran fled the country as Islamic revolutionists established the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Shah ended up in the United States for treatment of cancer, and the newly established Iranian government demanded that the Shah be extradited to Iran for trial and execution. This led to the takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran as the United States refused to hand over the dying Shah. A rescue operation was mounted By President Carter, but it failed miserably. On January 20, 1981, twenty minutes after the newly elected President Reagan's inaugural address, the hostages were released after having spent 444 days in captivity.

Iran was having other problems besides worrying about what President Reagan would do about the hostages. Iraq's Saddam Hussein, seeing the political turmoil in Iran and sensing weakness, attacked Iran in September 1980. The land war was extremely brutal, with massive casualties being incurred on both sides due to chemical weaponry and human wave attacks. Also, Iran and Iraq both attacked shipping in the Persian Gulf, and the United States conducted military operations in order to protect the shipping of neutral nations as well as that of United States concerns. The war between Iran & Iraq lasted 8 years, and set up the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq 2 years later.

The Iran/Iraq war devastated the economies of both countries. According to Wikipedia, Kuwait heavily financed Iraq in the war with Iran in the amount of a $14 Billion loan. Iraq was not in a position to repay the loan, and Kuwait was not going to forgive the debt. Wikipedia further states:

Iraq's civil and military debt was higher than its state budget. On the other hand, with its vast oil reserves, Kuwait was regarded as one of the world's wealthiest and most economically stable countries. The Iraqi government clearly realized that by occupying Kuwait, it will be able to solve its financial problems. Due to its relatively small size, Kuwait was seen by Baghdad as an easy target.

Thus, Iraq invaded Kuwait as a move calculated to erase its debts, and secure the revenue generated by the Kuwaiti oil fields. Of another concern would be an expanded access to the Persian Gulf through port facilities.

Saudi Arabia was understandably nervous with potentially hostile Iraqi troops on its border. Armed with a United Nations resolution and the Saudi government's blessing, a United States led coalition began deploying to Saudi Arabia to defend Saudi Arabia from invasion and to drive Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

It was during this time that Osama bin Laden, a seasoned leader of Mujahideen from Afghanistan, offered the services of his organization to the Saudi government to repel any invasion by the Iraqi forces. He was turned down as the Saudi government went with the United States led coalition. Wikipedia goes on to say:

Bin Laden considered this a treacherous deed. He believed that the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan and on April 9, 1994 his Saudi citizenship was revoked....Shortly afterwards, the movement that came to be known as al-Qaeda was formed.

So now at the end of the first Gulf War, we have three known enemies in the Middle East: Iraq (for driving them from Kuwait), Iran (for military activities during the Iran/Iraq War), and al-Qaeda (for defiling the Islamic homeland). A dangerous mix, indeed...

During the time leading up to September 11, 2001, Iraq's Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at the world by violating numerous United Nation resolutions, genocide via chemical weapons, etc... In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing occurred, which was financed by al-Qaeda. Iran, I believe, was quietly funding terrorist organizations like Hamas to provide distraction from it's own agenda of developing nuclear weapons and this missiles to deliver them. Various terrorist attacks such as those on the USS Cole in 2000, nightclubs frequented by US servicemen, and bombings of US embassies around the world were largely ignored even though there were casualties. That was about to change...

September 11, 2001 changed everything about how the Middle East was viewed, especially when linked to terrorism. No longer could these violent acts be swept under the rug as before - the attacks had come to our neighborhood. The War on Terrorism had begun.

Fast forward to today's events: The United States is in Iraq, having replaced Saddam Hussein's dictatorship with a fledgling democracy. Iran is saber-rattling with the threat of developing nuclear weapons and has it's eye on Iraq. And al-Qaeda is in the background, quietly planning the next attack.

So here's the bottom line:

The United States must succeed in Iraq, i.e., to leave Iraq with a fully functioning government able to defend itself from enemies within and outside of its borders. There are several reasons why the above must be achieved:

1) National and international pride and credibility. There, I've said it. For a superpower to enter into an engagement such as this and not complete the job destroys our credibility with the international community. Being defeated in an effort that we claim to be at the core of our country, i.e., the pursuit of freedom and self-determination, will render the US as a 2nd rate country with a cap pistol.

2) If the US does not succeed, this country will be perceived by our enemies as being weak. That will embolden terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda to redouble their efforts to disrupt the activities of this country (private and governmental) through increasing attacks on US assets in both international and domestic locations.

3) Iran chomping at the bit to take over Iraq (or at least make it a puppet government) is a frightening prospect. If they succeed, this action would further destabilize the Middle East. It's bad enough that Iran has nuclear ambitions and an apocalyptic leader stating that another country/people should be wiped off the face of the earth. But could you image the territory and natural resources that Iran would then control? If you thought gas prices were bad last summer, get ready for some severe pricing increases both here and abroad. And the rest of the Middle Eastern countries would be forced to cater to Iran's will.

4) We've already seen Sunni and Shiite violence under these conditions, but could you imagine if there were absolutely no authority, no law, no government for keeping the peace? Civilian casualty counts would skyrocket as religious fighting would increase by leaps and bounds. The killing fields of Cambodia come to mind...

5) Terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda could find homes in which to establish training camps. This would allow them to plan, plot, and train in relative peace & security to inflict casualties upon the rest of the world.

Yes, it is in all of our interests that the United States succeed in Iraq. This will mean keeping our troops there for some time, and whether or not an extra 20,000 or so will make a difference will depend on how they are deployed and the ROE that they can operate under. The United States cannot fail, not only for our sake, but for the sake of millions of people in the Middle East and the rest of the world. The real question in much of this is:

Will our politicians, our duly elected leaders, grow backbones, have the intestinal fortitude, and suck it up, i.e., put aside political agendas, to do the right thing for the United States and the rest of the world?

On the Eve of Another Christmas & New Year

This was from the Christmas Eve Mallard Fillmore cartoon:

In an age in which Christians around the world are persecuted, tortured, and killed for daring to utter their Lord's name...Thank God for a Nation in which people of all religions may worship in freedom.

The country we live in, no, blessed with, is truly wonderful.  This nation of ours has freedoms that most of the world does not enjoy.  One of those is the freedom to worship (or not) according to your conscience.  However, there are those who want to force you to bow to a black rock in the middle of a foreign land five times a day.  If you don't, then your life is worth nothing.

I watched the Glenn Beck special in which Islamic Extremism was featured.  The images presented in this program as created by the Muslim clergy, news, and entertainment media were most disturbing.  It's not easy to watch crowds being whipped into a frenzy, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."  Nor is it reassuring that people considered to be "infidels" are not considered to be people, but must be killed wherever they are found.  And let's not talk about what they really think of the Jewish people and Israel simply because it is so dehumanizing as to be ridiculous.

What bothers me the most is that our media ignores the reality of this threat.  We do not hear of or read about very often the anti-American & anti-Israeli rhetoric, calling for the destruction of our respective countries.  Nor is it brought to the forefront that they truly hate us with all of their hearts, and wish nothing but death for us. 

This hate runs deep.  Talking will not solve our differences.  This is a belief system that does not have room for compromise, not even for slight differences within their own religion.  Otherwise, why are the Shiites and Sunnis killing each other in Iraq?  If it were otherwise, the word "tolerance" would be used, not abused.

And yet, there are those who think that the United States should leave Iraq, ignore the terrorist threat of radical Islam, and bury this country's head in the sand.  Indeed, they wish to withdraw American influence from the world and reduce this country's status in the world to that of a third-rate nation instead of the superpower that this country truly is.  I thought that Bill Whittle in his essay, Power, expressed it best: 

Those that would have us disarm, withdraw, apologize and retreat make the assumption that by removing American Power from the world, the planet will become a harmonious village of diversity and mutual respect. Remove American capitalism, and the world’s people will trade solar cars for indigenous beads, our European moral betters will hand over their cash to the third world until all are perfectly equal, and everyone will live in a sustainable ecological paradise. Remove American cultural power and Britney will be replaced with Beethoven, and an exquisite and reasonably priced Pate de Foi Gras Existentialist Meal can be had at a corner drive-in where the former McDonald’s once stood.

This is utter nonsense. It has never been true for a single page of the history of the Damned Human Race. There has never -– never –- been a day in human history when some form of power has not flooded the world, or competed to do so; and those times when the power was most one-sided reveal themselves to be the times of greatest relative peace, stability, and advancement of that quaint notion known as civilization.

This is not merely a European construct. We see this iron rule in Inca and Aztec histories in South America, in Shaka’s Zulu nation, in Chinese empires and Japanese Shogunates, Native American tribal relations, and wherever else we turn our eyes.

The idea that all would be well if only America would retreat from the world and stay at home is a pernicious and seductive one. It appeals not only to those that hunger after the freedom to do mischief in our absence as it does to our natural sense of isolationism. It has been the mantra of communists, totalitarians and elitists of every vile stripe for well over a hundred years. It is utterly and completely wrong. Political power has never been removed from the world -– it has only been replaced. And so our choice –- now pay attention you No Blood For Oil types -– is not between power and no power. It is a choice only of what kind of power will fill that vacuum. Chinese? Russian? European? We have seen all of these before. The horrors they have inflicted, with far less absolute power than the US wields, do not leave me pining for those alternatives. Someone is going to be the world power, or tear the world apart fighting for it. And no matter how hard we may wish it, the winner will not be a Blindfolded Jury of Archangels.

 And yet, we blunder on down a path that leads to self-destruction.  Our media and politicians make excuses for Islamic terrorists, thinking that they are misunderstood and that we, as a country, need to understand why they hate us.  That way, we can change so that they will "like us," and will stop the killing. 

Unfortunately, the killing has been going on for centuries, and will not stop anytime soon.  A religion that goes ballistic over cartoons and cannot stand scrutiny is a religion that doesn't need excuses, but accountability for it's actions and justification for its existence.  To state that it is a religion of peace and yet foment violence against non-believers is hypocritical in the extreme.

A famous American said in a speech:

"We, the American People… find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us…We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them -- they are a legacy bequeathed us, by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. Theirs was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only to transmit these, the former, unprofaned by the foot of an invader…to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.

"How then shall we perform it? -- At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? -- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - Abraham Lincoln, Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1838.

Whether we like it or not, I believe that the Islamic terrorists are going to do their damnest to make this into a religious war from whatever it can be called now.  They will use the classic good vs. evil argument, an us-vs.-them conflict in the name of a jihad (religious war, for those of you in Rio Linda).  They will plot, plan, and execute attacks that will cause large numbers of casualties.  And the elites idiots among us will wring their hands crying, "We don't understand!  We were talking!"  Understand this, you Brie-eaters - there are people in the world that want to kill you just for the reason that you exist!!  And we still seem to pursue the idiotic mantra of appeasement to those who wish nothing more than to destroy our country and subjugate us to their religion.

I know that this isn't the traditional Christmas Eve post, but Christ stated:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34, NIV

Slightly out of context with the passage, but it does illustrate that there will be conflict & war brought in the name of religion and belief in God & Christ.  And I believe that this war has come upon us, although slowly and very low key until recently.

I do pray that I am wrong, that reason will prevail among our political leaders and those in the Middle East.  That there will truly be Peace on Earth.  But that will only happen if everyone decides that it will be so.

May everyone find Peace within their own hearts, and so enlighten the world.

the Dry Bones Blog

I ran across this blog while reading the paper, strangely enough.  The author publishes a daily cartoon in Israel, and definitely puts some perspective on the policies of this country.

The latest is a toon from 1992 dealing with James Baker, and in his words,

James Baker is one of the architects of today's Middle East mess. Now, close to 15 years later, Baker is back. As is Jimmy Carter. Trying to sell us their same old tired, failed ideas about appeasing Arab dictators and pressuring the area's only democracy.  Again.

Here's the link:

http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/bush-and-baker-1992.html

4th Time the Charm?

As reported by MSNBC.com, the Pope met with Muslim diplomats earlier today to mend relations after his remarks about Islam during a September 12 speech at Regensburg University. This is the 4th time that the Pope has tried to defuse the situation.

The remarks that got the Islamic clerics & "others" upset were the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman," particularly "his command to spread by the sword the faith." Pope Benedict XVI has since said that the comments were taken out of context, and he regretted that Muslims were offended. The reaction by the aforementioned offended Muslims has included protests, violence, and murder. The most publicized of these was the execution of a nun in Somolia who forgave her attackers as she was dying.

This is absolutely incredible to me! As stated in the "Points to Ponder" scroller to the right, Why must I tolerate your intolerance? Why is it that if there is the slightest criticism of Islam, these people go ballistic and start running amok? Worse yet, why must these people be excused from their actions? Why does the world as a whole put up with these idiots?

It can't be on account of it's a criticism of a religion. Christians and Jews certainly don't get a pass on this - I think of all the criticism offered in the media of these religions (cartoons and other items bordering on the obscene), and what the Mohammed cartoons showed was extremely mild. Israel certainly didn't get a pass on their little war with Hezbollah.

Actually, it might be a little more sinister than what one might think. I am starting to believe that the world, through the Useless Nations, would rather see the civilized West (Europe and the US) bear the brunt of the Islamic terror attacks. Many of the countries in the UN are third-world dictatorships that really don't want their people to have any freedoms at all. If the Islamic terrorists keeps the West busy chasing them, then maybe the West will leave them alone. What they don't realize is that if the West falls, or enacts an isolationist-type policy, then they just might find these jokers in their respective laps.

And yet no one really seems to understand the danger that this type of radical Islam puts the world into. I remember a World History class some 30 years ago in High School. The topic was Islam and how it shaped the Middle East. The teacher stated the following:

Islam is a religion of conquest - it was spread by subjugation. The soldiers would ride into a villiage and wipe out any resistance. Afterward, they would gather up all the villiagers, and separated the leaders. The Imam riding with the soldiers would then ask them one by one if they would accept Islam as their religion and Allah as their god. If not, the leader would be forced to kneel, and he was beheaded in front of the assembled villiagers. This process usually didn't last very long as the villiage saw which way this was going, so they would take vows to accept this new religion. Afterward, they would ride to the next villiage and repeat the "conversion" of the infidels.

This is the radical Islamic mindset - convert or die! This is their mantra - this is their mission. And with the radical Iranian president hell-bent on nukes, I really wonder if the world hasn't gone mad in ignoring this threat.

Where is this all headed? Well, I can certainly state that it shouldn't begin with apologies for statements that are historical in nature. I stand by the following statement made in a previous post:

People who apologise for, make excuses for, or otherwise try & appease these nutcases are only making things worse. Firm, decisive action will eventually need to be taken against these promoters of violence. The question is, who's going to do it? The moderate Islamic sects, or the rest of the world. The first is preferable, the second is not.

Indeed, who is going to rein in these purveyors of the "religion of peace"? I certainly hope that the US doesn't get sucked into this alone.

Islamic Intolerance

By now, everyone is aware of the Pope's comments concerning Islam, and the radical Islamic reaction condemning his statements. Considering that he was quoting someone else to prove some points (and the radicals proving the points for him), the fallout is expected. Of course, the Pope has issued his apology, and it is being rejected by a few of the more radical Imams.

While I realize that not all Muslims are not as radical as the media (and others) portray them to be, one does wonder why the moderate don't tell the radicals to shut up. Perhaps they are afraid of getting their heads chopped off - after all, if the radicals don't have a Jew, Christian, or other infidel to kill, they'll find a Muslim not of their particular sect to kill (at least in the Middle East).

So now these Islamic idiots are using the Pope's historical references to call for more violence against whomever they "feel" that has offended them in the name of their religion. How pathetic is it that they must grasp for excuses to cause harm to their fellow man to "defend their faith." Are they not secure in the belief that Allah is all powerful and can defend himself?

On a deeper point, what is really being said here? The Pope made the reference that belief in a religion (referencing Islam) must not be forced upon a person, i.e., freedom of choice of a religion. History has shown Islam was forced upon conquered lands (and yes, I'm aware that various Christian groups have done the same at various periods of history). And yet the modern equivalent is being demonstrated and stated by the radical Imams and other "religious" terrorist leader - convert to Islam (our sect) or die. And yet, there are people who just don't see that caving in to the "join us or die" proclamation goes against several of the basic freedoms that we enjoy in this country.

People who apologise for, make excuses for, or otherwise try & appease these nutcases are only making things worse. Firm, decisive action will eventually need to be taken against these promoters of violence. The question is, who's going to do it? The moderate Islamic sects, or the rest of the world. The first is preferable, the second is not.

With the reactions to the Mohammed cartoons and now this, is there now any question that this is not a "religion of peace", at least as practiced by some sects? If anything, these radical elements are pushing the world toward a religious war, not the other way around. What's even more scary is that they believe that they will win, even though the world could be destroyed in the process!! At least that's what I see if Iran's radical leadership gets a working atomic device, sticks it on a missle & fires it at 1) Israel, 2) the Vatican, and/or 3) anybody else that's an infidel. Oh well, at least they'll get their virgins...

Thoughts on Iraq

So much has been published, debated, and otherwise discussed as to the situation in Iraq and the resulting political free for all. Here's what I think about the whole affair:

Accusations that the President has engaged in an illegal war are total BS. If you remember, Congress voted to go into the war. Only later when there was political gain to be had did the Democrats renege on their decision (remember the line "I voted for the war before I voted against it!" campaign line?). If these morons succeed in their call to impeach the President, I think they should get right on up there with him and impeach themselves on the same charges.

There have been so many reports of Iraq having or not having WMDs that it is hard to determine what the truth really is. Considering that chemical weapons were used in the Iran/Iraq war, and by Saddam against the Kurdish uprising, anyone with an ounce of common sense would say there has to be chemical weapons with Iraq's name all over them somewhere. Saddam had 9 months to move or hide these weapons before the invasion of Iraq (which he knew was eventually coming). And yes, I know about the documents and the interviews - that doesn't mean anything since documents can be forged (a la Dan Rather) and people fudge the truth to make themselves or someone else look good.

Also along the WMD mis-information line, the intelligence gathering of the United States has been compromised by the increasing reliance on electronic assets (satellites) and a decrease in human information sources. Budget cuts by previous administrations has not helped. Information that was used & presented to Congress and the United Nations came from various other sources such as the British and Israel as well as what sources the United States still had in the region.

The violence in Iraq is mainly coming from two sources. One is from foreign fighters backed by either al-Quaeda or Saddam loyalists, and the other are Muslim religious factions looking for power and control. The first was expected, and has been present from day one. The second has only recently reared its ugly head, and reminds me of the situation in Bosnia. If you recall, when the Soviet Union pulled out of Europe, many of the ethnic blood fueds started right back up again once the Soviets left, and mass killings & genocide resulted.

The reports of a brewing civil war are at this point untrue. What is being reported is the religious strife between the Shites and Sunnis of which Saddam had previously suppressed. However, if the United States pulls out of Iraq at this time, then you can count on a civil war that will consume that country and possibly the region.

Whether or not you agree with the war and resulting occupation in Iraq was necessary, it is now the responsibility of the United States to leave in place a functional, self-supporting government. The US cannot leave Iraq until this is accomplished, which renders the calls for a withdrawel timeline irrevalent. While I understand the calls to bring the troops home, for better or worse, the US must finish the job it started out to do. Iraq is in a very delicate state.

The politicians (along with their mainstream media lackeys) that are leading the charge to pull out of Iraq have yet to put forth any plan that would leave Iraq with a government that can effectively control their own destiny. All that has been put forth is a lot of grandstanding, accusations, and hot air designed to smear & undermine that goal. And it is important that the United States leaves a fully autonomous government in Iraq when the troops do come home.

If Iraq dissolves into chaos, anarchy, and civil war, the impact on the region (and the rest of the world) would be enormous. I predict that the radical Islamic clerics would take over much as they did in Afghanistan. Any & all freedoms that the Iraqi people gained after Saddam was toppled would be gone, and al-Quaeda would find another home in which to mount attacks on the rest of the world. The United States would be percieved to be weak and vulnerable, and would have a bigger target on the country (and populous) than what it does now.

Bottom line is that the United States finishes the job and leaves Iraq when the Iraqi people are capable of supporting themselves and their government can control their own country. Any other action negates the sacrifice of our soldiers, and does nothing to secure the freedom of a formally oppressed people.

Dubai Deal

Listening to the radio coming back home, I listened to Rush Limbaugh read excerpts from the following article at American Thinker. Somewhat interesting after the this deal has apparently fallen through.

Now while I admit to having misgivings on this deal (and I still do), I didn't have any idea that so many of our terminals were under the control of foreign companies or interests. Not what I had thought at all.

Regardless, this entire episode has been mishandled by the Bush Administration. Perhaps if it had not seemed to be so clandestine or "under the table" might have changed public opinion. Or maybe our mindset has been changed to reflect a certain amount of paranoia where there is a Middle Eastern country involved, especially with our thoughts on 9/11, Iraq, and Iran. What do you think?

A Nuclear Iran?

Micheal Stone has a piece on his Blog America Under Attack which is pretty interesting. It does mirror many of the same thoughts that have been posted on other sites and in the comments.

Energy Independence

Note: I wrote the below before I heard that the President may speak on this topic tonight in his State of the Union Address. I can only hope that he does, and our elected representatives take heed.

=========================

We all know that there is an energy crisis. All we have to do is look at our natural gas, electricity, and gasoline bills to know that we are not going to get any relief any time soon. More importantly, the United States must reduce its dependence on foreign energy sources, specifically petroleum, for our economic and social health.

One of the recommendations included in the May 2001 Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group is to increase the domestic energy supply by exploring & developing petroleum resources in protected areas. While the environmentalist groups will scream, this can be done with minimal impact given today's improved technology and procedures. It is also necessary.

The oil producing region of the Middle East is under an uneasy peace at best. Suicide bombers and the conflict in Iraq are the most visible and most reported violent incidents from the area. Alliances change without warning as Iran did during the late 70's. The Palestinians have elected a known terrorist group, Hamas, as their leaders. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is among those listed in Parade Magazine as being some of the most ruthless dictatorships known with multitudes of human right violations. Of course, there is Iran making noises about wanting to join the nuclear club even though the president of Iran is clearly advocating using any and all means to wage war on Israel to wipe it off the map. Lastly, Islamic terrorists such as al-Qaeda are constantly stirring up trouble for everyone in the region.

Whether we like it or not, the United States has a vested interest in the Middle East for national security reasons. Again, according to the May 2001 Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, the United States relies on foreign oil for 52% of its needs. Should the flow of oil be interrupted, then the United States would have a severe impact dealt to its economy as all sectors (transportation, manufacturing, & energy generation) would be affected. Those groups that have accused the United States government with trading blood for oil are partially right as the Government has the duty to protect the economic welfare of the country. However, these same groups do not take the time to understand the reasons for the foreign policy sometimes enacted in the Middle East. For example: The first Gulf War was waged for a singular purpose, and that was to secure valuable oil resources in both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein's control. If those resources were under the control of Hussein, then he would have been able to economically cripple the United States and the rest of the world. Those groups decried the loss of life in this conflict. One wonders what they would do or say if Hussein had control of the oil fields and turned off the oil, thus depriving them of the ability to drive to the supermarket only to find empty shelves since the food couldn't be delivered...

There are billions of dollars being spent for the research into alternative energy sources. A renewed interest in nuclear power is underway, renewable energy sources such as ethanol & bio-diesel currently have limited use, hybrid & fuel cell vehicles are being tested, and wind power is starting to make an appearance. But all of these new technologies are years from being perfected and cost effective. Until these technologies are developed for widespread use, the consumption of petroleum in this country must be addressed. Thus, a domestic agenda for finding and developing petroleum resources within the borders of the United States must be enacted. So what is the hold up? To put it succinctly - Politics and Special Interest Groups.

The most powerful of these groups are the Environmentalists. Their stance is no drilling or exploration in protected areas. However, the proper use of the technology and procedures learned from various disasters and developments should reduce the risk to the environment. But there is the risk, and the Environmentalists do not trust the oil companies, and probably for good reason. With the Exxon Valdez disaster as well as other disasters in mind, they do have a powerful argument. While I'm in favor of a clean environment, some risk must be taken in order to secure these resources. Having the caribou running free is of little comfort if you are standing out in the cold because there is no heat in the house.

The other major factor in this equation are the politicians and the games they play. The mindset of politicians is usually short term, as in the next election. If their constituents do not directly benefit from a long-range policy or it is a political hot potato, they will vote against it or abstain. If the various special interest groups target key legislators with promises of campaign contributions, then the representatives will usually vote which ever way will contribute more to their campaign war chest while not getting them in trouble with their constituents. While I realize that this is a very cynical view of how our elected representatives behave, I would be extremely naive if I believed otherwise in light of numerous embarrassing political idiocies played out recently on national TV.

What is most disturbing is that while the political games are being played, our national economic security is at risk of a few nations. Worse, some of these nations may either covertly or inadvertently fund the terrorist activities which threaten our country. Think of it as the ultimate irony: We are funding our own destruction. Bin Laden's family got rich by various oil construction projects, and he has tapped into that money to fund al-Qaeda terrorist activities against the United States & other countries. So the sooner we reduce or eliminate our dependence on the Middle East and other sources of foreign energy, the better.

So now it is up to us, the Citizens of the United States, to vote our conscience & let our duly elected representatives know that a long term solution is necessary to solve the coming crisis. We have an election coming up this year. Find out where your representatives stand on this issue and vote accordingly.