TRUTH: The Second Archive

Thursday, December 07, 2006

The Iraq Study Group

(God bless all veterans and soldiers now serving, and all America, on this anniversary of Pearl Harbor.)

It's a Good Thing

The Iraq Study Group has been a good thing, in my opinion, in that it has gotten the United States government and its people thinking about solutions to the Iraq problem. The Iraq Study Group has gotten all sectors of the world, and of the United States, involved and invested in solving the Iraq conundrum. Most of us don’t understand all the factors involved in this whole mess over there, but we do know that something is wrong, and needs to be fixed. I would argue that no one is wise enough, given all the complexities, to know what is the best thing to do, but the Group made a good effort.

Another good thing about the Iraq Study Group is that Democrats and liberals are again thinking, which is unusual for them. A bad part of the Group is that these same liberals are engaging in their favorite pastime, which is gotcha politics. Many Democrats spend their whole day finding things the evil Republicans have done wrong. They feel vindicated by the Baker Commission Report, (another name for the Iraq Study Group), which basically says that Iraq is a mess, we ought to get out, and we ought to be talking with Syria and Iran.

Syria and Iran love the report. Al-Queda loves the report. The Shias love it. The Sunnis hate it. Saudi Arabia hates it. The bulk of the world loves it.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Fight to Win or Get Out

Personally, I still remain a neo-con on the war in Iraq. I wish we were waging it all-out, and to win. We aren’t now and never were. We’ve fought a tentative, politically correct war almost the whole time (except for the initial invasion, which was waged the way a war ought to be waged, with overwhelming force.) We’ve never had enough troops in Iraq to handle the post war. On this, I remain in agreement with Colin Powell, who wanted either that we don’t invade Iraq, or that we do so with overwhelming force. John McCain also wants more troops in Iraq, not less. It was Rumsfeld’s idea that we go lean and mean after the initial invasion. This, in my opinion was a mistake.

Since we do not have a President who has the courage to wage an all-out war as is necessary, then the next best alternative, then, is to think about alternatives, now that our politically correct war has made such a mess. So, in this set of circumstances, the Baker Commission is a good thing.

Let's Do It

Again considering that we do not have the will to wage an all-out war in Iraq, the recommendations of the report are, I believe, good ones. We either need to fight to win in Iraq, or get out. If we “get out,” we need to stay in the region, maybe Iraq itself, in areas where our soldiers won’t be targets, to protect against a total takeover by Iran and the Shias; but other than this, we need to get out of the way, and let the Iraqis kill each other until they work things out for themselves. Yes, you panting conspiracy theorists, we do need to protect the oil reserves in Iraq, and keep them from falling into terrorist hands, or to Iran.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

click to hide most of this post

Monday, December 04, 2006

Dear Mr. Ahmadinejad

“Friendly” Letters to Bush and the “Noble” Americans

Letter to President Bush

President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been engaging lately in letter writing, to President Bush and to the “noble” American people. I think it’s instructive to examine these letters in the context of how modern-day villains look and sound. For the full text, go to the link below. Here is part of the letter to President Bush:

Ahmadinejad: Letter To George Bush: Published: Tuesday May 09, 2006

Mr. George Bush, President of the United States of America,
For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, especially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, make War and Terror his slogan,

click to show/hide the rest of this part of the letter

and finally, work towards the establishment of a unified international community—a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, but at the same time, have countries attacked; the lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the … of a … criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire village, city or convey set ablaze. Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years.

At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certainly other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women—as occupation troops—put in harm's way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that every day some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly, and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and their bodies handed off to their families.

click to hide most of this part of the letter

Letter to the “Noble” Americans

Here we have part of Ahmadinejad’s letter to the “noble” Americans:

Ahmadinejad's letter to Americans - CNN.com: POSTED: November 29, 2006. This above link leads to the full text of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's open letter to 'the American People,' as supplied to CNN. Here is part of the letter:

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. O, Almighty God, bestow upon humanity the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers. Noble Americans, Were we not faced with the activities of the US administration in this part of the world and the negative ramifications of those activities on the daily lives of our peoples, coupled with the many wars and calamities caused by the US administration as well as the tragic consequences of US interference in other countries;

click to show/hide the rest of this part of the letter

Were the American people not God-fearing, truth-loving, and justice-seeking, while the US administration actively conceals the truth and impedes any objective portrayal of current realities; And if we did not share a common responsibility to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity; Then, there would have been little urgency to have a dialogue with you. While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer together.

click to hide most of this part of the letter

Replies from American Patriots to Ahmadinejad’s Letters

Then, we have some American patriot responses to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s letters. For all the letters, go to the link below:

FOXNews.com - Dear President Ahmadinejad... - FOX Fan Speakout:

Here is Fox News’ offer to its readers to reply to Mr. Ahmadinejad:

“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a lengthy letter to the American people Wednesday, addressing “Noble Americans” and urging unity with Iran in spite of what the U.S. government says and does. The letter was released in New York on Wednesday and seems to be an attempt by the controversial Iranian president to circumvent the Bush administration to directly reach Americans.

After you read President Ahmadinejad's letter, here's your chance to send a reply, YOUR open letter to him, the president of Iran. Send your letter to speakout@foxnews.com, and we will post them as they come in.”

Here is one example of a letter to the Iranian President:

Dear President Ahmadinejad,

Not all American's are blind to your true intent. You believe yourself to be a disciple of Allah who is helping to bring about the return of the Madhi and his Black Flag army. Your attainment of a nuclear weapon is your means to this end. You and your Islamic followers will not rest until Israel is destroyed and the Madhi has returned as Caliph to rule a worldwide Sharia law government. You and your religion are not synonymous with peace and compassion. You are man consumed with the desire to force Islam upon all who do not voluntarily convert. You are filled with hatred towards all of those who do not subscribe to your religion. I know who you are.

Ahmadinejad’s Letters and Democratic Talking Points

I find interesting are a couple of things. First, if you read the whole text of both Ahmadinejad letters, and if you cover up the name on the paper, and take out the religious references and the flowery language, who would you guess wrote the letter? Yes, you’re right. It contains all the Democratic talking points. For example, look at the following:

click to show/hide the rest of the quotes

Were we not faced with the activities of the US administration in this part of the world and the negative ramifications of those activities on the daily lives of our peoples, coupled with the many wars and calamities caused by the US administration as well as the tragic consequences of US interference in other countries;

Or, this:

Let's take a look at Iraq. Since the commencement of the US military presence in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially. With the presence of the US military in Iraq, nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty. The US Government used the pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but later it became clear that that was just a lie and a deception.

Although Saddam was overthrown and people are happy about his departure, the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people has persisted and has even been aggravated.

click to hide most of these quotes

Sounds like MoveOn.org to me.

How Modern-Day Villains Work

Second, I would find it amusing if it weren’t so tragic, that all modern-day tyrants mask their villainy in smiles. This man is always smiling! Saddam Hussein smiled a lot. Hugo Chavez smiles a lot. Plus, they cloak their evil deeds in words of compassion for the poor and for the people of the world.

As Ahmadinejad says:

And if we did not share a common responsibility to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity

Yes, Mr. Ahmadinejad, unless you are a non-Muslim, or especially a Jew, or a woman, or homosexual, and on and on.

Another tactic of modern-day villains and terrorists is to actually support “noble” deeds. Hamas and Hezbollah build schools and give money to charities. Hugo Chavez offered free oil to Alaska, and some brave communities rejected his bribe for goodwill. (Notice in the picture, Chavez' recommended reading is Noam Chomsky, darling of the left.)

See:

FOXNews.com - Some Poor Alaska Villages Reject Chavez Oil Out of Patriotism: Monday, October 09, 2006.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska. In Alaska's native villages, the punishing winter cold is already coming through the walls of the lightly insulated plywood homes, many of the villagers are desperately poor, and heating-oil prices are among the highest in the nation.

And yet a few villages are refusing free heating oil from Venezuela, on the patriotic principle that no foreigner has the right to call their president “the devil."

Ahmadinejad says:

Noble Americans,
Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world.

Except, Mr. Ahmadinejad, if you’re Israel, or the United States.

Wolf in Sheep’s clothing, and Vice Versa

My points in this post are that wolves do actually dress in sheep’s clothing, and that, unfortunately, there are some people who mistake the wolf for a sheep. Many on the left are guilty of this. They see sheep, like Bush, as the wolves, and wolves, like Chavez and Castro, and maybe even Ahmadinejad, as sheep. They believe flowery words and false praise and misleading “kindnesses” to the poor as genuine acts of humanity.

Kudos to the villagers in Alaska who rejected Chavez’ oil, and to the clever responders to Ahmadinejad’s letters to America.

Rock

click to show/hide the rest of the post

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

click to hide most of this post

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Letter From Sarge

There's been some kind of technical trouble for Sarge Charlie publishing comments to my site, so I finally found his letter on my hard drive, and am going to publish it now. The letter, from this Vietnam vet, expresses Sarge's heartfelt feelings about the election as he travels, and about how the world sees GWB. I'm glad I found the letter, and I'll just publish it without comment.

An excerpt from the Empress Bee’s Website:

Remember Charlie's ties? Well here he is all decked out in a brand spanking new one. Sharp, huh? I thought he was the cutest one there in the whole wide country. Yup. That's what I thought. Leave me a little note and tell me what you think...... bee

Let me proudly and humbly submit for your approval the wonderful sites of the handsome Sarge Charlie and his lovely wife—the icons, I believe, of America—for your perusal. Sarge has said that I am his “brother,” and I am humbled by this. This couple is the reason why we in America can hold our heads up high. Look for yourself, at Empress Bee, and Sarge Charlie,

examples of what we all would like to be.

Don’t get too proud of this notoriety, you two. Pride goeth before the fall. I’m sorry if I embarrass you, but I am just a humble servant of God, and I call it as I see it. Thank you for your kind comments, and God bless you.

Charlie's Post

I want you to know as I start this correspondence it is November 27, 2006 and I am about 4 hours from landing in Guadeloupe on our return voyage from Savona, Italy. I will work on this open letter to your blog during the next day or so and post it with you upon arrival in the USA in early December.

On election night I slept restlessly, Fox News was on the TV while I slept. I kept having this nightmare that we were going to have a San Francisco Liberal just two heartbeats from the Presidency of the United States. I fought off the thoughts in my sleep only to awake to the reality that it has happened. Please God, let the secret service be good at their job for the next two years. This nation has survived many things in its short history; maybe it could survive Nancy but I am not so sure.

You haven’t heard much from the old sarge since the election, I would like to say it is because I was in shock about the results on election day but that would be untrue, and not appropriate for publishing on your website. As you will remember I was in strong disagreement with you on what the outcome would be on election day; in all honesty I must admit that was untruthful, just my eternal optimism that America would see the truth as I see it and do the right thing. It did not work out that way.

The results are what they are and I will forever be a patriot, and start working for 2008.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

I must admit some pride in the fact my party accepted the will of the American people and conceded an obvious defeat, unlike the other folks that are still crying about an election that was stolen in 2000.

I must also admit that I am somewhat disappointed that my Commander-in-Chief was so willing to cast an old friend overboard. I will not debate if Rummy should have or have not gone. I will only say that I had more faith in George W. and his character than was displayed in the haste of that removal of a fine man who worked tirelessly in a thankless job, sometimes with less than desired results; but hindsight has always been 20/20. I will say that this is one American that believes a grateful nation owes him thanks for his contribution to the security of our nation.

I will say that I believe George W. should not be having the problems he is having in Iraq today. George the father should have taken care of business in 1991 when he had overwhelming force in place to finish the job. Again, that is hindsight, but the world could have been a different place had we removed the tyrant then. He had the political capital but was not willing to spend it.

My real fear now is that the McGovern wing of the Democratic party will flex its ugly muscle and again show the world the USA has lost its will to fight for what it believes. As a soldier from the Vietnam era, I shudder to think that we will be willing now to abandon the Iraqi people like we did the Vietnamese people so many years ago. Please God, do not let this nation produce another generation of American Soldiers so shamed by their inability to complete their mission. That is my greatest fear and I will tell you I write this with tears because I have felt that shame for over thirty years. It is personal with me and it will be personal with the fine young men we as a nation have committed to battle.

Enough of that, it is too depressing. I do not know if you have ever traveled in Europe, but I am sure you are aware that the world hates Americans and George W. Bush. I would like to give you my insight on that matter. CNN International and The BBC World generate the hate. I arrived in Rome about the time a Military Judge sentenced a Marine to 99 years after he pled guilty to rape and murder. CNN International was the only English language news in my hotel in Rome. For three days they revived and repeated the original six-month-old story, never once saying that the Judge, a member of the American Military, was punishing a Marine for doing wrong; only that a Marine did wrong and pled guilty to avoid the death penalty. I failed to see them revive a story about a Marine who was tortured and had his head cut off about the same time as this incident. They are blame-America-first and George Bush-is-an-SOB. There was only gore and negative news form the network that chose to broadcast an enemy propaganda tape of a sniper shooting an American GI. How do you spell Treason?

Our next hotel had only BBC World for English language news. Just more of the same, only more about George Bush and Tony Blair. If hate is all you hear, hate is what you will know. Where is Maggie Thatcher when we need her? She would know where to stick the BBC.

Well, Mr Rock, Thanks for letting me rant, it is now about 5 am, three hours from port, maybe I can overcome my jet lag and catch a few zzzzzzzzzz. I still hope to wake up and find that it really was a nightmare, but somehow I doubt that.

The Old Sarge

click to hide most of this post

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Hollywood Nitwits

The following are Hollywood Nitwits whose careers either have been or should be hurt because of their disrespect for our country or president and/or their responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world by their supplying the talking points for terrorists and for insurgents in Iraq. The list also includes racists like Michael Richards who, instead of apologizing courageously, uses politically correct racism as a ploy to pander to those he offended. The list does not include actors like Mel Gibson, who have made a mistake, but who generally have been decent, and who apologized appropriately for what they did or said. This list is only partial, a beginning; and it includes one pseudo-celebrity, darling of the left and of Hollywood, Cindy Sheehan.

For the rest of the airhead celebrity photos, go to Political Cartoon, just below the cartoon.

The Hall of Shame

Danny DeVito
Susan Sarandon
Tim Robbins
Alec Baldwin
Rosie O’Donnell (View representatives)
Joy Behar
Katey Sagal
Sean Penn
Oliver Stone
Michael Moore
David Letterman
Bruce Springsteen
The Dixie Chicks
Bill Maher
George Carlin
Keith Olberman
Cindy Sheehan (pseudo celebrity)
Ed Asner
Martin Sheen, Charlie Sheen, Emilio Estevez
Michael Richards
George Clooney
Chevy Chase

What About Free Speech?

Free speech does not guarantee speech without consequences. It means you won’t be locked up in jail for saying it; but it doesn’t imply that you are free from reactions to what you say. If you say the President is a terrorist, I am free to rejoin that you are an airhead. I am free not to pay my hard-earned money to see your movie or go to your concert, Dixie Chicks.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Compare this Bunch of Hollywood Nitwits with Actors During WWII

Jimmy Stewart flew airplanes in the war. John Wayne was gung ho patriotic. Actors helped the U.S. government raise money for the war effort by freely advertising for bonds. Movies were patriotic. Hollywood had good, intelligent people during that war. Look at the crowd we have now. Shame on you, Hollywood, for your lack of respect for everything good. For your hatred of the country that gave you your fame and money. For your denigrating the capitalism that created the wealth in your pocket. For your failure to stand with the United States in a time of war.

This is the worst batch of performers (as judged by their contribution to society) in U.S. history, and they ought to feel it where it hurts the most, at the box office.

Blacklist?

Of course, I don’t advocate creating an official blacklist. That would be illegal, and even un-American. I wouldn’t want to do that. Let’s keep this unofficial. I just want us good Americans to use our right of free speech to protest our Hollywood nitwits and anti-Americans. It’s going on already, in case you didn’t notice. The Dixie Chicks aren’t selling out their concerts in certain areas. They’ve even lost their natural audience, the country music crowd. Attendance is down for Alec Baldwin movies, and for Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins ventures.

Being a movie buff and screenwriter, I will still view an Alec Baldwin movie, if I must. If the movie is so good I have to see it, I’ll see it. I will, however, wait to watch it for free on commercial television or cable if I can. Then, on the other hand, I’ll deliberately go out of my way to invest in a movie made by a good American, like Ron Silver or Dennis Miller or Billy Baldwin.

Again, I’m not out to stop Hollywood actors, or anyone else, from expressing their heartfelt views in public. What I want from them, though, is that when they do express themselves, they remain respectful of our country, our president, and of the 50% of the nation who disagree with their views. I don’t want these nitwits calling our president a terrorist, a war criminal, or making fun of the way he talks, or giving talking points to Al-Queda.

Will Hollywood Ever Learn?

I knew the recent movie Bobby (see also the movie Bobby) would be a flop. You cannot tell a riveting political story if you are a liberal. Liberals cannot help but inject their insipid leftist preaching into any political movie, as in the awful JFK, by Oliver Stone. Leftists will praise JFK, as Roger Ebert does, but half of America knows it is a load of crap. As Steve Erickson said about one group of Hollywood numbskulls, they are “hapless Hollywood nitwits who got their heads lodged squarely up their asses searching for Stalinist paradise.” (Salon Archives)

I will never trust a political movie in the hands of a liberal. Let a conservative produce and direct Bobby and then you have a chance of getting a truthful movie, which will be riveting.

My Advice for Hollywood

Open your doors to conservative actors, directors, writers and producers, and your box office will rise. Get educated, in science, history, political science and the principles of liberty. Learn to appreciate the great nation that gave you your wealth and fame. Stand up for her in times of national stress. Be respectful of her and her leaders at all times. You can disagree with policy, but when you do so, get educated on the facts, and be careful in your presentation. Finally, don’t open your mouths about politics unless you have something important, true and intelligent to say. As Laura Ingraham says, Shut Up and Sing.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

click to hide most of this post

Friday, December 01, 2006

Communicating the War in Iraq

The History of Iraq

I was just reading some of the history of Iraq. From ancient times until now there has been nothing but intrigue, civil war, war, coups, upheavals and internecine strife. Part of its modern history is that the British artificially created the borders of present-day Iraq after WWI by just declaring it a country. (The same kind of thing happened in the Middle East with Israel and Palestine). It has always been an unnatural mix. Currently, Iraq is divided unofficially into three territories controlled by long-standing foes in the historic struggles. The Shias hate the Sunnis hate the Kurds hate the Shias, and on and on.

Civil War?

Colin Powell a few days ago said that Iraq is now in a civil war. Apparently so. This will be denied by the Administration until the two sides wear blue and grey and officially declare war on each other.

Lessons from Vietnam

I watched in dismay the government’s tendency to deny the truth in the Vietnam years.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Generals in that war were always proclaiming that we were “winning,” no matter the situation on the ground. They may have been right, technically. We were always in control of the country more than the Vietcong, and we were always winning battles and killing more of them than they were killing us. Yet, the phrase “We are winning,” was not an honest appraisal of the situation in totality. I know Presidents Johnson and Nixon were aware that part of the war were the political and the propaganda wars. While we may have been “winning” the battle on the ground, we were losing the political and propaganda wars. This led to our ultimate withdrawal, a declared victory, but an actual defeat.

Communicating the War in Iraq

I continue to think it’s a miscalculation by government officials not to level with the American people. I know that Colin Powell has a few axes to grind, but on the other hand, whether he is right in his assessment that Iraq is in a civil war or not, I think it’s sad that people only begin to speak what they see as “truth” when they leave an administration. I’m sure Powell made his opinion known while he was in office, so I’m not blaming him. I blame Bush and his cadre.

I continue to maintain that the decision to invade Iraq was a good one. I won’t bore you with my reasons why, as you’ve heard them before, except to say that something had to be done in the Middle East, and Iraq was a good candidate for change. The purpose has always been to alter the Middle East formula to edge the world closer to peace.

Obviously, we are yet to see the fruits of this war, and my not see them for some time. Sometime in the future, though, I believe, we will all see why it was a good idea to wage the war in Iraq.

For now, though, I cannot understand why governments don’t learn the lessons of Vietnam. If you don’t level with the American people, they are going to mistrust you. You can’t say that things are rosy in Iraq and expect the people to cheer you. I side with Colin Powell on this matter. I see the natural forces in Iraq that have operated for centuries are coming to the fore, and that what is going on there now is an out-and-out civil war. Maliki is a weak leader and he cannot control the various factions from murdering each other. Why on earth must our government deny all this?

The Role of the President as Relates to the Goals in Iraq

Again, as I have said before, the President is acting only as diplomat and cheerleader-in-chief, and neglecting his role as communicator. I know exactly why he is not leveling with us. He wants the United States to save face, be seen as having been right in waging this war, and to keep alive the prospect of a united Iraq with a Western-style democracy. He also does not want to let down the military, who have given their lives and limbs and psyches for this war.

I think these are all noble goals. I don’t think, though, that Bush would have to give up on any of these goals if he also told the whole truth about the war. So, Iraq has descended into civil war, so what? It is an unanticipated consequence, so what? Stuff happens in war. That’s the name of the game—unintended consequences. If you can’t face this, don’t start the war in the first place. Plus, who are we to think we could have easily changed the basic nature of Iraq, as demonstrated by centuries of internal and external conflict, in a period of four years?

What’s the Worst that Can Happen in Iraq?

The worst fear is that there will be civil war leading to splitting the country into a bloody mess of Shias versus Sunnis versus Kurds. Then, war between the Kurds and Turkey will erupt. Plus, Iran will dominate part or all of Iraq, including the oil. Then, Iran will dominate the Middle East and, ultimately, destroy Israel. That’s the worst. We need to be brave and face these possibilities. They might happen. So, we’ll have to deal with them. In the meantime, facing these possiblities, we just must do our best to prevent them. That’s all we can do.

The Truth about Iraq

Bush was right to invade Iraq. It is and was a noble war. We will see its benefits in two, five, ten, or twenty years. And, things look bleak right now. Iraq is in a civil war. There is no need to deny this. Post-Vietnam, any government ought to know that honesty is the best policy. The American people can only sacrifice, can only be patient, can only accept the weighty decision of waging war—if they trust their government to tell them the truth. Plus, the American people need all the facts to decide whether waging this war is a good thing or not. An extended war cannot be won without the backing of the American people.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

click to hide most of this post

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Vlad the Impaler, and George W. Bush

Wag the Dog

Vlad the Impaler, the real-life Dracula

There have been no presidents in history, including Nixon, who were actually willing to trade blood for any personal goal. There have been proofs of presidential lying (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”), and of presidents exaggerating in order to get the U.S. into a war they felt needed to be waged. However, there has never been a demonstrated “wag the dog” scenario. Yes, Johnson used the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident to get the U.S. more deeply involved in Vietnam, but he did this to fight what he believed was a just war. Nixon was willing to execute the war in Vietnam on a grander scale than he was admitting to the public, but he was doing this, he thought, to win the war, and hence to save lives. So, even the evil Richard Nixon was never as demonic as conspiracy loving liberals imagine.

War for Oil

One theory of the whacky left (including the insane Michael Moore) that they believe wholeheartedly is that Bush entered the war in Iraq for oil. You see these loons at any peace demonstration carrying their inane signs that say “No War for Oil.”

click to show/hide the rest of the post

In order to posit this you have to believe that a church-going, family-loving man would knowingly slaughter American soldiers so that he could increase his already large fortune, or that of his friends. Or, that the most powerful man in the world believed somehow that he didn’t have enough power and wanted to start taking over the world. The guy would be worse than any mafia don. He would go around smiling while he was sending soldiers to their death for money or power.

The Theory

What is the basis for these whacko beliefs? Bush is an oilman, and Cheney. Plus, their buddies, like Halliburton and other oil related companies, have contracts in Iraq. And, the Bush family has connections with Saudi Arabia.

That’s it. That’s their proof. Since Bush knows oil, and oil people, and has connections with Saudi Arabia, he is guilty. He is sending people to their death for oil. Case closed.

Refutation

I’m not going to go into the whole proof why this conclusion is absurd. I’ll just make a couple points.

First, it’s good that Bush and Cheney are oilmen. Their knowledge, expertise, and connections in this area are one thing that has helped keep the world’s oil flowing in such dangerous times. Thank God they are oilmen. We ought to elect people who know business and oil and commodities, and are well-connected, as these are important to America.

Second, if we were after the oil in Iraq, we would have just conquered the country and taken over the oil fields. We could have built an impenetrable base around the oil fields, forgot about the rest of the country, guarded the pipelines, and took the cash flow. The heck with trying to help Iraq install a democracy. Who cares? We could have justified this by saying it was payment for our monetary and personal sacrifices in freeing Iraq. Instead, every dime of Iraqi oil goes to the Iraqis, and from them to the world market, not to the U.S; and the U.S. meanwhile spends more of its own money on Iraq than on Vietnam.

Yes, oil companies and weapons companies make money. This, I argue, is because we live in a dangerous world. We were attacked on 9/11, remember? Defense companies were going to make money in this environment anyway, without Iraq. Oil companies too, as the price of oil always goes up when there is international tension. 9/11 guaranteed the tension, without Iraq.

Third, Halliburton is the only company that can do some of the things they do. They are the best in their field. They will always get their share of government contracts whether the president is an oilman or not. Simply, the world needs what they do. Because Cheney was on their board before his election as vice president does not mean they need him to intercede for them in order to win contracts. They will win contracts in any free market system.

Delusions

Anyone who believes the War for Oil theory is worse than delusional. These people are guilty of projection. This belief is more of a reflection of their own personal problems than any guilt on the part of Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney. (This is one reason why Michael Savage can write the book Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.)

The Slogan that Kills

The sad thing is that War for Oil makes an effective slogan for simplistic minds. Unfortunately, seeing this slogan on placards all over the world gives succor to terrorists as they sleep at night planning to bomb babies. Without meaning to, the perpetrators of this vicious myth are guilty of the crimes they accuse the president of doing—namely, of killing hundreds of thousands of people all over the globe. I am being more kind to these people than they are to the president. They accuse him of being a knowing murderer and terrorist; I accuse the holders of these theories as being unwitting accomplices in the death of human beings.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

click to hide most of this post

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Sergeant Charlie

Sergeant Charlie, I'm getting the emails saying that you've commented on my site, but then I click to publish, and it doesn't publish. I don't know what the problem is. I'll copy your emails and publish your comments from now on until the problem gets solved.

Rock

Secret Bush Administration Memorandum

New York Times Reveals Bush Administration’s Behind the Scenes Communications on the War in Iraq

The following link will take you to the full article, which I’ve teased below, that appears in today’s New York Times, purporting to expose a secret Bush administration memorandum about the Iraq war: Text of the National Security Adviser's Memorandum on the Political Situation in Iraq - New York Times: Published: November 29, 2006

Following is the beginning of a Nov. 8 memorandum prepared for cabinet-level officials by Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and his aides on the National Security Council. The five-page document, classified secret, was read and transcribed by The New York Times.

We returned from Iraq convinced we need to determine if Prime Minister Maliki is both willing and able to rise above the sectarian agendas being promoted by others. Do we and Prime Minister Maliki share the same vision for Iraq? If so, is he able to curb those who seek Shia hegemony or the reassertion of Sunni power? The answers to these questions are key in determining whether we have the right strategy in Iraq.

You can go to the above link to read the full article. It is fascinating.

Bush’s Big Mistake

To me, this secret memorandum reveals why the Bush administration has failed miserably in explaining the Iraq war to the American people. The memorandum reveals an honest, sophisticated assessment of the situation in Iraq. This is the kind of analysis I have been trying to conduct on my blog. It is also the kind of thinking my commenters have been positing, from the left and right. I believe the American people are adult enough, and sophisticated enough, to hear these kinds of thoughts and considerations.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Instead of speaking the truth, as is the mission of this blog, the President continues to pronounce his talking points, like “Stay the course,” “We’re fighting for freedom,” and “We promise not to withdraw until the mission is accomplished.”

I don’t discount the legitimate need for slogans, propaganda, continued repetition, and so on. Just because the Nazis used propaganda successfully, and the Soviet Union, and North Korea et al, doesn’t mean it isn’t a good tool for democracy too. We used it successfully in this country during WWII. I’m not opposed to it, when it’s for a good cause.

On the other hand, I do believe the American people are more mature than politicians imagine. Yes, you can win them over with the hateful mantras of the left—which is exactly what happened in the last election. The reason these mantras worked, though, was that voters had no alternative. Bush has never explained to Americans, as mature adults, what is really going on in the world, and especially in Iraq. Bush has never been an articulate champion of conservative values.

Bush’s Theory of Politics

Bush, like a lot of other politicians, believes that the main function of a president is to be a diplomat. Diplomats are tight-lipped. They are aware of every word they speak; they offend no one; they are eternally positive; at the worst they are guarded. They reveal nothing when they open their mouths.

Bush is the supreme diplomat. He does this with the American people too. He is ultra-careful about what he says, for example, about Iraq.

Beyond being a diplomat, Bush tries also to be a champion of his causes, which are, among others: the war in Iraq; democracy in the Middle East; open borders with Mexico; tax cuts; and so on. In being a champion of causes, he is making arguments. He is communicating to sell his point of view. He is acting like a debater, taking one side of an issue and promoting it, stacking all the evidence to make the sale. He wants to win the war in Iraq, and get the American people on his side in this goal, so he pushes his selling points at all times, like a good life insurance salesman. He is our cheerleader-in-chief.

The Problem

I believe an American president needs to be a diplomat, yes, and a champion of causes, and a cheerleader; but he or she needs to be more than this. Like Ronald Reagan, or John F. Kennedy, or Franklin D. Roosevelt, he also needs to be a communicator.

I remember taking a course on military history when I was a student at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska. The professor, a military man, said that the American soldier is unlike soldiers from totalitarian nations, in one way at least. In totalitarian nations, the commanders give orders and the soldiers execute them, period. The professor said that you can do this with American soldiers too, and get the same results. He said, though, that you can get even better results if you explain to your soldiers the reason for the orders. What are they fighting for? What is the mission? What are the risks and ways to handle them? What is the strategic situation? What are the goals, signposts, exit strategies, and so on?

Bush has done a miserable job of explaining the situation in Iraq. By limiting himself to the roles of diplomat and cheerleader-in-chief, he has failed to engage the American public in this vital war effort.

Lessons of the Memorandum

First, I think that the New York Times has done it again—come close to being treasonous in a time of war, revealing secret conversations about an issue of national security.

On the other hand, I don’t care. I’m glad the memorandum got out. It finally shows me what I’ve suspected all along—that there is sophisticated thinking going on about the Iraq war in the Bush administration. Bush’s big blunder, in my opinion, is hiding this kind of thinking from the American public. The public is scratching their heads, wondering if they’ve got a moron for a president. I’ve known that he is a bright man in many ways, despite his Bushism’s and his inability to communicate. He has made the biggest mistake of his presidency, however, in being tight-lipped about the complexities of this war, and about many other things.

If Bush ever wants the American people to understand why we are in Iraq, what to expect, and what will be the sacrifice, he needs to open up and become also another great communicator, like Ronald Reagan, JFK, and FDR. I know he, and most in the public, do not believe that he has it in him to communicate in this way, but I’ve seen him do it in some of his best speeches. He needs to trust the American people that they can understand the complexities he will explain.

If he ever does this, which I doubt he will—some people will begin to listen to what he says, trust what he says, and begin to have faith in him again.

Yes, the American people have underestimated George Bush; he is no idiot. Winning the American presidency twice, and running the country for eight years is impossible for an idiot. But George Bush has also underestimated the American people; they are far more mature and sophisticated than he imagines. They can handle the truth. They can understand the complexities.

Start telling the whole truth, Mr. President. Open up. Lay it out for us, in all its detail and uncertainty. Step out of your roles as diplomat and cheerleader-in-chief sometimes to become also the great communicator. Your poll numbers will rise, and you might get the public support for your worldview that you’ve always craved. This way, you can secure your legacy. Plus, this will squash the effect of the moronic left. They will be the ones, then, left with the simple pronouncements without substance.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

click to hide most of this post

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Can Jack Bauer Save the World?

24 is One Hollywood Production That Displays Conservative Values

Recently on C-SPAN Rush Limbaugh led a panel discussion on the hit television show 24. Why Rush would associate himself with the show in the first place is the fact that 24 is finally a major Hollywood production that espouses conservative principles and fundamentals that apply to our dangerous times. Another difference in this show, reportedly, is that many of the show's creators are actually conservatives, although which ones are not revealed.

The event was hosted by Limbaugh, sponsored by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, at the Reagan Building. It also had Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in the front row and Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff with the introductory speech.

Alongside the producers and cast members of 24 at the session were actual officials of Homeland Security, who said their work was not really like that of CTU – but they looked as if they wished it was.

The Show

24 is a current Emmy and Golden Globe award-winning American television series, created by Joel Surnow and Robert Cochran, and produced by Imagine Television. It is broadcast in the USA by the Fox Network and syndicated worldwide.

Each season covers the events of a 24 hour period in the life of federal agent Jack Bauer (played by Kiefer Sutherland) as he tries to prevent one or more domestic terrorist attacks, set largely in Los Angeles. The show also follows Jack's colleagues at the Counter Terrorist Unit, largely referenced as "CTU", Los Angeles office, as well as the actions of the terrorists or in some cases, actions of the conspirators, a civilian family and typically an important political figure such as a senator or president.

The Panel Discussion on C-SPAN

All of the actors on the panel deliberately stayed non-political in their responses. Two of the three actors on the panel, actress Mary Lynn Rajskub, who plays Chloe O'Brian, and Carlos Bernard, who plays Tony Almeida, seemed uncomfortable with the conservative implications of the discussion and diverted attention when asked anything political. Mary Lynn came off like a typical Hollywood liberal airhead, making it clear that she just wanted to look cute and avoid saying anything of substance.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Carlos did a similar thing by turning every answer into a joke. “I do know more than you, Rush,” he said with a smile, letting everyone know he was half-kidding, but also saying nothing of substance. So, I got the impression that these actors were your typical Hollywood leftists, thrilled with the success of their show, but unsure what to do now that they were surrounded by the enemy—the dreaded conservatives.

Rush did not do a very good job emceeing the show. He appeared as if he was not prepared, repeated himself in his questions, gushed over the show and cast, and came off like a smart, tongue-tied schoolboy trying to impress his beautiful teacher. He had a difficult time too tying together the intellectuals on the panel with the two airhead actors. The conversation swung back and forth from the sublime to the ridiculous. A big moment was when Rush kissed Mary Lynn on the mouth. She rejected him at first, but then could not resist his good-natured insistence. This moment, by the way, got the most press for the event.

Conservative Principles Evidenced by 24

What are the conservative principles the show seems to follow? Just a few actually, but fundamental to the show’s outlook on the world.

1. The United States is the good guy. The terrorists are the bad guys. Jack Bauer, played by actor Kiefer Sutherland, the show’s star and Everyman, who everyone would like to be, is a conservative hero. He is willing to do anything to protect the people of the United States, and his friends and family. He will sacrifice himself. He will die. Anything that must be done.

2. There are forces of evil and corruption in the U.S. government, yes. Even the President (Charles Logan, played by actor Gregory Itzin, who is a Nixon on steroids type character who will even murder to get what he wants) is evil; but there are a core of good people, represented by CTU (which has its own intrigue) who are fundamentally good people, who believe in love and family and justice.

3. The United States, the good guys, are always resourceful enough to find a way to win, to beat the bad guys. The heroes in this show are the ultimate can-do people, from Chloe, who can work miracles with a computer, to Jack, who will always get there in the nick of time to torture the terrorist and get him to reveal where the ticking nuclear bomb is before it goes off.

4. The heroes of 24 realize that the first human right is survival. Survival of friends, family, colleagues, and country. Once that right is secured, you can fight for the other rights.

Conservative Excess?

One part of the show the liberals will glom onto is the fact that torture is regularly used, even and especially by the hero Jack Bauer, when information is needed now to save somebody. Conservatives are qualitatively different on the issue of torture, I have to admit. I, for example, am a moderate on the issue. I don’t believe in giving terrorists a spa vacation while they are incarcerated for doing things like blowing up babies, but I oppose torture because I don’t want our detainees tortured. I have no sympathy, however, for terrorists, and would not wince for a moment about the thought of terrorists suffering pain. I would restrain myself from inflicting it not for humanitarian reasons, but for the practical reason of protecting our troops.

Another part of the show the liberals will decry is that the hero, Jack Bauer, and a few other characters, are always ready to skirt and even break the law to save the world. This offends liberals, who want us to behave nicely to those nasty terrorists, and to follow the letter of the law always (unless a Democrat is in power. Then, it’s okay even to lie under oath.)

The Philosophical Debate

Though the show is popular with liberals and conservatives alike, liberals will be aghast at the underlying philosophy of the show. Liberals want to make nice-nice with terrorists, not kill them. They want terrorists to have prayer time five times a day, not be forced to tell the truth. Liberals want us to understand why these poor little baby-killers got the way they are because of American imperialism, instead of stopping these monsters from detonating their weapons.

24 is another example of how Hollywood gets it right sometimes in the movies or on television, but not in real life. Several Hollywood characters are conservative in their outlook, from John Wayne characters to Superman to Spider-Man, to Jack Bauer. Yet, in real life, many of the actors who play these heroes are liberal airheads—anti-American, moral cowards who badmouth America anytime it defends itself from the bad guys.

Salute to 24

Though of course I, and even Rush, do not condone torture, nor breaking the law, I salute the underlying premises that 24 represents. This is a “can-do” attitude that recognizes that the world is not nice, and that you have to play rough when dealing with bad guys. There really are bad guys out there, and they want to kill us, and we need to be willing to fight like the characters in 24, with every resource in our power, to stop this enemy, defeat them, and, if possible, kill them.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

click to hide most of this post

Monday, November 27, 2006

Democracy, What Good Is It?

Does Democracy Bring Peace?

Is Democracy the best form of government? Will it work in the Middle East? Are democratic nations more peaceful than non-democratic nations?

One of my commenters, Tyk, a bright, peace-loving, open-minded Muslim from Lebanon, has made the valid point that democracy does not always bring the U.S. what it wants, which is a peace-loving member of the world community. He points to the sham democracy in Egypt, the election of Hamas in Palestine, and a poll in Jordan that says most Jordanians are against peace with Israel.

All these are valid points.

Flawed Democracies versus Dictatorships

Both Aristotle and Plato discussed the virtues and defects of democracies. I won’t presume to conduct a worthy examination of the issue, but I will posit my view, and I’d be interested in hearing yours.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

I think that in the short run, Bush’s theory that democracy will solve the world’s problems is probably naïve, and wrong. As Tyk has pointed out, democracies can be corrupted into false democracies, which are nothing more than phony elections to keep a dictator in power. This dictator might be benevolent, or not. Witness Egypt, Palestine, or even Venezuela. Egypt seems to be the more benevolent kind of dictator-democracy, but Palestine is a country that elected a terrorist organization to lead it. So, even if the democracy is legitimate, the people might choose war over peace, intrigue over cooperation.

The Long-Run Effect of Democracy

In the long run, though, I believe that countries that choose legitimate democracy as a form of government really do become more peace-loving, responsible members of the world community. Is this naïve? Maybe.

I will use the United States to make my point. This might be a poor example for many of my readers, since some of you envision the U.S. as warlike and undemocratic. I can see where you get the idea of warlike, but undemocratic we’re not.

I’m not going to prove that we are not warlike. Those of you who see us as warmongers will never buy my arguments anyway. I will say, though, that the U.S. has always had what it thought was a good reason for entering any war. Even Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq. In Vietnam we were legitimately concerned about the worldwide spread of communism—a reaction to the Soviet Union expansionism into Eastern Europe, and Communist China’s expansion into the Far East. Korea was a direct response to this, as communist North Korea was trying to take over South Korea. The Iraq War began in stages, first with the U.S. responding to the unlawful invasion of Kuwait, and then to Saddam Hussein’s desire for WMDs and his ignoring U.N. weapons inspectors, plus shooting at American planes. After 9/11, the United States was extremely sensitive to any terrorist or anti-American efforts, backed up by the possible development of WMDs.

The American people, in our democracy, were willing to support the war in Afghanistan, because it had a direct link with 9/11. It was even willing to support the war in Iraq, though Bush did a poorer job of making the link between 9/11, terrorism and Iraq. Support for the war has decreased, however, because the public perceives it as not going well. This, I argue, is the limit that a democracy can put on its nation’s war making. As a result, the Republicans were voted out of power, and the U.S. is scrambling for ways to fight the war more efficiently or get out. A dictatorship might just continue fighting a failing war, and even without fighting it more efficiently.

Democracy in Iraq

Bush’s stated goal in Iraq is to return the country to its people, with some form of democratic government.

We find legitimate democracy having trouble taking root there. So, is democracy right for Iraq? Plus, even if we get democracy there, will this mean that Iraq will be a better country—a more responsible member of the world community?

Bush’s theory is that all people deep down inside yearn for democracy. Is he correct? I believe he is, in the long run. I think such things as worldwide communication and even the Internet with its blogging will break down barriers and reveal to all peoples of the world how much better it is to be free. I can’t imagine living in a country where I am not free to go where I want, dress as I want, and speak what I want.

Still, even if Iraq forms a democracy, they might choose to ally with Iran, for example, which would not make the U.S. happy. They might choose to ally with Hamas, Hezbollah, a new totalitarian Russia, and so on. So, what good is a democracy?

Democracy and a Better World?

All this is true. Yet, the hope remains that people, out of self-interest, will eventually choose solutions that bring peace and prosperity. When they are tired of their children dying and living with hate, and when they see that peace brings greater rewards than war, democracy might then truly lead to a better world. Dictatorships can do this too, but are more susceptible to the corruption of a single man or party with absolute power.

The Iraqi Question: to Democratize or Not?

Are the Iraqi people ready for democracy now? No, the Iraqis don’t appear ready for democracy yet.

Can they get ready, fast? I hope so, but it looks doubtful.

What are the solutions?

1. Stick it out and help Iraq get ready for democracy.

2. Look for a strongman to lead a quasi-democracy, like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

3. Or, let them fight it out themselves. The logic here is that we have no business in the middle of a civil war.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar or below these posts)

click to hide most of this post

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Iraq, the Dream and the Reality

These are the goals of the United States concerning Iraq. Some of them are selfless; and others are related to U.S. safety or economics. As opposed to the propaganda of the left, there are no further hidden agendas, other than this list:

1. The formation of a free Iraq, so that its people can actualize their full potential as a nation and as a united people.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

2. The creation of a democracy in the Middle East, which can serve as a model for other dictatorships and kingdoms.

3. The creation of a democracy in the Middle East, which might make the region more peaceful. Democracies are generally less imperialistic than totalitarian forms of government.

4. The removal of Iraq as a haven for terroristic activities.

5. Preventing the development and spread of WMD in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations.

6. Helping U.S. allies Kuwait, other Middle Eastern partners, and Israel by creating a peaceful nation that won't attack it's neighbors.

7. Protecting the U.S. oil supply and keeping Iraq oil out of the hands of terrorists and rogue nations.

These are Legitimate Goals

There is nothing wrong with any of these goals. Protecting the U.S. oil supply, for example, is not a crime. Keeping the supply lines of oil open has always been a legitimate cause for war for all nations in history. One reason is that people actually die when this commodity is withheld. Furthermore, if the U.S. were to face a major disruption of oil, the first people to suffer in America would be the poor.

The Dream and the Reality

The U.S. cannot achieve these legitimate goals in Iraq if the Iraqis don't defeat their insurgents. Even if they do, there is no guarantee that the U.S. will achieve all these goals. On the other hand, again, it was worth a try. Plus, just by trying the U.S. has shaken up the Middle East. Libya has backed down from its aggressiveness of the past, and there actually has been talk of democracy throughout the region. What a miracle it would be should democracy take root there. Then the world would actually have a chance for some real peace.

Guerilla Warfare and the Ballot Box

Unfortunately, the war has served another purpose, by demonstrating once again to the world that the best way to defeat America is by guerilla warfare and the ballot box. The West does not yet fight effectively against guerilla fighters. Plus, the U.S. has a hard time motivating its people for sustained war efforts.

Achieving These Goals

The West needs to learn to fight guerilla wars more effectively. The U.S. needs to inspire its people in their just war efforts by involving them more in the sacrifice, as they did in WWII. Plus, it would help if the U.S. government tell its people all of their goals for the war, and dispel the false rumors of hidden agendas.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

click to hide most of this post

Saturday, November 25, 2006

How the World, and Liberals, View America

Be Nice and They Will Like You

One of the liberal theories on how the United States should behave in the world is that we ought to be nice to the rest of the world, and then the world will like us more and treat us better.

The first assumption is that we aren't already being nice. The second assumption is that the world operates on this level. If you are nice to a country, that country will like you and treat you well.

I would argue that there has never been a country in the history of the world who is nicer to other countries than the U.S. is. From helping save the world in WWI and WWII to the Marshall Plan, to disaster relief, to money for charity, America leads the way.

There have been times in our past when we have meddled in the affairs of other countries, even to the point of trying to sway elections and up to and including assassinations. Those days are over and we live in a different world. It is a mistake to judge previous generations using present-day standards. The world is always evolving and, hopefully, growing more mature.

America at War

Every war we have entered has had a noble cause, from Vietnam to Korea to Iraq. These three wars were less than conclusive in their results. Maybe tactics and strategies were wrong, but the intent always was to help these countries and their people. We were not there to take over their lands. This automatically makes the United States nicer than all of the superpowers in history. Can you imagine Rome not annexing a foe, or Napoleon's France giving money to a conquered Germany, or Hitler setting up an independent Austria?

Evil America

The left has a long laundry list of things the U.S. is doing now to harm the world. The problem with their list, again, is that each point they make relies on conspiracy theories, things that go on behind closed doors, and negative assumptions about intent.

The Iraq War

The truth and the verified facts about Iraq, for example, are;

click to show/hide the rest of the post

1. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and the U.S. responded by invading Kuwait and expelling him. The U.S. did not take over Kuwait, but gave the country back to the Kuwaitis and helped put U.N. sanctions on Iraq, complete with weapons inspections for WMD.

2. The U.S. was attacked on 9/11 and responded by invading Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, which was the group directly responsible for the attacks.

3. Bush pledged to defeat the kind of terrorism that led to 9/11.

4. The U.S. was most alarmed by Saddam Hussein's unwillingness to cooperate with weapons inspectors. Plus, Saddam's anti-West rhetoric and ties to terrorist organizations created fear in America because of his proven willingness to use WMD's in the recent past. In addition, there were pleas from inside Iraq that Saddam was a butcher and that removing him would be a humanitarian gesture of immense proportions.

5. After Saddam's further repeated refusals to cooperate with weapons inspectors, the U.S. invaded Iraq and dethroned Saddam Hussein.

6. The U.S. again did not take over the country, but rather has tried to set up a functioning democracy there.

7. This attempt has failed so far, leading to a breakup into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish factions and much bloodshed.

These are the facts: The U.S. has not taken over the oil fields. It has lost much treasure in fighting the wars on behalf of the Afghan and Iraqi people. A chaos might be brewing in these countries.

Still, the U.S. dethroned tyrants in both countries. It tried to set up functioning democracies in both. It has not taken over either country and does not intend to.

From all this, the left comes to the conclusion that the U.S. is not nice--in fact, that we are evil. I don't get it. Compare us to Rome, Napoleon's France, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini; or even to any other modern country--we stand out as being good, and nice, and generous. The only way, again, you can differ with this assessment is to ascribe evil motives and believe in conspiracy theories.

So, Does Being Nice Make You Popular?

Evidently not. Why not?

The world isn't fair. It operates much like a corporation. A company cares only about one thing--profit. A company doesn't have a conscience. It doesn't mind who gets hurt or who benefits; it just wants to make money. It wants the reputation of being good, but only if this helps it make money. This is why the left hates business. We'll get into this issue on another post.

What do countries want? Countries are similar to companies. Countries want mostly to survive, and to gain influence, power, and control. In the past, this took the form of imperialism and taking over land and treasure. Annexing land is no longer approved, so most countries now confine their imperialistic urges to gaining influence, power, control, and money.

In short, the world doesn't care if the United States is nice. The world sees the U.S. as the most powerful country in the world, and wants to compete with it; to bring it down to size; even to destroy it. Russia wants to get back its lost power. Europe wants to rise again to world dominance. The radical Muslim world sees the West as sinful, decadent, evil infidels, with the U.S. as the leader.

Karma Will Manifest

There are a thousand and one reasons that point to why the U.S. is one of the nicest countries in the world, but it all makes no difference to some people and countries. As in the liberal world, black is white and white is black. Good is evil and evil is good.

Yet, in reality, it does matter. We are a good country, and it matters with God, with our fellow human beings, and even, eventually, with the world. The truth eventually does get out. Karma eventually does manifest. The guys in the white hats eventually are seen as the good guys.

For now, let us continue doing good things in the world, and speaking the truth to our detractors.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

click to hide most of this post

Friday, November 24, 2006

San Francisco Values

Charm and Intolerance

I know that the term "San Francisco Values" is being bandied about by both sides, before and after the election. I've had a couple of requests to define what I mean by them, so I'll oblige. First, again, in the interest of disclosure, though I lean right on many issues, there are some issues where I lean left--so San Francisco values are not all negative to me. In fact there are a few of them that I believe in and am willing to promote.

In addition, San Francisco is, I admit, a lovely city and full of its own kind of charm. It has a kaleidoscope of humanity and an aura of goodwill. It does have conservatives in its midst too, although their voices are in the minority.

I'm going to list the "San Francisco Values" that conservatives assume when they use the term, and add my comments. I am aware that these are stereotypes, and some of the notions are wrong. On the other hand, there is more than an ounce of truth in them.

My major gripe against liberals in general, and some San Franciscans in particular, is their intolerance. I see their intolerance rising to the level of fascism. So lets start with this:

The San Francisco Values

1. Intolerance. From grade school to high school to college, there is an intolerance to diverging opinion that amounts to fascism. This is ironic since one of the main premises of San Francisco values is their tolerance. They tolerate gays and blacks and Hispanics and nudity and drugs and so on, but only as long as these gays and blacks and Hispanics are liberal. Conservative values are not allowed, are shunned, and even demonized, along with their spokespersons. Teachers are 95% liberal on all levels, and they aren't shy about expressing their views, and even imposing them on their students. Conservatives are not even allowed to speak at some venues, or pelted with eggs or pies if they do. The same goes for pro-Israelis, military recruiters, or even Christians.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

2. Anti-military. I'm not talking about just anti-Iraq war, I'm talking anti-military. The San Francisco Board of Education just banned ROTC from city high schools. City Supervisors voted not to allow the retired USS IOWA battleship to port in the city. Military recruiting is attacked on college campuses even though San Franciscans "say" they oppose the war but support the troops. In effect, they are telling the military, "We think your missions are evil, but you we support. We want you to be safe, but we won't allow the recruitment you need to shorten your stays in war zones." The people in the military can see through this ruse. San Francisco hates the military, and its personnel.

3. Anti-war. I'm not just talking about anti-Iraq war, I'm talking anti-any war. Every war is opposed in San Francisco. All of their rights to speak freely have been won in just wars, by the blood of young men and women who gave them their freedom. They choose to let others do their fighting for them, and to castigate those who do fight, and those that make the hard decisions to engage in necessary war.

San Francisco gives a welcome to such organizations as A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and Racism), with their quoted goal:

End the Occupation – Bring the troops Home NOW!” We support the right of the Iraqi people to self-determination; in solidarity with the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination, including the right to return; to overturn the “USA Patriot” Act, and to end the repression directed at Arab American, South Asian, Muslim and immigrant communities; to call for money for jobs, housing, health care and education, not for war and occupation; and to demand an end to U.S. intervention, occupation and threats against Korea, Colombia, Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Syria, the Philippines, Haiti and everywhere. Only the people’s movement offers hope that an effective challenge can be mounted to the Bush administration’s war drive.

4. Anti-American. There are a large group of people in San Francisco who think that America is a bad country. To them, America is homophobic, racist, war-mongering, imperialistic, greedy, exploitive, plundering, and even terroristic.

5. Racist. Racism to me means ascribing goodness or badness according to color or race; or affording privilege based on color or race. San Francisco promotes affirmative action to the point that you needn't apply to one of their major universities if you are white, unless you have a near perfect GPA and a volunteer record to rival Mother Teresa. The same goes for city contracts for small businesses. One underlying assumption is that whites are racists, or carry with them the "original sin" of racism from the past. The worst pejorative is to be called a "rich, old white guy." So, add sexism to the list.

6. Pro-Drug. On this issue I am a true conservative. I think the government should stay out of people's lives. I believe in the legalization of marijuana, for example. So I guess I'm with some San Franciscans on this. I'm not really pro-drug, however, in the sense of wanting people to take recreational drugs, as I've seen what they can do to destroy people's lives.

7. Pro-Criminal. Mumia Abu Jamal, the black journalist convicted of killing a police officer, is innocent, according to the whacko left, Hollywood airheads, and many San Franciscoans. Why is he innocent? Because he is African-American, and he has a great sob story. All the evidence points to his guilt, but facts never get in the way of a liberal's religion. Again, racism here is involved. Everyone who commits a murder is innocent, and in fact is framed, as long as the murderer is a minority and the victim is white. They're even more innocent if the victim is a police officer. San Francisco is big on prisoners' rights, but not very concerned with victims' rights. The prisons must be humane, the gangs must be "negotiated with," and mercy must be shown to all offenders. Except, again, if the offender is an old, rich white guy, or the worst, an old rich white businessman.

8. Anti-Business. San Francisco loves taxes and hates capitalism. They prefer socialism and some even admire communism. Castro is a good guy, and business people are bad. There will be no oil-drilling off their coast even as they castigate oil companies for the rising gas prices that occur due to increasing demand for oil. They oppose the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank and any economic organization that is connected with "evil" American capitalism.

9. Pro-Palestinian and Anti-Israeli. San Franciscans tolerate Palestinian bombing of Israeli schools and markets, but castigate Israel whenever it responds to a terrorist bombing. Just as they condemn America for responding to 9/11. San Franciscans buy in to the myth that the Palestinians are the underdog in that struggle, ignoring the fact that Israel is surrounded by enemies that want to destroy it, and is isolated in the world by an unjust U.N.

10. Pro-U.N. San Franciscans basically see the U.S. and Israel, and maybe Great Britain, as bad, and the rest of the world as good. They don't care about terrorism and the bombing of babies as long as the victims "deserve it," like the U.S. or Israel. They don't even care much about the victims in Darfur, because the perpetrators there are Muslims, and San Franciscans do not want to offend Islam. Christianity they can offend, but not Islam. San Franciscans don't care about U.N. corruption or oil-for-food scams, because again the perpetrators are the good guys. If the U.S. did it, they'd be screaming.

11. Anti-Christian. Nativity scenes cannot be displayed, but menoras and crescent moons can. Christians cannot congregate on campus but Muslims can.

12. Pro-Environment. Everybody's pro-environment. It's just that San Franciscans might carry it a bit far, with tree-hugging, spotted-owl saving eco-terrorism sometimes.

13. Pro-Gay Marriage. I'm pro-gay rights, and am in favor of civil unions and all the rights a gay couple might want, like hospital visitation of partners, inheritance and so on. I am opposed, however, to gay marriage. I've been called a "racist" for having this view. This is an example, I think, of San Franciscan and liberal tactics of demonizing anyone who disagrees with them. Another instance of intolerance. I don't know how the gay marriage issue will work out in the long run, but at present America has come a long way even since the Matthew Shepherd incident in its tolerance of this kind of diversity.

The Gay Question

In short, again, all these are stereotypes. Yet, they have enough basis in reality that when you hear the phrase "San Francisco values" you know what it means. Yes, to some the term is code for anti-gay. It's not for me. I am aware that San Francisco is a major center for gays. This does not bother me.

I do hope, though, that gays, who are predominantly liberal, will begin to examine some of their values and learn to appreciate conservatism. The Log Cabin Republicans, and other gay Republicans who haven't "come out," are true heroes to me. They resist the fascist pressure to conform that liberals apply in every sphere of life. They know that conservative values are better for society at this time in our history, and stand up against the stereotypes that liberals have fostered about Republicans.

I am told that things are different in the South. If this is still true, then I will join with gays and blacks and Hispanics, and all good people in the South, to rectify this. On the other hand, I know that where I live, in Los Angeles, the only racism I see on a daily basis is against whites.

Why Conservatives Abhor "San Francisco Values"

San Francisco Values, to conservatives, mean a whacky leftist, fascist, anti-American, anti-family, anti-traditional core of values that sees good guys as evil and bad guys as good. It lets others die so they can have the freedom to demonize them for their sacrifice.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

click to hide most of this post