Archive | May, 2009

Rush Limbaugh, and Dick Cheney; their treasonous words represent: “A clear and present danger!” At war words are often more damaging than is deeds.

27 May

A few more than one hundred days ago, Vice President Cheney was in possession of any and all of the most sensitive information regarding United States security. When a man, with that knowledge go publicly and says that the United States Administration is weakening the country, his word must be credible; just the rallying words United States enemies would like to hear!

There are those who claim that uncivilized behavior by the United States in Guantanamo, and elsewhere are serving to recruit Al Queda enemies; if they do, they do that at a much lesser scale than do words from the [ex] Vice President of the United States who inform the world that the United States is weakening, and because of that, its enemies can become stronger; what an incentive for potential terrorists?

Nearly ten percent (10%) of the United States population, about 20,000,000 listen to Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh has what is paramount to cult following, an indication to any and all enemies of the United States that his words count! When Rush Limbaugh continues to state that he wants the United States President to fail, his words ring like the angels music in Al Queda camps: 10% of the US population what its government to fail: hooray, we can help!

Limbaugh and Cheney are influential and dangerous people; the US must muzzle the two, or suffer consequences beyond anyone imagination!

Since this is a free country, and Rush Limbaugh speaks without the bernefit of sensetive, or any other significant knowledge, he must be allowed to speak his mind, the public is well advised to simply stop listening! When listeners think and realize that the poorly educated, morally handicapped, drug abuser that Limbaugh is only speaks in order to get attention and create controversy, they are likely to surelu, perhaps slowly, shy away from Limbuagh and allocate him the insignificant spot in society that he should occupy, a whiner, screamer man full of hate, jealousy, and self pity.

In the case of Cheney, the case is much more serious. Since the United States is in a state of war, Cheney words based on sensitive Unites States state information, his words of encouragements should be examined carefully by the Justice and Defense Departments and assessment of appropriate charges should be made!

Advertisements

Biased & Disgraceful US Political [media] voices!

20 May

United States political [media] voices are biased, seldom recognize positives on the other side, and often obnoxious following; some glaring examples:

Oberman (D), O’Reilly (R), Franken(D), Beck (R), Maddow (D), Meagher (I/D), Limbaugh (R), Hannity(R), Coulter (R).

What a tainted image does the United States political system have? Just think of a Martian who comes down and watches TV; what will he think?

Ten Commandments: Don’t kill, nothing about torture! US Military (to soldiers:) Kill; don’t torture (enemy prisoners!) Where is the evil?

16 May

Ten Commandments: Don’t kill, nothing about torture! US Military (to soldiers:) Kill (the enemy;) don’t torture (enemy prisoners!) Where, who, or is anyone, evil?

The US Army trains recruits that they must kill the enemy to save themselves and their comrades; but they are instructed not to torture enemy prisoners, or as George Washington said, they are to treat prisoners with dignity!

Bible instructs believers not to kill, yet it does not deal either with torture except that all three Monotheist religions spell out torturous punishment for various indiscretions against its rulings; who, or what is more evil?

But, from the pragmatic, how to one keep a young, impressionist soldier who just had his best friend blown up in front of his eyes treat killer(s) of said friend, when/if captured, with dignity? How do you suck young man from seeking revenge?

Why is it acceptable to kill the “enemy,” but not to torture for the same reason: Saving friendlies life?

15 May

Soldiers are instructed to kill the enemy of said enemy represent a danger to the soldiers and his comrade’s.

Now soldiers are told that torture is unacceptable, even if it designed to save “friendly” lives.

The Bible does not forbid torture, it does not, however, condone killing; is the United States, under Barak Obama’s rule, is more capable than is the Bible to determine what is allowed, and what is not?

If torture is designed to save lives, why is it any more immoral than killing enemies that represent imminent danger? It may be a good time for the Obama Administration, and the United States Congress to determine the right and wrongs of war. Teaching a soldier that at time killing is his duty, but torture, under any circumstances, is evil does seem to make a great deal of sense.

Torture: Those who did not serve in war, should not sit in judgement!

14 May

Torture: Those who did not serve in war should not sit in judgement!

The young eighteen year old whose best buddy was blown up while he, himself , survived a road side bomb, surviving as his buddy was in flames and screaming from pain, may not likely treat a jailed terrorist with dignity, as was suggested by George Washington. Would you, under similar circumstances?

Soldiers who suffer from war stress, soldeirs who are taught to kill the enemy by any means necessary in order to survive, and to protect their commrads, cannot, and should not, be expect in a war zone, to be judged as civilians in the [relative] safety of their homes.

In a perfect world torture will not be needed, but then, in a perfect world reasons for torture will not exist.

Since torture policies under the Bush Administration followed the pragmatic cases of soldiers in the field committing acts that can be construed as torture, and since the Administration policy followed, circumstancesshould be the determining factors of culpability. What followed, the chicken, or the egg? Acts or torture, or the policy of torture?

The United States, its people, Government, and political voices, should look at the issue from an  appropriate perspective, and not judge the matter as if it is happening in a perefct world!

Cheney joins, Agnew, and Quail, as blight, and bring into question the selection process of US leader! There are also indications that Sarah Palin, should she have been elected Vice President, would have fit the Agnew, Cheney, Quail mold.

12 May

The White-house was absolutely right by electing to not bring itself down to his level and respond to Dick Cheney.

A disgraced Agnew, inept Quail, and shameless Cheney, brings about questions about the election process in the United States.

From an earlier blog: Vice Presidents do count!

United States Vice Presidents do matter!

For some reason, or another, the Republican party, within my memory, seems to often select Vice Presidents who could at best make very marginal Presidents, and perhaps even not very good dog catchers!

Leading the charge, of course, is Dick Cheney, with his WMD’s, and other positive yet questionable pronouncents that proved less than accurate.

Following was the disgraced Spiro Agnew (who I met in an elevator in Tehran,)  the Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin (the conservative mother who cannot even keep a a daughter from having a baby out of wedlock,) and, of course, there was, under George Herbert Walker Bush,  Dan Quayl of potatoes fame. 

There are, of course, exceptions. All exceptions, for some reason, advanced at later dates to become President. George Herbert Walker Bush was a good Vice President, and then highly respected President. Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon were two other Republican Vice Presidents who did well as Vice Presidents, and also served as Presidents.

Now that Gates agrees: 100,000+ troups to Afghanistan; a repeat of earlier post!

3 May

Now that Secretary gates agrees, it is timely to repeat the following that was published originally by: www.zyonism.org

Short of deploying an overwhelming force in Afghanistan, McCain’s “100 years troops overseas is OK campaign rule;” may well become a prophecy in Afghanistan.

Before starting the George W. Bush Iraq war, General Shineki, then the Army Chief of Staff, told Congress that an overwhelming force of about 500,000 would require to do the job right. Shineski was summarily fired by Donald Rumsfeld, who with Paul Wolfovitz wanted do do the job with a minimal force. It is obvious who was right; not Rumsfeld and Wolfovitz! One can say that the Afghanistan situation could turn to be: De-ja vu all over again!

Afghanistan is a challenging country situated on a uniquely difficult terrain. The difficulties start with archaic religion and culture. The Islamic democracy that Afghanistan is, has its laws based on, and subservient to, the Shariah (Islamic law.)  The total Afghanistan legal, social and religious structure is based on outdated laws from the Koran, comprising of many rules that are not compatible with the modern world of the Twenty-first Century..

In addition to the intangible issues, Afghanistan’s terrain is so difficult to manage. It is a haven for renegades, terrorists, and/or any outlaw trying to elude the authorities. The landscape is not only hard to manage, the weather combines to make the land in many spots essentially uninhabitable. The fact that Afghanistan shares some of its rough terrain with Pakistan would force the United States and its allies to include in their efforts in Afghanistan, means to deal with Pakistan with its very complex politics, and nuclear capabilities. 

The religious backbone of Afghanistan is much more prominent and less yielding than the one in Iraq, anyone trying to compare the two countries is likely to be very disappointed. Communication with the people of Afghanistan will prove a much more difficult task than is the task dealing with the people of Iraq. President Obama desire to use diplomacy in Afghanistan has minimal chance of succeeding, while his commitment to add troops, even before leaving Iraq, is an early sign of what may be actually the beginning of a very long journey, a venture with no end in sight.

President Obama before getting truly initiated into the office of President, committed 17,000 more troops for Afghanistan. It is known that at least 30,000 more troops are also slated for Afghanistan before the Iraqi withdrawal is complete. These known deployments will leave over 100,000 US and NATO troops in Afghanistan; how many more will be added in the future, is too early to say.

Consistent with President Obama’s projection that Afghanistan will need to have some 400,000 military and police personnel before it can take care of its security needs, for the US to clean-up the tougher parts of Afghanistan (including an area across the border in Pakistan,) in preparation for Afghanistan to take over the security responsibility, will require an overwhelming force, likely MORE troops than were committed to Iraq at the peak of that campaign.

With a lesser force, which may be dictated to President Obama by the American public, the Afghanistan/Pakistan mission is likely be protracted, well into the tenure of President Obama’s successor; the McCain 100 year in the region may well proved to be a prophecy, not just a campaign mis-statement.

 

Technorati Tags: , , ,