For those of you who think the war in Iraq is lost you obviously havnt kept up with the situation:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.star-telegram.com/279/story/275344.html
Deaths are down dramatically, the Iraqis are putting aside their old rivalries for the time being in order to push Al Qaeda and Iran out of their country. So how exactly is the war lost again?
I support the troops which means I also support what they do. I want them home too but I want them home the right way, the only way American troops should come home is in victory.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Crisis in Burma
I personally am sickened by what is going on in Burma. Protesters being shot, and now people are being dragged out of their homes and carried off into the night to be tortured to death or imprisoned indefinetly. Kind of reminds me of Pre-Invasion Iraq.
I was reading some of the comments on the BBC "Have Your Say" board (see link) and it seems that some people are wondering why America isnt stepping in. Want to know why? Because last time we stepped in to topple a cruel regime, save lives, and establish a Democracy, everyone got mad at us and said we were there for oil or that we were trying to make an empire.
Im not surprised by the reaction. Throughout history these kinds of problems have always been brought to the current Superpower, be it England, Rome, or the United States. Well it seems some people in Europe want the United States to intervene and stop the killing in Burma. As much as I want to do that we have learned our lesson Europe. Its wrong to invade other countries isnt it. After all we would only set up a puppet government wouldnt we? Probably just go into Burma and take their oil after all.
Dont worry world the big bad USA will just sit in time out while you deal with the problems of the world yourself.
(Sorry for the rant, its not right considering whats happening in Burma but I just get so pissed now after all the anti-American slurs about what we did for the people of Iraq these same people have the gall to come and ask us to do the exact same thing in Burma. Although I would like nothing more than for the United States to lead some coalition into Burma to establish a Democracy, a. We are already in debt as it is, b. We would probably be made into villains if we tried to play the hero again, c. America historically doesnt fight well in jungle environments anyway.)
I was reading some of the comments on the BBC "Have Your Say" board (see link) and it seems that some people are wondering why America isnt stepping in. Want to know why? Because last time we stepped in to topple a cruel regime, save lives, and establish a Democracy, everyone got mad at us and said we were there for oil or that we were trying to make an empire.
Im not surprised by the reaction. Throughout history these kinds of problems have always been brought to the current Superpower, be it England, Rome, or the United States. Well it seems some people in Europe want the United States to intervene and stop the killing in Burma. As much as I want to do that we have learned our lesson Europe. Its wrong to invade other countries isnt it. After all we would only set up a puppet government wouldnt we? Probably just go into Burma and take their oil after all.
Dont worry world the big bad USA will just sit in time out while you deal with the problems of the world yourself.
(Sorry for the rant, its not right considering whats happening in Burma but I just get so pissed now after all the anti-American slurs about what we did for the people of Iraq these same people have the gall to come and ask us to do the exact same thing in Burma. Although I would like nothing more than for the United States to lead some coalition into Burma to establish a Democracy, a. We are already in debt as it is, b. We would probably be made into villains if we tried to play the hero again, c. America historically doesnt fight well in jungle environments anyway.)
My take on CFR
Several people have shown me so called "evidence" of a conspiracy in which the CFR is attempting to create an NAU. Let me just make one thing clear, I dont trust the CFR any more than the next guy but permit me to be the voice of reason here.
How does it make sense to arrest a man for shoplifting before he tries to leave the store? Neither does it make sense to accuse an organization who has said things that suggest their desire to create a NAU simply because they have made the suggestion. CFR is most certainly worth keeping a very close eye on but dont blow the whistle before a foul. After all arent most of you conspiracy nuts opposed to "Pre-emptive action".
Let me make another thing clear. I am a skeptic and as such its in my nature to only trust my own observations and not simply buy in to what people have told me. I have recieved all kinds of "circumstantial evidence" about CFR and NAU but please stop sending me this cause you are only preaching to the choir here. I already dont like CFR so the idea that they would do something like attempt to form an NAU is not inconcievable to me. Still with all the claims I have still not seen a "smoking gun" something that shows that CFR has used the influence of its members to pass legislation that puts us closer to an NAU. You cannot indict someone for ideas only for actions.
Speaking of CFR members I dont subscribe to this belief that all CFR members are in on it and that all of them are simply puppets who unquestionably do the CFR's bidding. Just look at the membership list. Angelina Jolie, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Newt Gingrich... Just how is a vast conspiracy like the one many NAU nuts are proposing going to be kept secret with so many people from so many areas of society being in on it? Logic would tell us that it cant so we must conclude that not all members of the CFR are in on the suspected NAU conspiracy.
Likewise I dont buy that all the CFR members are puppets either. Hillary Clinton is a socialist who believes she is destined to be President, she will do anything to become President. Such a person is not easily controlled and neither is a man as brilliantly sly as her husband. On a side note I dont like Bill Clinton as a President or as a human being but I will say this of him, a better politician there is none. Bill Clinton somehow had the ability to look a man in the face, smile, and tell him the most insane lie and that man would be inclined to believe him. No other Politician is capable of being that good of a liar, especially not Hillary Clinton who lacks both the political skill and charisma of her husband. (Again I dont like a thing about either of them).
On the same argument how on Earth does the CFR expect to get people from the far right and the far left to agree on anything? Now days politics is so childish that whatever one side says the other side says the opposite. Politicians can be trusted to do one thing, and that is look out for their own interests. If the interests of the CFR were to compromise their own interests I believe that most of todays rats...I mean politicians would betray CFR in a heart beat.
Here is what I advocate. Keep a close watch on CFR, keep a record of their actions, so if they do something decisive (if they ever hope to achieve an NAU they must at some point do something decisive) you can point to a pattern. Simply running out and making outrageous claims based on superstition and circumstantial "evidence" destroys credibility and thus like the boy who cried wolf, would-be whistle blowers will simply be dismissed in the future as conspiracy nuts if they attempt to alert the public to a real threat. Sure you can say "I told you so" but that and $2.70 will by you a gallon of gas in my hometown. So watch and be alert but dont cry wolf until the wolf comes out of the forest.
Also if you want to look at the CFR membership I would advise looking at what each member has done. As I stated earlier not all of them can logically be "in on it". Some of the stances of CFR members contradict the ideals of an NAU. Look for logical patterns in which a member consistently seems to support the ideals of NAU. Keep your personal political bias at home if possible.
When people show me patterns and conclusive evidence that satisfy my natural skepticism then I will do what I can to help you. But until that day I shall continue to refer to NAU as what it currently is; a conspiracy theory.
How does it make sense to arrest a man for shoplifting before he tries to leave the store? Neither does it make sense to accuse an organization who has said things that suggest their desire to create a NAU simply because they have made the suggestion. CFR is most certainly worth keeping a very close eye on but dont blow the whistle before a foul. After all arent most of you conspiracy nuts opposed to "Pre-emptive action".
Let me make another thing clear. I am a skeptic and as such its in my nature to only trust my own observations and not simply buy in to what people have told me. I have recieved all kinds of "circumstantial evidence" about CFR and NAU but please stop sending me this cause you are only preaching to the choir here. I already dont like CFR so the idea that they would do something like attempt to form an NAU is not inconcievable to me. Still with all the claims I have still not seen a "smoking gun" something that shows that CFR has used the influence of its members to pass legislation that puts us closer to an NAU. You cannot indict someone for ideas only for actions.
Speaking of CFR members I dont subscribe to this belief that all CFR members are in on it and that all of them are simply puppets who unquestionably do the CFR's bidding. Just look at the membership list. Angelina Jolie, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Newt Gingrich... Just how is a vast conspiracy like the one many NAU nuts are proposing going to be kept secret with so many people from so many areas of society being in on it? Logic would tell us that it cant so we must conclude that not all members of the CFR are in on the suspected NAU conspiracy.
Likewise I dont buy that all the CFR members are puppets either. Hillary Clinton is a socialist who believes she is destined to be President, she will do anything to become President. Such a person is not easily controlled and neither is a man as brilliantly sly as her husband. On a side note I dont like Bill Clinton as a President or as a human being but I will say this of him, a better politician there is none. Bill Clinton somehow had the ability to look a man in the face, smile, and tell him the most insane lie and that man would be inclined to believe him. No other Politician is capable of being that good of a liar, especially not Hillary Clinton who lacks both the political skill and charisma of her husband. (Again I dont like a thing about either of them).
On the same argument how on Earth does the CFR expect to get people from the far right and the far left to agree on anything? Now days politics is so childish that whatever one side says the other side says the opposite. Politicians can be trusted to do one thing, and that is look out for their own interests. If the interests of the CFR were to compromise their own interests I believe that most of todays rats...I mean politicians would betray CFR in a heart beat.
Here is what I advocate. Keep a close watch on CFR, keep a record of their actions, so if they do something decisive (if they ever hope to achieve an NAU they must at some point do something decisive) you can point to a pattern. Simply running out and making outrageous claims based on superstition and circumstantial "evidence" destroys credibility and thus like the boy who cried wolf, would-be whistle blowers will simply be dismissed in the future as conspiracy nuts if they attempt to alert the public to a real threat. Sure you can say "I told you so" but that and $2.70 will by you a gallon of gas in my hometown. So watch and be alert but dont cry wolf until the wolf comes out of the forest.
Also if you want to look at the CFR membership I would advise looking at what each member has done. As I stated earlier not all of them can logically be "in on it". Some of the stances of CFR members contradict the ideals of an NAU. Look for logical patterns in which a member consistently seems to support the ideals of NAU. Keep your personal political bias at home if possible.
When people show me patterns and conclusive evidence that satisfy my natural skepticism then I will do what I can to help you. But until that day I shall continue to refer to NAU as what it currently is; a conspiracy theory.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Breaking Ground
First Post. Well I have finally decided to make my own blog. Its under construction right now but I plan to update it whenever I can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)