Is the Right way the Wrong way?

In my classmate's blog "Mr. Obama, Mr. Zardari and Mr. Karzai; she gives a very interesting account of the terrorist problem that is facing Pakistan. This enormous amount of money that the U.S. is about to give Pakistan; (a broke government that has been said may not be able to fund military operations by the end of this month, unless the U.S. provides aid) leaves out the question of India. 
This is where I have to disagree with Miss Rehana's argument. She states that the current administration is compared to the Bush Administration because of their "parochial way of thinking." What narrow-minded views is the author trying to establish? What black and white views? The issue is simple: Pakistan has let terrorists get within 60 miles of of its capitol. Pakistan is one of the few countries in the World with nuclear capability. While I understand that there is conflict between India and Pakistan, I would pose the question: Can India pay its military? Yes. Are terrorists at the doorstep of New Delhi? No. The conflict with India and Pakistan is a problem, but the conflict that Pakistan has with keeping its own country secure is an even greater problem. The author makes the assumption that this money will be used to carry out terrorist missions in India. However Defense Secretary Gates has pledged to Congress that he would provide specific goals in judging whether or not this aid is being used as it should be by Pakistan. Security, development and governance are the three concerns of the U.S. Miss Rehana gives a very weak solution to her argument. Do not provide financial aid to Pakistan, and instead allow the UN or Non-Govermental Organizations to build schools in Pakistan. A noble effort yes, but I doubt UN workers or ANY non-governmental organization would want to go into a broke country with militants on one side and India on the other, in short: there would be chaos. The irony of the situation is that Pakistan will not even allow U.S. forces to train their military on their soil. Pakistani soldiers have to come to the U.S. to be trained in counter-insurgency techniques. Isn't that a little bit of parochial thinking as well? In the end, each of these countries are linked together, the actions that the U.S. does will have an effect on each country in this region, its impossible to control the outcome. What it comes down to is Pakistan's Nuclear capability and the U.S. not wanting that compromised. While I don't like the idea of the U.S. giving money to a corrupt Government, what alternative is there at this point? Chaos?

F-E-A-R

September 11, 2001....a day that we as Americans will never forget. A day in history that brings fear and anger to us all. Not just America; but the entire World changed on that day. Our sense of security was taken from us. Now, after eight years of being closed to the general public because of this tragic event; the Statue of Liberty has re-opened to the public. Is this considered progress? Some would say yes, and some would say no. The post 9/11 America would see new institutions propped up, all with the explicit task to protect us. Or were they propped up to make us more fearful of the World around us? We are constantly bombarded with information telling us to be afraid. The terrorist threat level is at orange, or the newly formed Dept. of Homeland Security telling us that a terrorist threat is imminent; or the TSA flexing their muscles because a mother brought her child (holding a bottle) through airport security. This is a different World, yes...and I understand that measures have to be taken; but sometimes I feel like this country over does it. Fear is a powerful tool in the right hands, look back to the Republican National Convention in 2008. As millions of Americans tuned in, they were brought back to that horrible day in September of 2001. Those repressed feelings of sorrow, fear, and anger came back to the surface. The message was clear: that this happened before, and it can happen again....(vote for me.) I'm not arguing for or against either party. I'm arguing for the fact that FEAR, is what drives this country. Whether it be fear of an attack, or fear of a flu or fear of the stock market collapsing because this company or that company is too important to let fail. There is a difference between being fearful and being TOLD to be fearful. Its time for our Government and our media to understand that.

I AGREE

I have to agree with the author on this one. Yes we should pull out of Iraq. Granted thats what our Government has been saying they're going to do for...oh?, four years now. I wasn't part of the actual invasion into Iraq, I was part of the second and fourth deployments to that country. However I do remember seeing the cheers from the Iraqis as we pulled that statue of Saddam Hussien down, just like the rest of the World did. We were held as liberators of freedom, we gave the people of Iraq something they had never had before. Unfortunately that is where we went wrong. I remember talking to an Iraqi man during my first deployment, he told me how the people were over-joyed by the outsting of this tyrant, but sorta like a sheltered child that goes off to college, they went wild. He told me how people felt they could do what they want, steal, murder, rape...it didn't matter because they were free. Out of this choas that ensued, an insurgency took hold. Bottome line we should have known what the consequence would be, when you free a people that have been oppressed for decades. So yes we should get out, will we anytime soon? That I wish I could answer. I also agree with Jerome, if the country of Iraq does become a stable government they better remember who helped them get there. Of course like I keep saying, people only remember the bad you do, not the good.

Did they finally pull their heads out?

It's about time the Nation's Defense Department started spending money responsibly. Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates laid out the plan for the military's 2010 budget. While roughly the same amount of money will be asked from the 2009 budget, (that's around 4 % GDP) the 2010 budget will take that money and use it where it is needed.
A prime example of this irresponsible use of taxpayer money would have to be the Air Force's
F-22 program. The program is not going to be completely scrapped but the budget calls for the Air Force to scale back on the number of aircraft in its regiments. This makes perfect sense, the wars being fought today and probably for the rest of this century will be wars fought on the ground, from an enemy that can fire a surface to air missile, get on his or her bike and disappear before we even know it, to make an analogy, we're buying dynamite to kill an ant hill.
The downside to actually doing what is for the greater good of the Military, is the legislative outcry from state representatives. These projects create and sustain jobs and these jobs bring money to our representative's states. While this budget causes these jobs to be lost and the money to go to more important causes, like better health care for our service men and women, or rebuilding the equipment that the wear and tear of lengthy deployments wreaks on them; it is obvious that someone finally needed to make this decision.
Politicians like to use the military as their pity party when they want to pitch their ideas. Instead of not complaining because your district or your state won't be able to make a wiring harness for a multi-billion dollar jet, or a camera lens for a state-of-the-art laser system (that sometimes works), actually sympathize for the men and women in our military and agree to this budget because their tired of using broken equipment, and their tired of inadequate health care facilities or substandard living conditions. Maybe if our Government hadn't of spent billions of dollars on a faulty missile defense system, then maybe our troops could of had the armor they needed, during the first and second and even third stages of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and maybe soldiers wouldn't have died from electrocution while taking showers on U.S. bases. As if these men and women don't have enough to worry about over there, roadside bombs, mortars, ambushes, etc. they also have to worry about faulty wiring in their living quarters. If that isn't a wake up call to our leaders, then I don't know what is.


http://www.hulu.com/watch/67092/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-wed-apr-8-2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/10/zakaria.pentagon/index.html

More finger pointing....

In a blog taken from the The Smirking Chimp a left leaning website in our "suggested sources" author: jomo666 ranks President Obama in the same category as his predecessor, George W. Bush. His main claim is that President Obama has done nothing, and will do nothing in pursuing punishment for the Bush Organization's use of torture throughout the former president's eight year term, and because of this lack of concern, he holds President Obama as an accomplice in their crimes.
As soon as President Bush left office, the finger pointing and the call to have the Bush Organization investigated at the hands of the Obama administration began to make itself known. While the questions were pressed even before the election, the author does make note that President Obama did say that he would not pursue an investigation,before he was elected to office. Is an investigation in the Bush Organization what this country really needs at this point in time? According to the author, yes it is important. Even though President Obama has a recession, two wars on two different fronts, the border dispute with Mexico and of course global warming, he apparently needs one more enchilada on his plate.
The author is definitely passionate on the matter, as nobody is above the law. However the cases in point that is given to the audience, which no doubt will be liberal minded readers, as this site's majority seems to be like-minded liberals; the cases in point are weak at that. At one point there is mentioned articles of the UN convention of torture and how ratifying nations are obligated to prosecute war criminals. What articles are being expressed here? Are these the Geneva Conventions? The author really doesn't give a specific reference to this, the reader is left to assume that "these articles are out there."
Another tough case in point would have to be the author's statement that Bush and Cheney are admitted war criminals. This is a broad statement indeed, yes the water boarding cases did happen under the Bush and Cheney organization, and yes Abu Gharib did happen under Bush and Cheney's watch. However, did both of these men blatantly admit to torture? The evidence is there, that is blatantly obvious, but your still innocent until proven guilty in this country.
A similarity is even used to advance the author's argument. This similarity being that directly after WWII, the trials at Nuremberg took place, and so therefore the same should be applied to Bush. Even if Bush and his organization are guilty of these crimes, you can in no way apply the same atrocities that took place in NAZI Germany to the Bush Organization, or Obama at that matter. Over 6 million dead, and the INTENT to wipe out an entire race of people, this can hardly be compared to the author's argument.
It is difficult to gather the author's credentials, with only seven blogs on this website, it is difficult to gather information on this individual. In the end though, this author has based their argument on passion. Should the Bush organization be investigated for what has taken place? This is a tough question to ask. There is just too much on President Obama's agenda right now, not to mention the political repercussions that would ensue from this. This is a question that will be long debated, and haunt the very fabric of this nation for many years to come. Nobody remembers the good you do, they only remember the bad, as unfortunate as that is. Perhaps this is something that we as a nation want to forget. Enough of the finger pointing.....

They hate to love us, and they love to hate us....

In Thomas L. Friedman's column: Paging Uncle Sam, taken from The New York Times; the rest of the World still looks to the U.S. for leadership even though the U.S. doesn't feel like it's the superpower it once was.

Friedman gives the reader a straight-forward view of American global leadership. He argues that World leaders often complain that; in this post Cold War, American Power is too strong. However a World without American power is too dangerous to even imagine. A World without American leadership contends Friedman; would be a leaderless World. He breaks down key nations such as Russia, China and the European Union not being able to fill the shoes that America has. His basis for Russia and China is that neither country has the will or a way to provide global public goods that America provides. He explains that the European Union is so at ends with itself that it can't even pass a stimulus package.
Friedman goes further and backs up his point by giving the reader cases in point. One example is the amount the dollar is beginning to gain on global currencies, such as the Korean currency, which has lost nearly 40 % to the dollar in the past six months. This is all because countries are turning to America for leadership during these rough times. They see that the American Government and its citizens HAVE the ability to navigate through the rough waters that face the global economy.

Thomas Friedman's credentials speak for themselves. He is the recipient of three Pulitzer prizes for commentary, all while writing for The New York Times. He has served as chief economic correspondent in the Washington District and before that the chief White House correspondent. It is fair to say that Mr. Friedman knows what he is writing about; in terms of global economics. Mr. Friedman wrote this commentary while in Seoul, South Korea. The commentaries he recieved from Korean economic officials are naturally more biased towards American leadership. Had Mr. Friedman been in Moscow or Beijing the tune might have been a little different. Still though Friedman is right; while Europe can't get along (which is what it does best) and China and Russia entertain the idea that they are gaining ground on the U.S., it is America that is "taking the bull by the horns" so-to-speak. The rest of the World is just watching and waiting to see what comes next.

To all the Ron Paul Supporters Out There....

After doing the assigned stage two blog assignment and reading my classmate's profiles, I have to admit; it was a little frustrating. I'm not out to change anyone's voting habits, I just want to state my opinion. To all the people who said: I'm a Ron Paul supporter BUT he had no chance at winning, or he wasn't even on the ballot; this blog is especially for you. If you regularly go to Ron Paul's website http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ and you've signed up for his weekly e-mails then you would know that he publiclly endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party for President.
I can remember the elections of President George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, and I always wondered why people even voted for those smaller...insignificant parties. Only now have I realized why they are so small and insignificant. The lesser of two evils reasoning, the idea that I like this party's politics and I understand where this candidate is coming from, but the bottom line is that he or she just doesn't have a chance in hell at even getting the table scraps of the Republican and Democrat Parties, so I want my vote to count, so I'm voting for this guy. Well I'm here to say that I'll let you vote for "that guy" but my vote is still going to the person who could do the best for our country. It doesn't matter if the candidate gets 1 vote or 1 million votes.
In closing I hope I have not offended anyone in this class. The beauty of this country is that we all have our opinions. I am eager and confident that President Barrack Obama will do the best he can for this country. Perhaps America is not ready for the politics of Ron Paul, I'd like to think that we took a step in the right direction with the man we have in office today, though. So as John Wayne put it once, and Keith Olberman re-stated: I didn't vote for him, but hes my President and I hope he does a good job.