Iraq's Chance for Success

(I am sorry for the irrationality of my posts. I will try to be more regular in my posts)

What is the sign of a successful and stable country? Money.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/me_oil_07_18.asp

Why is this important? Because throughout history, it has been demonstrated that economic prosperity brings stability to a nation. If Iraq is able to utilize its oil economy, it will be able to pull itself out of instability and into prosperity.

The report found that Iraq's oil reserves may be almost twice as much as previously estimated. The study by the U.S. consultancy IHS said another 100 billion barrels of oil reserves could be found in Iraq. IHS said the estimate would rank Iraq as having the second largest reserves in the world, following Saudi Arabia. Currently, Iran has the second largest oil reserves in the world.

Iraq needs stability. Our main goal in that rebuilding effort is to create a stable democracy to be an example to all of the other Middle-Eastern Islamic nations. Prosperity is the key to stability. When people begin to make money in a society, when they begin to derive a benefit from that society, they are more contented, and consequently they are more stable. That is why it is so important for Iraq to become prosperous.

The consultancy said Iraqi oil production could also increase from two million to four million barrels per day. The new estimate was based on exploration in Iraq's western desert near the border with Jordan. So far, Iraq has reported one commercial discovery in the region.

So Iraq has a ton of oil, and we have only developed a minuscule amount of that resource. If we want to create stability in Iraq, we should allow oil companies to come to Iraq and begin to develop the oil fields. We should rebuild their society, by first rebuilding their economy.

Until we learn that you must build Iraq's society before a stable government can be attained, our strategy is useless. Oil is the key to Iraq economy, the economy is the key to Iraq's stability, hence oil is the key to Iraqi stability.

Media Manipulations

The media is absurd. Here are the two stories which prove this statement.

Falwell death: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0516Falwell0516.html

The entire purpose of of the media and news is to report. That is why we call them 'reporters'. So what does report mean?

Definitions of Report

Cambridge Dict: a description of an event or situation

Merriam Websters: a usually detailed account or statement (a news report)

Princeton University's WordNet: describe, account -- to give an account or representation of in words; announce as the result of an investigation or experience or finding

Therefore a report is an account of the facts. It is not the place to give your opinion or to try to influence the reader.

Therefore let me examine the quality of reporting by the media on the subject of Jerry Falwell's death.

On Tuesday morning, the 73-year-old Falwell was discovered without a pulse
in his office at Liberty and pronounced dead at a hospital about an hour later. Dr. Carl Moore, Falwell's physician, said Falwell had a heart condition and presumably died of a heart rhythm abnormality.

For the first 2/3's of the article, the reporter did a pretty good job of presenting facts. However, it is toward the end that the bias of the reporter emerges.

Falwell created a furor in 1999 when one of his publications suggested that the urse-carrying Teletubbies character Tinky Winky was gay.

(Emphasis mine)

Ridiculous! First, they don't even give any evidence. All this 'reporter' says is that Falwell supposedly suggested a bad thing. If he did something, then say it. Don't say he 'suggested' it. Falwell either said it, or he didn't. There is no third option.

Secondly, the entire idea is ridiculous. The guy was carrying a purse. If that isn't gay then what is? Whenever a guy is doing something which only girls do (such as carrying a purse) we can accurately assume he is gay. Would any other guy even consider carrying a purse?

The 1980s marked the religious conservative movement's high-water mark. In more recent years, Falwell had become a problematic figure for the GOP. His remarks a few days after Sept. 11, 2001, essentially blaming feminists, gays and liberals for bringing on the terrorist attacks, drew a rebuke from the White House, and he apologized.

This is not the time and setting to make an attack on Falwell's personal character. I personally haven't ever heard this statement made by Falwell, so I can't determine if it was right or wrong. But I can certainly ask what this has to do with the event of his death. The only reason that this would be included in the 'report', is because the 'reporter' wanted to give the reader a negative outlook toward conservatives. This is a shameless attempt to promote a political agenda in a seemingly non-political story. It is a veiled attempt to indoctrinate the public. The media is not longer 'reporting', they are pursuing their political agenda at all costs.

In conclusion, there is a place for the media to give their opinion. It's called the op-ed's, or the opinion editorial sections. Many liberal (and fewer conservatives) actively promote their political viewpoint in this section. However, veiled attempts to propagate your views are shameless, and simply prove that the media is ridiculous.

Debating the Debate: Iraq

Here is the transcript of the GOP candidate debate last night.

http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=5562636

In the upcoming election (which is still tremendously far away) Iraq will determine the Republican party. If we can't show the country that there is way to win the war, that there is something worth staying in Iraq, then the Democrats will win.

Part of the debate last night centered Iraq. I want to analyze those parts.

MR. MATTHEWS: Do you need anything beyond what the president has now to win the war?
SEN. MCCAIN: Now I think it's on the right track. The war was terribly mismanaged. The war was terribly mismanaged, and we now have to fix a lot of the mistakes that were made. Books have been written. But we have a new strategy and a new general, and these young men and women are committed to winning.

McCain offers the same plan as the President. The problem is that the surge isn't big enough. Bumping up the number of forces by a few thousands troops is not the manpower we need. I will discuss this later.

Let's move to Thompson.

MR. MATTHEWS: Governor Thompson, if you're commander in chief and you want to win this war in Iraq, what do you need to do to win it?
MR. THOMPSON:
...there are three things that I've laid out. Number one, I believe the al-Maliki government should be required to vote as to whether or not they want America in their country. If they vote yes, it gives us a legitimacy for being there. If they vote no, we should get out.
Secondly, there are 18 territories in Iraq, just like we have 50 states in America. I would require those territories to elect governments, just like we do in our states. And if you do so, the Shi'ites will elect Shi'ites, Sunnis will elect Sunnis, Kurds will elect Kurds, and you won't have this internecine civil war.
Third, I would split the oil reserves -- one-third to the federal government, one-third to the state government, and one-third to every man, woman and child. If every man, woman and child is getting part of the oil proceeds, they're going to have a vested interest in their country. They'll be purchasing goods, they will be investing in small businesses, and they'll be building the country on democratic grounds in Iraq.

Number one is moot. The Prime Minister of Iraq has already blasted the idea of pulling our troops out prematurely, hence the government would obviously vote to keep the troops. There would be no change.

Number two is phenomenal! After all, why should we spread a form of government which we ourselves don't uphold. America's Federal/State form of government has been working great for a long time, we should pass on what worked in America to Iraq. Further, if the all the different sects of the Iraqi populace could control their own state governments, most of the violence would die off.

Number three is a bad idea. Several reasons: (1) This is socialism. The government makes the money and then distributes it to the people. Why not allow private companies of Iraqi's (or other investors) to develop the oil lands? Keep the government out! (2) It creates a welfare state. The Iraqi people need to find self-sufficient sources of income. They need to find a job and begin their lives without a government bureaucrat orchestrating their actions. Democracy isn't living on welfare, that is know as socialism. (3) Government waste. Under this part of Thompson's plan, 2/3 of the oil revenues would disappear into the abyss of government waste. Why not allow private investors to use the money on jobs, infrastructure and other prosperous by-products of capitalism?

Hunter's plan for Iraq:

The key to winning in Iraq is standing up the Iraqi military. There are 129 battalions in the Iraqi army. We need to make sure that every one of those battalions moves into an operational setting, gets a three or four- month military operation in a contentious zone. At that point, they can move into the combat field, they can start displacing American units, and America's heavy combat units can rotate out. That's the right way to leave Iraq.

Great! Bush started to do something like this with his troop surge, however many more troops are necessary. If we are going to boost the amount of troops in Iraq, why not raise it enormously to provide maximum security and training for the Iraqi army. This was the one point where Hunter struck me as a great candidate.

While this is only the beginning of the debate, I am encouraged to see some solid strategies come to the surface. Republicans must find a strategy to win the war in Iraq, otherwise we can forget the election.

Pondering Putin

Let's move into international politics and analyze Vladimir Putin.

http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2007-04-26T125512Z_01_L26131060_RTRUKOC_0_US-RUSSIA-PUTIN.xml

Making his last annual address to lawmakers, Putin said he was suspending Russia's commitments under the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty and linked the move in part to U.S. plans for a missile shield in eastern Europe

A missile shield, is just that, a shield. It is completely defensive. Hence I must wonder why Putin would take offence at a blatantly non-offensive military strategy. The only function of a shield is to stop an attack. Hence, the only people who wouldn't oppose a shield are those who want to attack.

Now I realize, it is very improbable that Russia is planning an attack. Nevertheless, verbal protests such as this serve no purpose except to harm Russia in the eye's of the public. I see nothing that Putin will gain from this, yet see a ton to lose.

But he set the tone for Russia's next presidency, announcing a spending splurge on housing, pensions, defense and mammoth infra-structure projects including a canal to link the Caspian and Black Seas.

(Emphasis Mine)

Two points about this, (1) government spending will mess up the Russian economy. Russia (mainly because of oil prices) has had several years of economic growth. This is important because of the major economic depression after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet here we see the Russian government starting down an economic interventionist policy. As history has demonstrated countless times, governments (and economies) are the best, when the government governs the least.

Second, Putin is increasing defense spending. It is rather ironic for Putin to announce a increase of defense spending when in the same speech he criticized the American government for increasing defense. In other words, it is fine for Russia to increase defense and security, it is wrong for the US and other allies to do the same thing. I sense a double-standard.

In a swipe at opposition groups who have taken to the streets alleging he is backtracking on democracy, the president railed at "extremists" and said foreign cash was being used to upset Russia's political stability.

The most stable form of government is a military dictatorship. If anything threatens the status quo, call in the military, implement martial law, and all is stable. The problem is that this takes away the freedom of others. That might be what the article means when it says: "he is backtracking democracy". Sometimes a zeal for stability, and a crackdown on opposing viewpoints, is the beginning of a despotism.

All of Putin's hypocrisy and mistakes end in:

But relations with the United States have soured dramatically and his critics say he is turning Russia away from the West and tightening state control over all areas of life.

Russia could be a key ally in Eastern Europe. On the flip side, Russia could also be a key hindrance in international politics.

Lighter Side of Politics pt.2

I find this rather ironic.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3082244&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

John McCain once again grabs headlines with his light-hearted banter.

After being grilled by Stewart , McCain jokingly told him that he had a present for him — an IED that he could place under his desk.

For those of you who are less acquainted with military terms, IED = improvised explosive device. An IED is very similar to the home-made bombs used by terrorist's and other guerrilla armies.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., was furious and publicly assailed McCain on the House floor. "Imagine a presidential candidate making a joke about IEDs when our kids are getting blown up," he said.

So this is what Murtha does in his spare time. Needless to say, I am not offended. John McCain was in the military for many years, I am not surprised that he would make a joke about something of this nature.

But the most trivial point, the Murtha missed, is that this is a comedy show. McCain is supposed to be funny! Every night millions of people watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart for one reason, to see political jokes. The show is on Comedy Central!

Responding to Murtha's reaction, McCain said that he was going to use comedy during his campaign, just as he did during his military duty.

As I stated in the previous post, I am glad to see the lighter side of politics. America is becoming a nation of cynics. Americans consider all politicians corrupt and uncaring. This is the logical end of a generation of politicians who do nothing but express how dissatisfied they are with the state of things in America.

While I still have major doubts about McCain, this new attitude is a breath of fresh air.

The Lighter Side of Politics

Politics can be very entertaining.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042000020_pf.html

Ronald Reagan wasn't afraid to be himself. That is why so many people loved him, because he was personable and real.

The episode echoed President Reagan's 1984 quip at the height of the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union when he said: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." Reagan was testing a microphone before his regular Saturday radio address.

Can you imagine the audacity, a politician having fun!

While campaigning for president in South Carolina on Wednesday, McCain responded to a question about how to deal with Iran by breaking into the melody of the Beach Boys song "Barbara Ann" but changing the lyrics to "Bomb Iran."
"That old, eh, that old Beach Boys song, 'Bomb Iran,'" McCain joked and then added: "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb ... anyway, ah ..." The audience responded with laughter.

Wow. John McCain has a personality. Not only does he have many similar emotions to us, but he is rather funny.

The Arizona Republican was asked for his reaction to any negative response
to the joke when he arrived in Las Vegas for a fundraiser Thursday night. "Please, I was talking to some of my old veterans friends," he told reporters. "My response is, Lighten up and get a life."

There are two political groups that might be offended: the Democrats, and the politically correct.

Democrats will be angry because this causes McCain to gain credibility with the American people. As Reagan proved, the people love a politician who connects with them, exhibits their same sentiments and makes them laugh. Democrats hate this, because they have never been able to make the people laugh. Try to picture Hillary cracking a good joke: I don't think so. The only joke from a democrat which has made me laugh is Al Gore saying he invented the Internet; but that wasn't supposed to be a joke. Democrats get all huffed up about jokes, simply because they can't compete in that area.

Secondly, the politically correct:

When reporters asked if the joke was insensitive, McCain said: "Insensitive to what? The Iranians?"

Touché Any person on the planet who has followed the remarks made by the Iranian madman will consider this hilarious. McCain has just jumped 10 points on my list of Republican candidates.

Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Benjamin Franklin; all of these beloved political players were loved by the people. Why? Was it because their policies were immaculate? No. Was it because of their wisdom and patriotism? No. Simply because the had the ability to win the hearts of the people.

As I stated earlier: politics can be entertaining. I hope that this signals a trend in the political arena.

Immigration Anarchy

Anarchy reins in South California.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3019651

Some may say that 'anarchy' is too strong of a word, so let me define it:

Webster's:
Absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion

Princeton University's WordNet:
1. (2) anarchy, lawlessness -- (a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government))

History Central's Civic Glossary:
confused state of society in which there is no government and no law.

(Emphasis Mine)

If you have laws which you don't enforce, then it is the same as having no law whatsoever. If I say you cannot eat ice cream, but allow you to eat ice cream, what impact is my supposed law having on your actions? None. If you say don't murder, but permit someone to murder, is the law really against murder? No.

Further, if you specifically bend the rules to allow someone to bypass the law, you are encouraging a breach of the law. If I say don't eat ice cream, then scoop you a bowl, who is responsible for the breach of the law, you or me? To not enforce the law is to promote the idea that you, not only can but, should break the law. Hence, our government is a government without laws.

I find this ironic:

"For my wife and I it would cost about $30,000," said Francisco Gomez, 41, who along with his wife is in the country illegally.

This cannot be serious. The media is giving a man who rightfully should be in jail, an opportunity to say how unfair the law. Since when did an illegal care about being legal. It is like a murderer giving a speech on the right to life. It is a total dichotomy.

"Last year, we were fighting for legalization, and this year we are fighting for
legalization and against all these raids," said Maria Lopez, 50, an illegal immigrant who works as a seamstress and sends $200 a month home to family members in Mexico.

Let me make this clear: Ms. Lopez is perfectly capable of becoming legal. We specifically have an entire government agency set up to provide immigrants with an opportunity to enter our country legally. Yet, she and other illegals insist on defying our laws, fast-tracking past all of the other individuals who want to enter America, and now even want us to justify their actions.

All of this commentary points to one principle: America is becoming an anarchy. Our culture is at the point where we don't even tolerate the breaking of the laws, but we encourage and smile on those who attempt to justify such defiance of our laws. Our country is lawless. We could care less about the integrity of our law books. Illegal immigration simply proves that our culture, government and media are enamored with anarchy.

Anarchy rules in immigration. Congress is pandering for votes. The media is politically-correct. What is your response?