First of a Few Thoughts on the Elections
There is no question that this country is in a complete mess. Domestically, economic factors push jobs over our borders. Internationally, we are managing a war where the enemy is not clearly defined, is already within our borders, and doesn't wear uniforms.
The decision to fight the enemy on foreign soil was a sound one. Better there than within the US borders.
There is more reason to question the decision to remove Saddam:
1) was it payback for the assasination attempt on President Bush 41?
2) was it an attempt to stabilize an unstable region?
3) was it to insure a continued flow of oil? (a national security concern).
4) was it an attempt to economically injure the French, Germans, Chinese, and Russians?
5) was it an attempt to put money into the pockets of cheney's friends at Haliburton?
6) was it an attempt to expose the United Nations and its corrupt Oil for Food Program? (which the French and German Governments sustained for their national gains).
Personally, I think of all of those I presented (and i'm open to more) the number 5 is the most ludicrous.
Is it better to deal with a crazed dictator or try to forceably remove them?
I'm not taking sides yet, just presenting the questions to clarify the situation....
The United States is presently conducting more than one war. The other wars are also not of its choosing. The US is doing its best to export what it knows best, which is its capitalist system. Hence outsourcing.
Most countries in Europe that have lived through far more centuries than the US are tired of the capitalist ways of life. Never in history has technology moved so quickly. These Western European countries don't like Ted Turner, Mickey Mouse, Friends, American Football and a whole host of other "Americanisms". They don't like the the rude US tourists, the europeans think we are uneducated.
These European countries who have aging castles, Lords with meaningless titles, Kings who have no power, would like to see US successes of the last two centuries halted in their tracks. They do not like the concepts of an "equal man". Nowhere in Euro-history do we see the free voting process. Until Capitalism, no equality for women.
Iraq is about economics. It's a fight for the future. Iraq is about dealing or removing, oil or hydrogen, Freedom or rule by "authority".
I don't know anyone, including the President, who likes where we are right now in relation to this "War on Terror".
The upcoming election is only important because oil, and damage to the western capitalist system, as symbolized by the USA, are in question.
I'm of the opinion neither of the present candidates are capable of making the correct decisions over the next four years.
What we've discovered with President Bush is that the Office of the President, more than ever, is a figurehead. The support structure is what we're voting on. The present structure has failed. The Pentagon told the President that we were ready for war in 2002, we weren't. The Intelligence Structure, led by the NSA and CIA said that Saddam had WMDs - he didn't.
My problem is that were we to replace the present structure with KerryVision - who would we get? Most likely, eager participants from the leftover Clinton Administration.
The Clinton Administration is what got America into this situation to begin with. Many would argue with me over this observation, and I will address why this is so in a future posting.
In the end, keeping within the two party format (a format I take umbrage with) America will probably choose the known evil over the lesser known.
And so it goes.
The decision to fight the enemy on foreign soil was a sound one. Better there than within the US borders.
There is more reason to question the decision to remove Saddam:
1) was it payback for the assasination attempt on President Bush 41?
2) was it an attempt to stabilize an unstable region?
3) was it to insure a continued flow of oil? (a national security concern).
4) was it an attempt to economically injure the French, Germans, Chinese, and Russians?
5) was it an attempt to put money into the pockets of cheney's friends at Haliburton?
6) was it an attempt to expose the United Nations and its corrupt Oil for Food Program? (which the French and German Governments sustained for their national gains).
Personally, I think of all of those I presented (and i'm open to more) the number 5 is the most ludicrous.
Is it better to deal with a crazed dictator or try to forceably remove them?
I'm not taking sides yet, just presenting the questions to clarify the situation....
The United States is presently conducting more than one war. The other wars are also not of its choosing. The US is doing its best to export what it knows best, which is its capitalist system. Hence outsourcing.
Most countries in Europe that have lived through far more centuries than the US are tired of the capitalist ways of life. Never in history has technology moved so quickly. These Western European countries don't like Ted Turner, Mickey Mouse, Friends, American Football and a whole host of other "Americanisms". They don't like the the rude US tourists, the europeans think we are uneducated.
These European countries who have aging castles, Lords with meaningless titles, Kings who have no power, would like to see US successes of the last two centuries halted in their tracks. They do not like the concepts of an "equal man". Nowhere in Euro-history do we see the free voting process. Until Capitalism, no equality for women.
Iraq is about economics. It's a fight for the future. Iraq is about dealing or removing, oil or hydrogen, Freedom or rule by "authority".
I don't know anyone, including the President, who likes where we are right now in relation to this "War on Terror".
The upcoming election is only important because oil, and damage to the western capitalist system, as symbolized by the USA, are in question.
I'm of the opinion neither of the present candidates are capable of making the correct decisions over the next four years.
What we've discovered with President Bush is that the Office of the President, more than ever, is a figurehead. The support structure is what we're voting on. The present structure has failed. The Pentagon told the President that we were ready for war in 2002, we weren't. The Intelligence Structure, led by the NSA and CIA said that Saddam had WMDs - he didn't.
My problem is that were we to replace the present structure with KerryVision - who would we get? Most likely, eager participants from the leftover Clinton Administration.
The Clinton Administration is what got America into this situation to begin with. Many would argue with me over this observation, and I will address why this is so in a future posting.
In the end, keeping within the two party format (a format I take umbrage with) America will probably choose the known evil over the lesser known.
And so it goes.
posted by impresario | 2:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home