How can Obama "bring people together" when his tax policies create a "us against them" environment?
122.01
9 years ago
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Tax Policies
Question of the moment:
How can Obama "bring people together" when his tax policies create a "us against them" environment?
How can Obama "bring people together" when his tax policies create a "us against them" environment?Monday, September 22, 2008
The War In Iraq
This was a response I wrote to somebody about the war in iraq, I thought I'd post it.
Tell me what you think.
The War In Iraq.
We entered into Iraq because the US, as a country, was angry. We had been attacked and we wanted to do something about it. Does this mean that we blamed or thought that Iraq was the cause for the attack? No. In the same way that a neighborhood could be shocked at a violent crime and finally decide that something needs to be done to reduce the crime in the neighborhood The U.S. Took a stand decided that it was now time to be active to significantly reduce the threats that were out there.
So here are the issues:
1) It wasn't Iraq, but Al Qaeda that attacked us. Ok let's look again at the neighborhood analogy. We know that it was a smaller gang that committed the crime that outraged the community. The decision is made that crime Must be reduced significantly. Do we ignore the larger gang that commits most of the crime and makes the neighborhood unsafe, or do we simply focus on the ones who caused us to act. If the goal is to make an impact, you target the ones who cause the most negative impact.
2) Ok, but why Saddam Hussein and none of the other horrible Dictators out there? Saddam Hussein had blatantly gone against the UN Resolutions for years. When he invaded Kuwait he violated International law. As a consequence to breaking international law, there were provisions given to Iraq that they had to adhere to in order to regain good standing with the international community. Iraq said they would comply, and did not. So, after 17 different provisions which Iraq refused to comply with, they had shown themselves to be threat with a record of aggression towards other countries. Many other countries have horrible dictators and governments, but how many have a record of outside aggression and defying international law?
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?OpenElement
3) WMD's: We entered into Iraq under the impression that there were weapons of mass destruction. There was adequate reason to believe that this was true. WMD's are not limited to nuclear weapons; they also include chemical and biological weapons, and rockets which can travel more than 150 kms. Saddam Hussein used weapons such as these during his invasion of Kuwait. There was documented evidence that there were stockpiles of these weapons. Iraq was ordered by the UN to dispose of these weapons, provide proof of the destruction, and give a full and complete accounting. He did not. Given that they had been there, and their disposal had not been accounted for, there was good reason to believe that they still were there. On June of 2006 a semi declassified report came out stating that over 500 munitions with mustard or sarin nerve agent had been found since 2003. The administration decided not to publicize this because the focus was now on reconstruction.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
4) OIL: it's all about the oil. The Middle East supplies much of the worlds oil. The U.S. Is a large consumer of oil. Like it or not the U.S. is interdependent on other countries many things, one of them being oil. It is the responsibility of the government to do what it can to ensure the continued supply of energy so that all aspects of our society can continue to run. Simply to claim that it's all about the oil does not diminish the fact that the oil we receive from that part of the world is highly important. Let's bring it closer to home, many of us will claim that there are many things much more important than money. We can say that honestly, yet we still spend much of our time and energy in the pursuit of money through our jobs. Does that mean that money is the motivating reason? No of course not. But it HAS to be considered because it is important. Losing one of our sources of energy would have the same effect on our country as losing a job would have on a family. Is it the reason? No. Is it a significant consideration? Yes. One more point on this issue. Where does the U.S. get is oil? 40% from ourselves, 30% from Mexico and Canada, then (in descending order) Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria, Angola, Russia, UK, Iraq, Virgin Islands, Norway, etc...
5) Why are we still there? Quite simply to make sure that we are not irresponsible in the way that we act towards another country. The original mission was to go in and remove a government regime. We did that very quickly. If we had done that and immediately left. the country would have been in shambles and we would have been the equivalent of an international bully. Go in to a country, cause some chaos, and then leave. So we put into place a series of benchmarks of stability to make sure that it would not revert back to a region of instability. Because many Iraqis (and many Arab nations for that matter) only know what their government has told them about the U.S. our presence has caused some insurgents to arise and many to come from other countries to fight anything that we may try to do there, no matter how good our motives may be. We have had to prove ourselves that we want the best for them, but we have a very hard stereotype to overcome. Yes, we could leave now, but we would leave before the different people groups within Iraq have figured out a way to live at peace with one another. We established benchmarks and not time lines because our goal is not to simply put our time in, but to accomplish stability. So we can stay until we are confident that the country is stable, or we can invite a reason to return there 15 years from now. We started this, let's end this. Unfortunately, we as Americans, are impatient and we want results now. we want everything now. Sometimes, to do things correctly it takes time. Sometimes it takes much longer than we want or expect.
So would we have gone to war in Iraq if the US had not been attacked on 9/11/2001? Maybe not. Does this mean that it was wrong to do? Not necessarily. Unfortunately, nobody will truly know whether or not it was a good thing that we did for many years to come. History will be the judge. As for now, I hope we bring our soldiers home as soon as possible, but I do not want to look back and think of what might have been.
Tell me what you think.
The War In Iraq.
We entered into Iraq because the US, as a country, was angry. We had been attacked and we wanted to do something about it. Does this mean that we blamed or thought that Iraq was the cause for the attack? No. In the same way that a neighborhood could be shocked at a violent crime and finally decide that something needs to be done to reduce the crime in the neighborhood The U.S. Took a stand decided that it was now time to be active to significantly reduce the threats that were out there.
So here are the issues:
1) It wasn't Iraq, but Al Qaeda that attacked us. Ok let's look again at the neighborhood analogy. We know that it was a smaller gang that committed the crime that outraged the community. The decision is made that crime Must be reduced significantly. Do we ignore the larger gang that commits most of the crime and makes the neighborhood unsafe, or do we simply focus on the ones who caused us to act. If the goal is to make an impact, you target the ones who cause the most negative impact.
2) Ok, but why Saddam Hussein and none of the other horrible Dictators out there? Saddam Hussein had blatantly gone against the UN Resolutions for years. When he invaded Kuwait he violated International law. As a consequence to breaking international law, there were provisions given to Iraq that they had to adhere to in order to regain good standing with the international community. Iraq said they would comply, and did not. So, after 17 different provisions which Iraq refused to comply with, they had shown themselves to be threat with a record of aggression towards other countries. Many other countries have horrible dictators and governments, but how many have a record of outside aggression and defying international law?
http://daccessdds.un.org/d
3) WMD's: We entered into Iraq under the impression that there were weapons of mass destruction. There was adequate reason to believe that this was true. WMD's are not limited to nuclear weapons; they also include chemical and biological weapons, and rockets which can travel more than 150 kms. Saddam Hussein used weapons such as these during his invasion of Kuwait. There was documented evidence that there were stockpiles of these weapons. Iraq was ordered by the UN to dispose of these weapons, provide proof of the destruction, and give a full and complete accounting. He did not. Given that they had been there, and their disposal had not been accounted for, there was good reason to believe that they still were there. On June of 2006 a semi declassified report came out stating that over 500 munitions with mustard or sarin nerve agent had been found since 2003. The administration decided not to publicize this because the focus was now on reconstruction.
http://www.foxnews.com/pro
4) OIL: it's all about the oil. The Middle East supplies much of the worlds oil. The U.S. Is a large consumer of oil. Like it or not the U.S. is interdependent on other countries many things, one of them being oil. It is the responsibility of the government to do what it can to ensure the continued supply of energy so that all aspects of our society can continue to run. Simply to claim that it's all about the oil does not diminish the fact that the oil we receive from that part of the world is highly important. Let's bring it closer to home, many of us will claim that there are many things much more important than money. We can say that honestly, yet we still spend much of our time and energy in the pursuit of money through our jobs. Does that mean that money is the motivating reason? No of course not. But it HAS to be considered because it is important. Losing one of our sources of energy would have the same effect on our country as losing a job would have on a family. Is it the reason? No. Is it a significant consideration? Yes. One more point on this issue. Where does the U.S. get is oil? 40% from ourselves, 30% from Mexico and Canada, then (in descending order) Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria, Angola, Russia, UK, Iraq, Virgin Islands, Norway, etc...
5) Why are we still there? Quite simply to make sure that we are not irresponsible in the way that we act towards another country. The original mission was to go in and remove a government regime. We did that very quickly. If we had done that and immediately left. the country would have been in shambles and we would have been the equivalent of an international bully. Go in to a country, cause some chaos, and then leave. So we put into place a series of benchmarks of stability to make sure that it would not revert back to a region of instability. Because many Iraqis (and many Arab nations for that matter) only know what their government has told them about the U.S. our presence has caused some insurgents to arise and many to come from other countries to fight anything that we may try to do there, no matter how good our motives may be. We have had to prove ourselves that we want the best for them, but we have a very hard stereotype to overcome. Yes, we could leave now, but we would leave before the different people groups within Iraq have figured out a way to live at peace with one another. We established benchmarks and not time lines because our goal is not to simply put our time in, but to accomplish stability. So we can stay until we are confident that the country is stable, or we can invite a reason to return there 15 years from now. We started this, let's end this. Unfortunately, we as Americans, are impatient and we want results now. we want everything now. Sometimes, to do things correctly it takes time. Sometimes it takes much longer than we want or expect.
So would we have gone to war in Iraq if the US had not been attacked on 9/11/2001? Maybe not. Does this mean that it was wrong to do? Not necessarily. Unfortunately, nobody will truly know whether or not it was a good thing that we did for many years to come. History will be the judge. As for now, I hope we bring our soldiers home as soon as possible, but I do not want to look back and think of what might have been.
Brian Starts to Blog
So I've been thinking about starting a Blog fro a while now, mostly because I like having a place that I can post my thoughts, questions, observations, or just plain randomness. So, here I go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)