It has been a long time since I have written, which is ironic considering this is the time when I should be spending the most time writing.
There is a t-shirt that kids my age like to walk around in. Most likely you have seen it, a star emblazoned on the front, silhouetting the face of a revolutionary icon, Che Guevara. Every time I see someone wearing that shirt I want to shake them and say, "Do you know who this man even is? Do you know what he is a part of? Why he did what he did?"
The man died in 1967, years before any kids wore his t-shirt. I wonder if those kids know about his personal involvement in the execution and torture of his own soldiers, who he claimed were informers or spies. Being a former medical student, I'm sure he was well fit for the job of torture.
Then moving on, he helped Fidel Castro rise to power in his regime, and spent many years in Cuba, you know the same place that let Russia put missiles on their island. and considered Russia's removal of those missiles an act of betrayal! Then, he vocally supported the Viet Cong throughout the Vietnam war, again openly declaring himself an enemy to the West.
His "revolutionary campaigns" went from the Congo to Latin America, and all of them failed except for Cuba, until he was captured and executed by the Bolivian Government (Depending on who you believe).
I don't understand what is to be idolized about the man. He was a dedicated enemy to our way of life, and a murderer. Was his cause worthy? I can't say that it was or wasn't, but the ends don't always justify the means, and socialism is not an end I would like to see.
Though, in all reality, he won. I wonder if anyone will wear a shirt with my face on it 40 years after my death, not even knowing who I was or what I did?
3.23.2007
1.23.2007
Abortion
Today nears the anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade case, the case that legalized abortion, so I figured I would chip in my two cents.
As many of you have now noticed I’m sure, I lean a little to the right. Abortion is one of those things that is pretty cut down the middle of party lines, with Republicans disliking it, and Democrats being Pro-Choice. Many of the strictly religious have serious issues with abortion, claiming that it is an aberration of God, a deadly sin, and a one way ticket to Hell.
When a woman goes to get an abortion, she is suddenly faced with a choice that few are prepared for. Woman who do this most often do so without the support of their parents, or the would-be fathers. A few of them have the support of their closest friends, but due to the stigma, many don’t even let their friends know until after the deed is done.
So here is a woman, alone, making the choice of the future of their child. Many clinics have protesters outside of them more often than not, so as she gets out of her car she is faced with the screaming taunts of “Murderer!” and “Whore!” She then has to walk into the clinic, and tell the staff, “I do not want to be pregnant. I can’t have a baby right now because I’m in school/have a career/too poor/was raped/etc.” Then she has to sit and talk with a Doctor, who explains in detail the things that he is going to have to do. Some may even have to watch a video showing the process in all of its horror. Alone, in a sterile hospital room, knowing what is about to happen. Then finally, before the operation takes place she has to be asked one more time, “Are you sure that you want to do this?”
She goes home, and takes a shower. She then sees her boyfriend, or father, or mother, and no one can figure out what’s wrong. Her friends cry with her and hold her close, but at night, alone again, she has nightmares. As she grows older, and has a child, she thinks back, and remembers that day.
No amount of judgment from protesters or the likes of me will compare to the punishment a woman who does that puts herself through. It is not my right to judge other than to say it must take incredible strength to deal with. Then again, I will never carry a child or go through an abortion, so my fiction above could be terribly far off.
Abortion is the choice, and the right of the mother. It is a decision that none take lightly. I bet that even teenage mothers understand the gravity of that situation. Why is it our right to force her to have a child that she does not want, or isn’t prepared to have? Many people believe that children are a product of their environment. If a child grows up in an environment with a single mother who harbors any resentment about the child being the reason they dropped out of school or stopped pursuing a career, what quality of life will they have?
“Well, put it up for adoption then!” some will say. But how many children live their whole lives going from Orphanage to Foster Home and back, never having any consistency? What is their quality of life? Not all of them grow up to be Dave and create Wendy’s.
“You cannot play God!” Others say. All of us play God in some way or another. We create and destroy life every day, from roaches to humans. Christians say, “God has a plan for everything.” Muslims say, “Nothing can happen but for the will of Allah.” Most religions have that ultimate fallback when times are bleak. If you truly believe that, then is there any amount of science or trying that can stop the will of God? How hard could it be for God to make an operation fail, if he created the entire Universe?
Most religions also have a “Judge not lest ye be judged” in them as well, saying, “Do not judge other people, none are perfect. Let God Judge them when they meet him.” So is it our place to judge people on earth? Why should a woman be forced to have a child when she is 17, or 21 and in college, or without a father, or after she has been raped? Especially in the cases of teen pregnancies, many times the teen’s parents end up raising the child, is that fair to them?
I don’t believe in late term abortions however, unless for some reason it could be medically necessary. Having an abortion after you miss a period is completely different from having a doctor remove a developed baby. By that point you should have made your decision.
The bottom line, I believe, is that the choice to have an abortion lays on the mother, the father, and their Doctor. Mostly on the mother, for it is her who will have to carry it for 9 months. It is not for me, you, or the Government to decide. If you personally do not believe in abortions, then do not have them. But it is not our right to force our beliefs on another, which is not what America is about. Outlawing abortion would be much like outlawing certain guns. It does not stop them from being bought and sold; it just changes how it is done.
That would not stop a person from throwing themselves down a flight of stairs to try and force a miscarriage. The amount of babies found in trash cans would rise dramatically, and it would create a market for garage-door abortion agencies. How dirty would a place like that be with no regulation? How many would-be mothers would end up in jail for murder because they couldn’t have an abortion? Is it right to destroy two lives instead of one that hasn’t had one yet?
As many of you have now noticed I’m sure, I lean a little to the right. Abortion is one of those things that is pretty cut down the middle of party lines, with Republicans disliking it, and Democrats being Pro-Choice. Many of the strictly religious have serious issues with abortion, claiming that it is an aberration of God, a deadly sin, and a one way ticket to Hell.
When a woman goes to get an abortion, she is suddenly faced with a choice that few are prepared for. Woman who do this most often do so without the support of their parents, or the would-be fathers. A few of them have the support of their closest friends, but due to the stigma, many don’t even let their friends know until after the deed is done.
So here is a woman, alone, making the choice of the future of their child. Many clinics have protesters outside of them more often than not, so as she gets out of her car she is faced with the screaming taunts of “Murderer!” and “Whore!” She then has to walk into the clinic, and tell the staff, “I do not want to be pregnant. I can’t have a baby right now because I’m in school/have a career/too poor/was raped/etc.” Then she has to sit and talk with a Doctor, who explains in detail the things that he is going to have to do. Some may even have to watch a video showing the process in all of its horror. Alone, in a sterile hospital room, knowing what is about to happen. Then finally, before the operation takes place she has to be asked one more time, “Are you sure that you want to do this?”
She goes home, and takes a shower. She then sees her boyfriend, or father, or mother, and no one can figure out what’s wrong. Her friends cry with her and hold her close, but at night, alone again, she has nightmares. As she grows older, and has a child, she thinks back, and remembers that day.
No amount of judgment from protesters or the likes of me will compare to the punishment a woman who does that puts herself through. It is not my right to judge other than to say it must take incredible strength to deal with. Then again, I will never carry a child or go through an abortion, so my fiction above could be terribly far off.
Abortion is the choice, and the right of the mother. It is a decision that none take lightly. I bet that even teenage mothers understand the gravity of that situation. Why is it our right to force her to have a child that she does not want, or isn’t prepared to have? Many people believe that children are a product of their environment. If a child grows up in an environment with a single mother who harbors any resentment about the child being the reason they dropped out of school or stopped pursuing a career, what quality of life will they have?
“Well, put it up for adoption then!” some will say. But how many children live their whole lives going from Orphanage to Foster Home and back, never having any consistency? What is their quality of life? Not all of them grow up to be Dave and create Wendy’s.
“You cannot play God!” Others say. All of us play God in some way or another. We create and destroy life every day, from roaches to humans. Christians say, “God has a plan for everything.” Muslims say, “Nothing can happen but for the will of Allah.” Most religions have that ultimate fallback when times are bleak. If you truly believe that, then is there any amount of science or trying that can stop the will of God? How hard could it be for God to make an operation fail, if he created the entire Universe?
Most religions also have a “Judge not lest ye be judged” in them as well, saying, “Do not judge other people, none are perfect. Let God Judge them when they meet him.” So is it our place to judge people on earth? Why should a woman be forced to have a child when she is 17, or 21 and in college, or without a father, or after she has been raped? Especially in the cases of teen pregnancies, many times the teen’s parents end up raising the child, is that fair to them?
I don’t believe in late term abortions however, unless for some reason it could be medically necessary. Having an abortion after you miss a period is completely different from having a doctor remove a developed baby. By that point you should have made your decision.
The bottom line, I believe, is that the choice to have an abortion lays on the mother, the father, and their Doctor. Mostly on the mother, for it is her who will have to carry it for 9 months. It is not for me, you, or the Government to decide. If you personally do not believe in abortions, then do not have them. But it is not our right to force our beliefs on another, which is not what America is about. Outlawing abortion would be much like outlawing certain guns. It does not stop them from being bought and sold; it just changes how it is done.
That would not stop a person from throwing themselves down a flight of stairs to try and force a miscarriage. The amount of babies found in trash cans would rise dramatically, and it would create a market for garage-door abortion agencies. How dirty would a place like that be with no regulation? How many would-be mothers would end up in jail for murder because they couldn’t have an abortion? Is it right to destroy two lives instead of one that hasn’t had one yet?
1.22.2007
New Looks
As you have noticed (or not) there have been a few changes to the site over the past week. My girlfriend took the time to create a banner for me, so I put it up and then changed the template around. The arabic is my first name as I drew it in Arabic Calligraphy. I took the time to make a few other changes, to try and get a little more continuity with colors and such. I also made made the site a little wider, so now hopefully my posts won't seem to take up as much space. More changes are to come soon, and I'm thinking about revising some of my posts with bold tags so that it will be easier to pick out topics for those that have time only to skim through my long windedness. We'll see how it works.
1.17.2007
My Peers
My habib ti and I were walking through the mall a few days ago, I was needing to by some new reading material, and it's a chance for us to do a little walking and such. We went to Old Navy to get some thermal undershirts because it is terribly cold in California. (As a matter of fact, I have a score to settle with the Beach Boys for the image they gave me)
As we're looking through the normal person's clothes (I.E. not the 0-6 size range) this girl walks up and says, "What is this, the maternity section?" Now, this girl was no size 6 herself, but seemed to be one of those people who think that the world owes them something.
A few minutes later, we go to check out. There is one line, and four registers because it was a large sale, and quite a few people were there. As one register opened, they'd call the next in line. Well, this same girl goes up to a register, ignoring the line. She looks back at the line, makes a nasty face and continues standing in the line, because obviously she was more important than anyone else who was there.
It got me to thinking. These are people my age, I'm 21. I look around and it scares me to think that these are the people I'm going to have to count on to vote for me. A vast majority of my peers might be going to college, but anyone who has ever seen Jaywalking on the Tonight Show knows that quite a few of them are completely oblivious to the world around them. Many couldn't point out Iraq on a map even though a population of Americans large enough to fill a sizable town reside there. Nor could they tell you where Korea, or Iran, or many other countries of significance are.
And this attitude of blissful ignorance doesn't stop outside the world, but even in our own borders. It isn't just one subset of our youth, it is something that has infected our nation on a massive scale. Priorities for kids 18-24 these days seem to be insane. Then again, with the role models we have in Hollywood and sports these days, I guess it shouldn't come as such a shock.
Sometimes I just want to shake them and say, "Wake up! Don't you see that the world you live in is steadily sliding into World War III! Don't you see that because of your lack of involvement youthful ideas are not being introduced into our government! Can't you understand the vital role that we must play as a generation in order to continue a stable existence for our children when we have them!"
I don't mean that as "Armageddon" talk or the end of the world, but the entire world is wobbling on a knife's edge, and we could be plunged into a massive conflict overnight. Hindsight is 20/20, they say. They traced the origins of WWI to a single assassination. WWII was spelled out clearly by Hitler while he was in prison. Will they trace this one back to 9/11/2001? Or perhaps even so far back as 1979? Maybe they could even trace it back to the end of the Ottoman empire, and Britain's betrayal of the likes of T.E. Lawrence...
The next world war will not be a war like we have fought in the past. There will be large battles, but the book on guerilla warfare is revised everyday in the streets of Baghdad and the hills of Afghanistan, and it will be used. The closest thing to it would be to think of fighting Japan in WWII, if we had actually been forced to invade the mainland.
But the American spirit has been strong, from the darkest days of the Revolution forward. We have always managed, even coming into a fight ill-prepared, to fight a good fight. But in WWII when that happened, it was a generation of hard workers with a sense of national pride. Today it is a generation that thinks their votes don't count, with a large majority of them hating the government in general, and associating that anger with their country. It will be a rude awakening to say the least.
As we're looking through the normal person's clothes (I.E. not the 0-6 size range) this girl walks up and says, "What is this, the maternity section?" Now, this girl was no size 6 herself, but seemed to be one of those people who think that the world owes them something.
A few minutes later, we go to check out. There is one line, and four registers because it was a large sale, and quite a few people were there. As one register opened, they'd call the next in line. Well, this same girl goes up to a register, ignoring the line. She looks back at the line, makes a nasty face and continues standing in the line, because obviously she was more important than anyone else who was there.
It got me to thinking. These are people my age, I'm 21. I look around and it scares me to think that these are the people I'm going to have to count on to vote for me. A vast majority of my peers might be going to college, but anyone who has ever seen Jaywalking on the Tonight Show knows that quite a few of them are completely oblivious to the world around them. Many couldn't point out Iraq on a map even though a population of Americans large enough to fill a sizable town reside there. Nor could they tell you where Korea, or Iran, or many other countries of significance are.
And this attitude of blissful ignorance doesn't stop outside the world, but even in our own borders. It isn't just one subset of our youth, it is something that has infected our nation on a massive scale. Priorities for kids 18-24 these days seem to be insane. Then again, with the role models we have in Hollywood and sports these days, I guess it shouldn't come as such a shock.
Sometimes I just want to shake them and say, "Wake up! Don't you see that the world you live in is steadily sliding into World War III! Don't you see that because of your lack of involvement youthful ideas are not being introduced into our government! Can't you understand the vital role that we must play as a generation in order to continue a stable existence for our children when we have them!"
I don't mean that as "Armageddon" talk or the end of the world, but the entire world is wobbling on a knife's edge, and we could be plunged into a massive conflict overnight. Hindsight is 20/20, they say. They traced the origins of WWI to a single assassination. WWII was spelled out clearly by Hitler while he was in prison. Will they trace this one back to 9/11/2001? Or perhaps even so far back as 1979? Maybe they could even trace it back to the end of the Ottoman empire, and Britain's betrayal of the likes of T.E. Lawrence...
The next world war will not be a war like we have fought in the past. There will be large battles, but the book on guerilla warfare is revised everyday in the streets of Baghdad and the hills of Afghanistan, and it will be used. The closest thing to it would be to think of fighting Japan in WWII, if we had actually been forced to invade the mainland.
But the American spirit has been strong, from the darkest days of the Revolution forward. We have always managed, even coming into a fight ill-prepared, to fight a good fight. But in WWII when that happened, it was a generation of hard workers with a sense of national pride. Today it is a generation that thinks their votes don't count, with a large majority of them hating the government in general, and associating that anger with their country. It will be a rude awakening to say the least.
1.11.2007
I'm Going to Lose Votes in 3...2...1...
Yesterday, on my drive home from work I was listening to NPR. It was a piece on Affirmative Action being voted down in some University in the Midwest, I want to say Michigan but I don't remember now. Thinking about it just made me remember how much I dislike Affirmative Action, so I figured I'd tell everyone why.
Affirmative Action is racist, and we will never be able to get past racism with it in effect. In itself it promotes the stereotype of inequality due to your skin color. What is more racist than saying, "Oh well, see, you're black/Hispanic/native American, so you can't do this on your own, we need to pass a law that will guarantee you a position at work or in school"?
One of the proponets of Affirmative Action said, "You see affirmative action guarantees that black people will get into the school, as they traditionally have lower test scores than others that apply. Not only will fewer get in, but fewer will apply thinking they are unwelcome!"
If you won't apply to a school because there's no law guaranteeing you a spot in a school, then you have a serious issue. And if groups of people have lower test scores, you are not fixing that problem by giving them a crutch to get in to school. You need to look at the root of the problem and fix it there. Instead of saying, "You got bad scores, here's a law that will make you get in anyways!" say, "Why are these people getting bad scores in Middle and High Schools? Are the teachers of poor quality, or the schools, or the home environment? Let us fix it there!"
Not only does affirmative action promote the views of inequality in minorities, but it also belittles people who do make the grade/interview to get a job. How is it, in a country of freedom and equality that someone who is more qualified loses a job to someone who is less qualified because they didn't meet their quota? Not only does that hurt the person who lost the job, but it hurts the company for paying the same wages to a less qualified employee who is (very likely) unable to fully perform their job functions, and it also hurts the person who got a job just because they were black/native American/Hispanic. How can you be proud of yourself by not getting a job on your own merits?
I believe that if a company begins only hiring white people, and minorities that are perfectly well qualified are turned down, it will be a problem that fixes itself. When companies are thought to be discriminatory in such a fashion, they lose business and support from almost everyone. When Al Sharpton says that Cracker Barrel is racist, people will stop going there and it will hurt their business. And if they are fine with that growing isolation, it is their own fault and their own loss. Why would you want to work for a company like that anyways?
Now, saying all that I believe that Affirmative Action was needed when it was passed. We had just come out of the civil rights movement, and there was a need to force people to get in line. But that time has passed. Racism then was publicly acceptable, these days it will only bring you public condemnation.
The hypocrisy of racism bothers me extremely, to no end. I don't understand why as a white male I am now the enemy of my country. I am not a "White Power" "KKK Is the WAY!" kind of person, it makes me want to vomit. But I don't understand why it is ok for there to be an all black school, or scholarship that is only applicable to black people, but then if you flip the coin and have a school where only white people are allowed, or a White Only scholarship you are immediately trampled on.
Equality should not have an Asterisk above it with a foot note saying, "Equality only applicable in certain situations and conditions, certain terms may apply." Equality is just that, equality. Fairness and evenness, I will never hate someone for their skin or cultural background.
I will however judge you on your actions and your ideas, and if those include hurting me or my family, my country, or my friends, I will hate you equally no matter who you are. And if you are a friend, you are a friend, not my middle eastern, black, or native American friend, just my friend.
Affirmative Action is racist, and we will never be able to get past racism with it in effect. In itself it promotes the stereotype of inequality due to your skin color. What is more racist than saying, "Oh well, see, you're black/Hispanic/native American, so you can't do this on your own, we need to pass a law that will guarantee you a position at work or in school"?
One of the proponets of Affirmative Action said, "You see affirmative action guarantees that black people will get into the school, as they traditionally have lower test scores than others that apply. Not only will fewer get in, but fewer will apply thinking they are unwelcome!"
If you won't apply to a school because there's no law guaranteeing you a spot in a school, then you have a serious issue. And if groups of people have lower test scores, you are not fixing that problem by giving them a crutch to get in to school. You need to look at the root of the problem and fix it there. Instead of saying, "You got bad scores, here's a law that will make you get in anyways!" say, "Why are these people getting bad scores in Middle and High Schools? Are the teachers of poor quality, or the schools, or the home environment? Let us fix it there!"
Not only does affirmative action promote the views of inequality in minorities, but it also belittles people who do make the grade/interview to get a job. How is it, in a country of freedom and equality that someone who is more qualified loses a job to someone who is less qualified because they didn't meet their quota? Not only does that hurt the person who lost the job, but it hurts the company for paying the same wages to a less qualified employee who is (very likely) unable to fully perform their job functions, and it also hurts the person who got a job just because they were black/native American/Hispanic. How can you be proud of yourself by not getting a job on your own merits?
I believe that if a company begins only hiring white people, and minorities that are perfectly well qualified are turned down, it will be a problem that fixes itself. When companies are thought to be discriminatory in such a fashion, they lose business and support from almost everyone. When Al Sharpton says that Cracker Barrel is racist, people will stop going there and it will hurt their business. And if they are fine with that growing isolation, it is their own fault and their own loss. Why would you want to work for a company like that anyways?
Now, saying all that I believe that Affirmative Action was needed when it was passed. We had just come out of the civil rights movement, and there was a need to force people to get in line. But that time has passed. Racism then was publicly acceptable, these days it will only bring you public condemnation.
The hypocrisy of racism bothers me extremely, to no end. I don't understand why as a white male I am now the enemy of my country. I am not a "White Power" "KKK Is the WAY!" kind of person, it makes me want to vomit. But I don't understand why it is ok for there to be an all black school, or scholarship that is only applicable to black people, but then if you flip the coin and have a school where only white people are allowed, or a White Only scholarship you are immediately trampled on.
Equality should not have an Asterisk above it with a foot note saying, "Equality only applicable in certain situations and conditions, certain terms may apply." Equality is just that, equality. Fairness and evenness, I will never hate someone for their skin or cultural background.
I will however judge you on your actions and your ideas, and if those include hurting me or my family, my country, or my friends, I will hate you equally no matter who you are. And if you are a friend, you are a friend, not my middle eastern, black, or native American friend, just my friend.
1.10.2007
Surprise Surprise!
Rivoted by CNN, I couldn't believe my ears. President Bush uttered words that I never thought to hear from him. Not, "We're sending more troops to Iraq" or "The real enemy is Iran"...
Just in case you haven't seen it, he said, "As far as the mistakes that we have made, that responsibility lays on me." Throughout four years of war, not once has President Bush claimed responsibility for the mistakes made over there.
Throughout the rest of the speech, it was pretty nondescript. Most everything that he said had already been leaked and reported to the media. It was the aftermath that made me sad. Immediately after the speech, within 2 minutes there was the official democratic response. It wasn't a off the cuff response, but a prepared speech delivered at a podium. Does it not look bad to anyone else to have prepared a speech in response to a speech that you just heard, but since you are already so vehemently opposed to the president, you can have it made before you even listen to what he says?
I think that shows very little couth on the part of the democrats. Honestly, the plan seems in theory that it will work. But as I said earlier, it depends heavily on how free a hand we ive our troops, and whether or not Maliki follows through with his end of the program. Plans often seem like they are going to work.
It's sad that politicians on both sides always talk about bipartisanship to sound like they care, but in all reality they don't. Oh well, give me 20 years.
Just in case you haven't seen it, he said, "As far as the mistakes that we have made, that responsibility lays on me." Throughout four years of war, not once has President Bush claimed responsibility for the mistakes made over there.
Throughout the rest of the speech, it was pretty nondescript. Most everything that he said had already been leaked and reported to the media. It was the aftermath that made me sad. Immediately after the speech, within 2 minutes there was the official democratic response. It wasn't a off the cuff response, but a prepared speech delivered at a podium. Does it not look bad to anyone else to have prepared a speech in response to a speech that you just heard, but since you are already so vehemently opposed to the president, you can have it made before you even listen to what he says?
I think that shows very little couth on the part of the democrats. Honestly, the plan seems in theory that it will work. But as I said earlier, it depends heavily on how free a hand we ive our troops, and whether or not Maliki follows through with his end of the program. Plans often seem like they are going to work.
It's sad that politicians on both sides always talk about bipartisanship to sound like they care, but in all reality they don't. Oh well, give me 20 years.
Hope?
Bush will release his new Iraq strategy tonight. Apparently he's been reading my blog, either that or he got the message that I left for him with the White House comment line.
The plan is to send a little more than 20,000 more troops to Iraq, with the vast majority of them going straight into Baghdad, with the remainder being filtered into Al Anbar province, the so called "Sunni Triangle". The big news, and what may be the biggest help of it all is a promise in a change to the rules of engagement for our men and women over there.
The new rules will not play into the bitter infighting and politics of the Iraqi government, and will show no prejudice over any militia regardless of their political and religious ties. Hopefully this will give us a chance to finally deal with Muqtada's militias in the manner that they deserve.
I hope that 20,000 troops will be enough. I stated before that we needed more troops, but at this point it might be too late to send a significant amount into the country, and the most feasible option would be to send them into Baghdad only. So we will see if anything I said was right. This is supposed to also be coupled with an influx of Iraqi troops from other parts of the country, so there should be a major presence on the streets of Baghdad.
It is yet to be seen where these troops will come from, hopefully not all of them will come in from the Shi'a dominated south. Hopefully what Bush has promised about the rules of engagement is not only true, but will be upheld by Maliki, who seems to be in al-Sadr's back pocket. If we secured Baghdad, where most of the violence comes from, we could scale back our presence there and allow more Iraqi control, leaving our troops to deal with the insurgency still rocking the area west of Baghdad.
Which brings up an interesting thought to me, and one that I have no answer for. Why is it that that the armed groups are labelled differently depending on where they come from? Why is it the Sunni Insurgency, and the Shi'a Militia? That boggles my mind, and seems to give a certain amount of legitimacy to the Shi'a movement. Militia doesn't sound as anti-establishment as insurgency.
By definition, and Insurgency works to overthrow a government, while a Militia is "a group of civilians who drill regularly and can be called up in an emergency". But is it not the Shi'a militias very aim to institute a government based on the Irani model of theocracy and Shari'ah, thereby overthrowing their government? They are both insurgencies. The Shi'a do the same horrible things that the Sunna do; assassinations, death squads, forcing people out of neighborhoods, IED's, killing Iraqi and American Soldiers. They are not a peacekeeping force, and they are not protecting civilians. They are protecting Shi'a, and Muqtada's interests.
The plan is to send a little more than 20,000 more troops to Iraq, with the vast majority of them going straight into Baghdad, with the remainder being filtered into Al Anbar province, the so called "Sunni Triangle". The big news, and what may be the biggest help of it all is a promise in a change to the rules of engagement for our men and women over there.
The new rules will not play into the bitter infighting and politics of the Iraqi government, and will show no prejudice over any militia regardless of their political and religious ties. Hopefully this will give us a chance to finally deal with Muqtada's militias in the manner that they deserve.
I hope that 20,000 troops will be enough. I stated before that we needed more troops, but at this point it might be too late to send a significant amount into the country, and the most feasible option would be to send them into Baghdad only. So we will see if anything I said was right. This is supposed to also be coupled with an influx of Iraqi troops from other parts of the country, so there should be a major presence on the streets of Baghdad.
It is yet to be seen where these troops will come from, hopefully not all of them will come in from the Shi'a dominated south. Hopefully what Bush has promised about the rules of engagement is not only true, but will be upheld by Maliki, who seems to be in al-Sadr's back pocket. If we secured Baghdad, where most of the violence comes from, we could scale back our presence there and allow more Iraqi control, leaving our troops to deal with the insurgency still rocking the area west of Baghdad.
Which brings up an interesting thought to me, and one that I have no answer for. Why is it that that the armed groups are labelled differently depending on where they come from? Why is it the Sunni Insurgency, and the Shi'a Militia? That boggles my mind, and seems to give a certain amount of legitimacy to the Shi'a movement. Militia doesn't sound as anti-establishment as insurgency.
By definition, and Insurgency works to overthrow a government, while a Militia is "a group of civilians who drill regularly and can be called up in an emergency". But is it not the Shi'a militias very aim to institute a government based on the Irani model of theocracy and Shari'ah, thereby overthrowing their government? They are both insurgencies. The Shi'a do the same horrible things that the Sunna do; assassinations, death squads, forcing people out of neighborhoods, IED's, killing Iraqi and American Soldiers. They are not a peacekeeping force, and they are not protecting civilians. They are protecting Shi'a, and Muqtada's interests.
1.05.2007
Airports
Due to the nature of my job, I find that a good part of my time is spent in Airports and Airplanes. Airports are amazing to me, because it is so rare to find a place that is simultaneously filled with so many emotions at once.
The joy of someone returning, the sadness of someone's parting. The anxiety and nervousness of first time fliers. The anger at those who have missed a flight, or lost luggage. It's an emotional cocktail.
The people you meet in airports will never meet you again (most likely) and you rarely even learn the names of those you talk to for 4 hours from Atlanta to Sacramento.
I can't really think of too many other places that are like that. Possibly a hospital, since babies are born there. I don't know, just a thought since I didn't have a lot of time to write today.
The joy of someone returning, the sadness of someone's parting. The anxiety and nervousness of first time fliers. The anger at those who have missed a flight, or lost luggage. It's an emotional cocktail.
The people you meet in airports will never meet you again (most likely) and you rarely even learn the names of those you talk to for 4 hours from Atlanta to Sacramento.
I can't really think of too many other places that are like that. Possibly a hospital, since babies are born there. I don't know, just a thought since I didn't have a lot of time to write today.
1.03.2007
I'm Finally Giving Up
Unless you've been living under a rock these days, you know that they executed Saddam Hussein a few days ago, and unless that rock wasn't a wi-fi spot either, you know that they did it on the first day of the Muslim religious holiday of Eid al-adha.
Now, as if that isn't an insult enough to the 40% of Sunna Muslims in Iraq, it gets better. I know, Saddam was an evil man and deserved a fate worse than death. However, would waiting 5 or 6 days really hurt anything, just so that you could make sure that it wasn't done during a day that would aggravate an already aggravated situation? Is it that important to thumb your nose at the Sunna and show them that the Shi'a are in power now?
I'm finally just going to give up. I don't mean this as a big I told you so, since no one who makes those kinds of decisions reads this. We went on and kept making mistakes in Iraq, and now the Iraqi government is just powerful enough to keep us from changing it, but not powerful enough to let us leave. We are the strong arms of a Shi'a revival that will bring a Irani-esque theocracy in to power in Iraq.
The most significant part of Saddam's execution, other than the lack of professional dignity, was what the onlooker's chanted afterwards. It was bigger than the fact that they executed him in the same method and room that he executed countless innocents. Bigger than the fact that they executed him on a religious holiday where traditionally no executions take place. Bigger than the fact that they proved themselves no better than Saddam.
"Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!"
Are you kidding me? The man who oppressed your nation for a quarter century is finally dead, and that's what you decide to say? Not, Allahu Ackbar or Il'hambdu Allah, praising God for their liberation from a monster. Not, "Bless Democracy, for bringing him to Justice". But the name of an upstart cleric who isn't considered to be an Islamic Scholar, who wasn't even a big enough pain for us to have dealt with when we were the authority there.
Is this your plan for a unity government Maliki? Is this how you unite Iraqis with a national identity? Is this what you want the world to see when they think of the Iraqi government? If so, how can any country respect you? Or is your plan at "national unity" a lesson from Mein Kampf, to kill all Sunna and oppress them in revenge for Saddam's rule, and therefore only have Shi'a who are in Iraq and united behind you?
It is a shame. The leadership in Iraq is acting like a 12 year old kid when his parents are out of the house. Who's really in power there, Maliki, or Muqtada? Muqtada only pulls Maliki out of his back pocket when he wants to get something done. If he can't get it done that way, then he just sends his death squads in to murder their way through. If that doesn't work, they just inform US troops of "Sunni death squads" and a few minutes later we drop a 500 lb. bomb on a house.
I am all for US troops stabilizing and helping nurture Iraq's democracy. I however, can not stand the fact that our troops are being used in such a way that makes them a tool for Maliki and Muqtada, while Muqtada kills them from the shadows. They need the ability and the backing from Washington to be neutral, and deal with all threats equally, up to and including Maliki's abuse of power and child like antics. Things are slowly reaching the point of no return in Iraq, and if we don't act fast, Iran is going to get a lot bigger.
Now, as if that isn't an insult enough to the 40% of Sunna Muslims in Iraq, it gets better. I know, Saddam was an evil man and deserved a fate worse than death. However, would waiting 5 or 6 days really hurt anything, just so that you could make sure that it wasn't done during a day that would aggravate an already aggravated situation? Is it that important to thumb your nose at the Sunna and show them that the Shi'a are in power now?
I'm finally just going to give up. I don't mean this as a big I told you so, since no one who makes those kinds of decisions reads this. We went on and kept making mistakes in Iraq, and now the Iraqi government is just powerful enough to keep us from changing it, but not powerful enough to let us leave. We are the strong arms of a Shi'a revival that will bring a Irani-esque theocracy in to power in Iraq.
The most significant part of Saddam's execution, other than the lack of professional dignity, was what the onlooker's chanted afterwards. It was bigger than the fact that they executed him in the same method and room that he executed countless innocents. Bigger than the fact that they executed him on a religious holiday where traditionally no executions take place. Bigger than the fact that they proved themselves no better than Saddam.
"Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!"
Are you kidding me? The man who oppressed your nation for a quarter century is finally dead, and that's what you decide to say? Not, Allahu Ackbar or Il'hambdu Allah, praising God for their liberation from a monster. Not, "Bless Democracy, for bringing him to Justice". But the name of an upstart cleric who isn't considered to be an Islamic Scholar, who wasn't even a big enough pain for us to have dealt with when we were the authority there.
Is this your plan for a unity government Maliki? Is this how you unite Iraqis with a national identity? Is this what you want the world to see when they think of the Iraqi government? If so, how can any country respect you? Or is your plan at "national unity" a lesson from Mein Kampf, to kill all Sunna and oppress them in revenge for Saddam's rule, and therefore only have Shi'a who are in Iraq and united behind you?
It is a shame. The leadership in Iraq is acting like a 12 year old kid when his parents are out of the house. Who's really in power there, Maliki, or Muqtada? Muqtada only pulls Maliki out of his back pocket when he wants to get something done. If he can't get it done that way, then he just sends his death squads in to murder their way through. If that doesn't work, they just inform US troops of "Sunni death squads" and a few minutes later we drop a 500 lb. bomb on a house.
I am all for US troops stabilizing and helping nurture Iraq's democracy. I however, can not stand the fact that our troops are being used in such a way that makes them a tool for Maliki and Muqtada, while Muqtada kills them from the shadows. They need the ability and the backing from Washington to be neutral, and deal with all threats equally, up to and including Maliki's abuse of power and child like antics. Things are slowly reaching the point of no return in Iraq, and if we don't act fast, Iran is going to get a lot bigger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
