Does Peace Feel Lucky...Well, Does It?

As the death toll for American soldiers passes 100 for this month, there is word from Iraqi as well as U.S. officials that sectarian loyalties have been interfering with military operations within Iraq. It is a scandal reminiscent of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys for their lack of cooperation in republican party loyalties. This administration seems to be rubbing off a little too much on Maliki's government in Iraq.

"Although some of the officers appear to have been fired for legitimate reasons, such as poor performance or corruption, several were considered to be among the better Iraqi officers in the field. The dismissals have angered U.S. and Iraqi leaders who say the Shiite-led government is sabotaging the military to achieve sectarian goals," said Joshua Partlow of the Washington Post.

Even American Colonel Ehrich Rose, the chief of the Military Transition Team who has trained multiple foreign armies including Iraq's was appalled by the sectarian loyalties of some of the Iraqi officers. "The Iraqi army, as far as capability goes, I'd stack them up against just about any Latin American army I've dealt with. However, the politicization of their officer corps is the worst I've ever seen," he said.

This sectarian loyalty is not much different than the party loyalty President Bush has demanded since taking office in 2000. I suppose the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Meanwhile, I have read in the newspaper a continuous flow of editorials about how the Democrats want the U.S. to lose in Iraq or how the Democrats will fail America if we pull out now. Okay, I've heard enough of this overly simplistic crap for too long. If we are going to lose in Iraq by pulling out, then how can we win in Iraq? I have only heard the one negative side of the argument on how we will lose. Well, if the Republicans are so smart, then how are we going to win? Are we going to remain in the country until every Iraqi citizen raises an American flag and sings our National Anthem? Are we going to wait until the insurgents get tired of fighting and decide to put down their guns, kiss and make up? Or are we waiting for a conventional peace treaty from some unconventional enemy lurking in the shadows of Baghdad? I have listened to people say how we can "lose" this war but since the beginning no one has had half a clue on how to "win" it. At least the Democrats are trying to support the troops by bringing them home so that they can stop being killed or maimed in a country we have no reason being in nor any plan for what to do tomorrow.

Republicans, and now apparently Bush's brain child--the Iraqi government, has put peace up against the wall until their blood-thirst is satisfied. President-pretender Bush and Prime-example-of-what-not-to-do Minister Maliki feel that not until all opposition is eliminated will there be peace and consensus among the people. Saddam's iron fist did command stability even though it harbored mounting tensions between the two sects. And that is the direction both of these governments are headed toward--the iron fist. But that is no way to support a democracy and that is no way to help a people.

Bush: CEO Of America

It is getting increasingly difficult to take our government seriously amidst the constant barrage of scandals and leaks but one thing remains consistent--American government never turns its back on the green.

Inspectors recently reviewed multiple facilities throughout Iraq to determine if the buildings were operating at their full capacity. At a recruiting center, sewage was backed up because the holding tanks were on the other side of a concrete barrier wall. At a maternity and pediatric hospital more sewage backups were found. And at one police station razor wire was held down by sand bags and other signs of poor work by contractors was found. A $79,000 generator wasn't being used because no one knew how to use it. And with further information coming to light about poor contracting work, I turn my head toward Halliburton, the single winner in a noncompetitive bid for contracting in Iraq by the U.S. government. Halliburton is known for mismanagement of their operations in Iraq, citing its most well-known: "We now know Halliburton paid $25,000 per month per truck to haul fuel into Iraq and got paid even when those trucks sat idle in Kuwait [due to high-risk security issues]," said a director of the Postconflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Fredrick D. Burton, "For this cost you probably could have flown the fuel in."

Another scandal was in September of 2005 when members of Congress found out that Halliburton was continually feeding spoiled food and contaminated water from the Euphrates River to our troops in Iraq as testified by former KBR (Halliburton subsidiary) employees Rory Mayberry, Ben Carter and Ken May.

And in the monopoly Halliburton holds over contracts in Iraq, it was discovered in October of 2006 by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) that Halliburton was hiding contract details from the public. SIGIR said Halliburton, "marks almost all of the information it provides to the government as...proprietary data." This data marked "proprietary" allows the military to keep this information from the public. The only problem is that that is not allowed to be done after the bidding for contracts is over. As a result of Halliburton gaining and holding onto the only contract for Iraq there have been about $108 million in overcharges. And to drill in the fact that war equals money, Halliburton contracts between 2000 and 2005 increased by over 600 percent.

And who is in charge of Halliburton? Currently, David J. Lesar is the CEO of the company after taking over the reins from none other than Dick Cheney, our current vice president. As found on the Halliburton Watch website, there are many interesting parallels between what Vice President Cheney said and what he did. "We [Halliburton] have not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that," said Cheney. Between 1997 and 2000, while Cheney was still head of Halliburton, his company sold over $73 million in "oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq," as found out by Halliburton Watch.

"And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years," said Cheney.

Halliburton Watch reported that, "As vice president, Cheney continues to receive a salary of over $150,000 each year from Halliburton while maintaining 433,333 shares of unexcersised stock options in the company."

While many republicans may consider Halliburton Watch merely a Cheney-bashing website, I stress that the facts speak loudest and should not be overlooked. For those who claim that this war has nothing to do with oil, consider that Halliburton's own description of itself is, "Halliburton adds value through the entire lifecycle of oil and gas reservoirs, starting with exploration and development, moving through production, operations, maintenance, conversion and refining, to infrastructure and abandonment."

Oil has been the backbone of this entire war and if the American people cannot see the parallels between oil profits and the Bush Administration by now then there is no hope.

Either Step Up Or Sit Down: Enough Name Calling

As a result of the debates I have been having with various people on the war in Iraq, I feel that it is important to mention that I do understand there are reasons for and against this issue. I have heard many emotional arguments for the war in Iraq filled with passion and patriotism. But I have also heard many arguments against the war filled with the same passion and patriotism. From all of the information that I have gathered--all of the facts, data, statistics and witness accounts--I have come to the conclusion that this war is unjust and wrong. All the while, I accept other people's opinions that differ from mine and take as much into consideration as possible. There have been many individuals who have been insulting and disrespectful for lack of a better argument and it is a shame that so many people cannot be civil in their debates. We are all Americans and we all love this country. It hurts me to see so many Americans fighting each other over this war when we are all on the same side. But in the end, I will stand by my beliefs and defend them to my last breath. Because while my views may change over time in light of a constant flow of new information, my unwavering stance by them will not. I refuse to be threatened or intimidated into believing that we should be in Iraq. And it sounds like many people are frightened by this administration's scare tactics that compel people to believe that if we do not have total victory in Iraq, Osama will be hiding under our beds in those quiet suburban slices of Americana. Throughout all of my debates with people, I have never heard any clear justification for the war in Iraq. I have heard a lot of slander about the treason of Democrats. I have heard a lot about al-Qaeda taking over the world starting with Iraq. I have even heard that Iraqis wanted to hurt American citizens long before the war even took place. But I am yet to hear a single fact emerge from the pile of war-hawk crap that truly justifies our presence in Iraq from the beginning. If you've got one, let me hear it. Because what it all comes down to in the end is that anyone can insult someone else for their beliefs, but no one can justify this war in Iraq.

Burqa Of Iraq: The Truth Concealed

The war in Iraq has become shrouded beneath a veil of lies and corruption since the beginning and while the cost of human life is clear, the reason for us being there is not. In the war on terror, which includes Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. was once again reminded about that little country they left behind. Taliban fighters seized control of a province in eastern Afghanistan after killing the district mayor and four policemen including the police chief. Women were forced to don their burqas (Muslim garment to cover women's bodies) in fear of strict Taliban rule. The town was later retaken by Afghan troops but this sort of temporary take-over by the Taliban is not uncommon throughout Afghanistan. While our forces are concentrated heavily in Iraq, we have forgotten that the war on terror started in Afghanistan. We left the country just as they were starting to get onto their own two feet leaving them with the means for a Taliban revival as seen here. Also, because we have poorly chosen to invade Iraq, al-Qaeda has received less pressure from U.S. forces in Afghanistan, found more recruits in Iraq and have all around benefited from the war in Iraq as they have taken the offensive against U.S. troops on the ground. Why then, are we in Iraq?
Well, if you read my last article, "George Puts The Oil Back In Toil" you would see my views on how oil is the prime factor here. But one thing is for sure, it wasn't weapons of mass destruction like the Bush Administration had claimed. And to further back that up, former CIA Director George Tenet wrote in his new book, "At the Center of the Storm" that the meeting he attended with the president was to simply find out what information could be used publicly to get Americans behind the coming war.
Tenet said, "I'll never believe that what happened that day informed the president's view or belief of the legitimacy or the timing of the war. Never!"
Tenet felt that there was overwhelming pressure on him prior to the meeting to push the country into war. And most of this pressure came from who else but Beelzebub himself, Vice President Dick Cheney. The White House has dismissed these criticisms brought on by Tenet but in the end, it is just one more nail in the coffin for George W. Bush's war in Iraq.
I would imagine that if the real reason we went to war was because we honestly felt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to national security, then Bush would have made an apology to the American people when the WMDs were found to be nonexistent. After all, it was a noble enough cause that could have been the mistake of anyone lower in the chain of command. But the president's insistence that the war is still justifiable even after the prime reason for going to war was proven to be false tells me that WMDs were just a convenient cover over his hidden agendas.
The real victims here are the Iraqis who have suffered under Saddam's regime and must now suffer from the mediocre planning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And while we continue to occupy the country in the middle of their civil war, we only stall the peace process and make needless victims of our troops. This war has seen some ugly atrocities but none as despicable as the lies told by the Bush Administration that led to such unnecessary death.

George Puts The Oil Back In Toil

I am becoming increasingly fatigued by this war in Iraq. In a recent poll by NBC News and Wall Street Journal it was found that 56% of Americans polled agree with the Democrats in Congress about placing a deadline on the bill and only 37% of Americans sided with Bush. And in the same poll 55% of Americans said that they do not believe that victory is possible in Iraq and only 37% said there was still a chance. While the president continues to ignore the American people, construction of a wall in the Sunni populated Baghdad neighborhood, Azamiyah, was stopped due to overwhelming protests by the residents. When confronted about the situation, Brigadier General Qasim al-Moussawi said, "We expected this reaction by some weak-minded people."
The only weak-minded people I have been listening to are people like Brigadier General al-Moussawi and our president. I would venture a guess that the average height of the war hawk republican in the White House is about three and a half feet tall because they all have their heads up their asses. We need politicians who can set aside their agendas and represent their people. After all, that is what a democracy is for.
Also, I know that I have been saying that oil is the main reason for this war in Iraq and while many people agree that oil has something to do with it, I feel like I haven't really explained the details. So here it goes. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration Iraq holds "the world's second largest proven reserves [of oil]." In December of 2002, there were 2,000 oil wells in Iraq. In December of 2002, there were nearly 1 million oil wells in...where else...Bush Country (Texas). Interestingly, the Bush family including our president, are good friends with the Saudi royal family. Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil producing nation. I don't want to come off as a conspiracy buff for lack of evidence but the coincidences here are clearly suspect. War in oil-rich regions raise the price of oil across the board. No doubt, the Saudis have made a lot of money from the risen prices.
On a side note, there is the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and yet we have invaded two Middle Eastern countries not Saudi Arabia; one of which really had nothing to do with al-Qaeda until we invaded--Iraq. It is strange that we are friends with the nation that bred the terrorists but enemies to adjacent nations in the war on terror. But I am sure that George W. Bush, who was involved in the Texas oil industry prior to becoming president, has good reasons to remain close friends to the largest producer of oil in the world despite that nation's direct link to al-Qaeda. And I am sure it has nothing to do with oil.
And while Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, it is barely a contender for exports because of the poor condition of the production and refinement systems in the country. And where did our troops head for first once touching ground in Iraq? The oil fields. Securing the oil is clearly an extremely valuable factor that was taken into consideration for the war plan far much more seriously than an exit strategy. At this point, we are merely trying to protect our oil interests so that Iran cannot have any influence in Iraq's economy.
And in February, the Iraqi Cabinet met and passed a draft law backed by the U.S. to place the nation's oil fields under control of the central government. The Kurds in the north have objected to this saying that it is unconstitutional and unfair. They fear that the revenue from the oil will not be distributed fairly citing that the Iraqi government is already behind in payments for various endeavors. Also, the Kurds, who hold the northern oil fields in the country, do not want to be neglected nor abused as was such during Saddam's regime. So much for capitalism. It seems that if the central government controls the oil reserves, the U.S., which still has an overwhelming presence in Iraq, can have a much more influential say in how that oil is used.
While I do not feel that oil was the only reason we went to war with Iraq, due to a lack of WMDs, solid links to al-Qaeda as a strong ally to Saddam and other weak or downright false arguments, oil seems to be one of the strongest motivators for this war. Perhaps George W. should look into creating an engine that runs on human blood. Based on his lack of consideration for human life it would probably be cheaper for him to drive around his ranch that way.

Building A Wall With Nonbinding Mortar

After forty-six people were killed throughout Iraq today, the day closes on an equally somber note: the proposed solution. The wall that the U.S. military is building around Azamiyah is continuing to be built despite orders from the Prime Minister to halt construction. The wall is being built to protect the Sunni minority in a Baghdad neighborhood but protests by hundreds of citizens showed that the residents felt like they were being walled in and not that the terrorists were being walled out. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said that the purpose of the wall was “to try and identify where the fault lines are and where avenues of attack lie and set up the barriers literally to prevent those attacks.”

I don't know too much about suicide bombers but I am pretty sure that they are in no way related to earthquakes. Violence due to suicide bombing doesn't have "fault lines". You cannot simply build walls to keep out the suicide bombers. They are mobile people who have penetrated even the Green Zone within Baghdad. All a wall will do is represent a target of U.S. occupation to be blown up. Building a wall to thwart suicide bombers from attacking civilians is like building a dam out of coffee filters.

Also, I understand that in politics there is a certain gift from...well, somewhere...called a nonbinding resolution. The only question I have is: what is that term doing in a bill that can not only fund our troops abroad but bring them back home thus ending our occupation in a country which despises our presence in the middle of their civil war. By having the timetable for troop withdrawal as a goal and not a deadline, Bush could sign the bill into law and then ignore the pullout date. The beauty of a nonbinding resolution is that in addition to being an oxymoron, it is a way of achieving political success without really accomplishing anything. The republicans get to have their war and the democrats can say they tried to end it. The only people suffering are our soldiers and the Iraqi civilians unable to move forward.

With politics getting in the way of diplomacy, everyone is worried about their images and the legacies they will leave behind. This war is about politics and power and if you believe anything else, you have been misled along the way by the propaganda forged by the politicians. The only way real progress is going to come about if politicians do the unthinkable and put aside their own agendas and focus on the people. Nonbinding resolutions and 3-mile long walls are merely illusions in the political theater meant to misdirect the public while the real trick is played on us. The sad truth: in a democracy who is to be blamed for those ignoring the will of the people but the people themselves who ignore their responsibilities to that democracy.

Iraq's Reality: Viewer Discretion Advised

photo: www.prisonplanet.com/
Quote from Associated Press on 4/22/07 obtained by msn.com

"Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, on a tour abroad to ask the mostly Sunni-led governments of the Arab world to help his struggling government stop the violence in Iraq, said he told Egypt’s president that Iraq’s reality is 'not a civil or sectarian war.'"

Then what is it--a bicycle ride through the park? I don't think so. Only when we can admit that there is a problem can we solve it. And while this image is extremely graphic, this is what war looks like. Perhaps if people realized how real war truly was, they would be less likely to start them.

The Grass Grows Greener Where People Water It

The new environment that scientists are looking to discover life in is Iraq--political scientists, that is. While the president offers the job of War Czar to probably anyone with self-esteem low enough to handle being Bush's new Iraq scapegoat, the rest of the country is thinking what all of a sudden made the president think that his current strategy wasn't working? Could it have been the climbing death toll of American soldiers, the even higher death toll of Iraqi civilians, the increase in suicide bombings in Iraq, the fact that none of his previous strategies have worked or that even his top generals whom he relies on in Iraq are even losing optimism over the war? Either way, the job of War Czar has been turned down by four U.S. generals so far and if that tells you anything it's that the president's new strategy is just a little short of brilliant.
Even the U.S. top commander in Iraq, General David H. Petraeus takes solace in even the slightest signs of normality in Baghdad. While flying in his helicopter over a Baghdad neighborhood, Patraeus was filled with glee when he saw a man taking care of a soccer field. "He's actually watering the grass!"
I find it incredibly sad when a man watering grass is a sign of progress. Meanwhile, suicide bombs killed 13 people today at an Iraqi police station. One survivor had this to say: "All our belongings and money were smashed and are gone. What kind of life is this? Where is the government? There are no jobs, and things are very bad. Is this fair?”
The situation in Iraq has not improved and the top generals on the ground wonder if a troop surge would even work. While they all agree that it could bring down the sectarian violence somewhat in Baghdad, signs of increased violence have risen elsewhere throughout the country. Even our own top soldiers in the military are doubting whether or not their presence in Iraq is helping. And now, once the Bush Administration has exhausted every other means of bringing about peace through war are they beginning to see that diplomacy is how stability in the region will be reached. But I wonder if even now, Bush will do as he has done in the past and ignore all advisers with differing views than his while he blunders through the war led by false hopes of absolute victory. His overly simplistic view on this war and his incapacity to understand its repercussions in the global theater has cost tens of thousands of people their lives and lost this government its credibility to both foreign nations as well as his own people. When the peace returns to Iraq, so will the trust to the U.S.

The New Symbol Of Oppression

In the community of Azamiyah in Baghdad, the U.S. military has begun implementing their new strategy to protect the minority Sunnis in that area: building a three-mile wall around it. That's right. The Bush Administration seems to think that building a wall will solve anything. I suggest you read my other article published sometime earlier called, "Masonry Of The Mind". I can't even think of where to begin on how stupid of an idea this is. If anything it will symbolize U.S. occupation and authority thus becoming yet another target of bombings.
In addition, the wall has begun construction and much to the surprise of the neighbors being walled in. Without even asking the residents how they feel about the dramatic new plan, the U.S. military decided that it had the authority to do whatever it wanted and started building anyway. Dawood al-Azami, head of the council in Azamiyah did say that the military asked him to sign a document allowing the construction of the wall but according to him, “I told the soldiers that I would not sign it unless I could talk to residents first. We told residents at Friday prayers, but our local council hasn’t signed onto the project yet, and construction is already under way.”
Many Sunnis in the neighborhood see this wall as a prison and even further separates their support from the U.S. military. If they didn't feel like we were enough of an occupation force in their country, they sure as hell do now. I just wonder if George W. can tell the difference between Iraqis and Mexicans?

Revelation Of A Revolution

A word rarely heard among Americans, except when conversing about the birth of the nation, is revolution. A revolution is the means to a swift change in society as well as government. And while I feel that there is no need to overthrow our form of representative democracy, I do feel that there is a need to make a swift change. Our government has become too comfortable in its way of thinking that they can do whatever they want once elected to power. We, Americans, have become too comfortable in our way of thinking that once they are elected, our government officials can do whatever they want. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it?"

Americans who defend the war in Iraq claim that freedom is not free. And while I argue that this war was never about freedom from the beginning, the price of freedom here in America has been reduced to nearly zilch. We have forgotten that the price of freedom and democracy is not in terms of money or loss of life of our soldiers; the price of having a democracy is the willingness to use it. Because when democracy is no longer used by the people for the people, it will devour itself in the form of tyranny.

From the Patriot Act to the mild voter turnouts across the country, our democratic rights given to us by the Constitution that remain the rock of this nation are slowly being taken away from us because we are too lazy to open our eyes and protest. And if this country continues down this path of idle democracy while politicians quietly edit out the parts of the Constitution they don't like, revolution may be a word used more often in this society. Without participating in a democratic government the people make themselves obsolete and then open to direct abuses. And who will speak for the people once the people have something to say and yet their voices have become numb from lack of use?

We are not at that point yet, but I urge all Americans to get involved in government; if not directly, at least vote and speak out. A protest every now and then is healthy if a democracy is going to survive. And how can we say that we are fighting for democracy in Iraq when we are amateurs ourselves? It won't be until the situation is at its most dire hour when the word "revolution" spills from the people's tongues and dampen their lips like Pavlov's dogs reacting toward freedom from the other side of the cage. With the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq already at 3,311 and climbing, one day Americans will have had enough of the death brought about by this war. Unfortunately, though, the seeds of revolution grow only in well fertilized soil.

Iraq: A Self-Devour

Iraq is a lone fighter, who

blinded by His light,

with his sword

cuts his own wrists while hacking away

at his most potent enemy.

A War Without A Reason

Today, the death toll in Iraq again has peaked in the three digits and so I asked myself what is going on? And as I thought of this three things came to mind. One of them was that this entire war on terror started with our focus on al-Qaeda--a Sunni terrorist organization. And we were doing a good job in Afghanistan. But then, for some unknown reason, Bush decided that Iraq needed to be invaded. So, he made up some bullshit, got the country behind him and went to war. Now our focus has shifted from our original enemies to the new ones we created in Iraq. And as if irony wasn't enough of a bitch, now we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq because since we stretched out our forces and put all of our energy into Saddam, the terrorist organization gained in strength and followed us.
Also, I have realized that we have our military--the strongest and most well-trained in the world--in a country without a war. What the hell are they going to do? There is no war. Armies are trained to fight wars and now that the war is over, they remain in Iraq with nothing more to do than defend themselves from the insurgents who want them to leave.
And one of the biggest problems is that because we have in office a thick-headed authoritarian Billy Bob Hitler, our government has been cursed with the inability to adapt to the changing scenarios in Iraq. Thanks to Bush's tunnel-vision tactics, our military is fighting a war that doesn't exist and we are waiting for a victory that will never come. It would have also been great if this administration had planned for more than a few days when it came to preparing for war.
If I sound a little...I don't know...distraught over the war in Iraq, perhaps it is because it was the brain child of a brainless man who had no concept of action and consequences and even less regard for human life! When are we going to leave? If George is waiting for Judgement Day, it may very well come sooner than later the way he's running things. I can't...no, I refuse to imagine a world that is more screwed up than the one Bush created when he bumbled into the White House. Why don't we give every psychopath with delusions of violence without repercussion a job in U.S. politics? I can't seem to stress how wrong this war is. I apologize if I'm simply ranting on at this point but I need some sort of pressure valve to release my frustrations at this administration and its worthless foreign policies or else I'll blow up. Hey, maybe that's why there's so many people exploding in Iraq?

Blind Man Lead Thyself

It was announced that religious leaders from the Shiite and Sunni sects within Iraq have met with each other and have agreed that they need to band together as one nation in the name of peace. One religious leader, though, who has been very controversial since the beginning of the war has been neglected in the talks for peace--Muqtada al-Sadr. Now, I may seem by now to be an advocate of his but in fact I am an advocate of peace and I do not see why someone with such religious importance as well as political has been left out of the equation. And to prove that this situation in Iraq is not as black and white as most people think, here are some of the facts I learned from picking up a Time Magazine and reading it.
I wonder if our soldiers, some of whom have not even graduated high school and are yet given the responsibility of pulling a trigger, even know the differences between the Shiites and the Sunnis. Other than the historical differences they have certain names that appear in only one of the two sects, they pray in different mosques, they pray in different fashions, depending on a predominantly one-sect region they can have differing accents and also their cars can give away signs. One such sign would be a picture of a holy figure belonging to one of the sects or a license plate from a region with a large Shiite or Sunni population. This can be helpful at security checkpoints.
Also, there is validity to the Shiite grudge that they have been oppressed. The predominantly Sunni Middle East has treated the Shiites as a lower class with what Time said as being, "institutionalized prejudice". And Iraq is right in the middle of some of these grievances. Ali ibn Abi Talib, the person Shiites believed to be the next to follow in the prophet Muhammad's footsteps and later became the fourth Caliph of the Muslim faith was killed in 661 in none other than what is today, Iraq. It is time now for a change to the unequal distribution of power and rights and time for Muslims to come together in Iraq as nothing less than Iraqi citizens.
And even in 1991, after the Gulf War, Shiites attempted to rebel against Saddam but without any backing from outside forces the rebellion was quickly stopped and nearly 300,000 Shiites were killed. Another factor in this current scenario is that Iran is a Shiite nation and coincidentally an enemy of the United States. It is also worth mentioning that though many organizations such as Hezbollah and other terrorist groups may praise those such as the Madhi Army in Iraq, they are two separate people fighting for two separate causes and should not be confused. And in case anyone was wondering, al-Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist group.
When al-Sadr's Mahdi Army of Shiites fought the U.S. early in the war they were celebrated by even the Sunni insurgents. al-Sadr himself was praised as a hero for Iraqis and not just Shiites. But in the end, the current government in Iraq chose to side with the U.S. who helped them gain power and hold onto it. This created a common enemy in al-Sadr. And it is this choosing of U.S. support over the people of Iraq that has fueled the ongoing fighting in violence. This is why six ministers of the Cabinet resigned yesterday who were followers of al-Sadr.
Originally the fighting was between Sunnis and Shiites to fill in the newly formed power vacuum. But because of the U.S.'s poor planning for the war and stubborn leadership in the White House, the common enemy between Iraqis became the U.S. occupation itself. And now the sectarian violence is more between Iraqis and government supporters of U.S. occupation than it is Sunni vs Shiite. And while both sects continue their violent acts against each other throughout Iraq, it is clear that one thing they all agree on is that this is their fight and we are merely getting in the way.
And while those who may suggest that Time Magazine, the source of most of this information, may be a liberal magazine I will not suggest alternative sources for other people. This was a source I decided to use and none of the facts were incorrect though you might disagree with my ideology concerning their nature. For those who wish to learn more about this intricately complex issue, I suggest that you do your own research. Do not listen to people who say that this source is unbiased or that source is right. Only you can make up your own mind and educating yourself is a monumental step in being an individual voice and not just another follower.

Mr. al-Sadr Leaves Baghdad

If I sound like I am repeating myself in these articles at times it is for two reasons: 1) the information being repeated needs to be emphasized and 2) the same stupid shit keeps happening. So today, six ministers of the Iraqi Cabinet who are loyal followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr resigned in protest to the government's refusal to support a pull-out date for the U.S. With tens of thousands of Iraqis marching only a couple of weeks ago in protest to the U.S. occupation and now the resignation of six ministers of the Cabinet, the Iraqi people are getting fed up with us being there. And the majority of Americans recently feel the same way. The U.S. military has become yet another road block in Iraq's progress toward peace.
With the resignation of those six ministers, al-Sadr has shown he still has a firm grip on the Shiite community as a powerful leader. The U.S. has brushed this off suggesting that it will go fairly unnoticed and the government will remain intact. Meanwhile, Iraqis within the government fear that this is a huge setback. As al-Sadr continues to defy the U.S. and Iraqi government for supporting the occupation, he has been slandered more now by these two governments than ever before. The Associated Press wrote that "Forty-two victims of sectarian murders were found in Baghdad the past two days...U.S. and Iraqi officials have blamed much sectarian violence on Shiite death squads associated with the Mahdi Army [of al-Sadr]." But also, "The brazen nature of the targets of the attacks are similar to previous assaults that blamed on al-Qaida fighters..." With so much violence in Iraq, it is difficult to determine who is to be blamed for what.
I hope that al-Sadr is not merely blamed for the violence because he defies the "powers that be". After all, al-Sadr helped Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki get to power and now that he is in that position he has turned his loyalties from his people and toward the U.S. which is helping him keep that power. We should all hope that bias on politics does not promote slanderous propaganda on al-Sadr and that focus aim more toward diplomacy. Though al-Sadr is an enemy of the U.S. occupation he is a pivotal ally in peace within Iraq.

Iraq's Bridges Burning Down

Americans have become detached from the realities of war. Instead of listening to the news or reading the paper, many people have given in to listening to our politicians give their opinions on how the war is going. John McCain has said that there are streets in Baghdad that are safe to walk on. Meanwhile, the citizens of Baghdad have been begging him to tell them where this safe street is because no one seems to be living on it. Our politicians have their own agendas and make the war to be something that it is not. It is a smoke and mirrors trick in a whole show of illusions to influence voters that this party or that has the right stuff to become our next White House administration. The republicans want to convince people that they are succeeding and that Iraq is becoming freer, safer and an all around better place to be since the fall of Saddam. The democrats are making this out to be the war that puts them into the White House. But no one is actually considering that this is a civil war in which people are dying each day because we continue to bicker here in America all the while neglecting those affected most by this war: the Iraqis. This war has shifted its concern from them and onto the soldiers fighting it in an increasing effort to show which American political party cares most about our troops. The prize for the winner--a comfortable seat in the White House.

But we still can't get a bill passed into law. The president has continued to flank himself with family members of war veterans as his new sheep's clothing and has made repeated statements that he wishes to discuss the differences between republicans and democrats but at the same time is unflinchingly stubborn in his stance on the bill. And the democrats continue to stand their ground, barely, demanding that the troops come home. The only difference between these two stubbornly defiant stances is that Congress is representing the majority of Americans (democracy) while the president is representing his own image invested heavily in this war (tyranny). But if diplomacy can't even work here in America how the hell is it going to work in Iraq which has come to depend on us for its very survival?

And as this stalemate rages on in Washington, vice president and part-time grim reaper Dick Cheney said in a recent interview about the democrats, "They will not leave the troops in the field without the resources they need." He said this after making a prediction that soon the democrats in Congress will give in and accept the president's terms. Bull S*&t! This is more word spinning on the vice president's part. By cutting off the funding for the war, the troops will not be left in Iraq with stones and sticks to defend themselves. If the funding is stopped, then the war itself ends and the troops come back home. And if anyone should be blamed for this delay in funding it is President Bush for remaining stubborn on this issue and not even considering other options in his failed war.

It is not Congress's job to get involved in war but when the war is begun and fought with no exit strategy in sight, someone needs to pull our soldiers from the wreckage this war has become. And so far, the only people willing to put an end to this bloodshed are the democrats in Congress. Bush burned his bridges early in the war so that there was no turning back without victory. But now that the victory he imagined turns out to be exactly that--imagined--we need to start constructing a way out.

A Ranting In Response

Today's post is simply a let-out of some built up pressure created when I read an editorial published in Monday's Florida Today titled, "Standing with Bush in funding battle". Our author makes the first point that the democrats' strategy in Congress is "gutless". He cites that they won't vote on a bill to cease funding of the war in Iraq but instead want to ride this out until the veto, leaving Bush to "hang in the wind". This is crap to begin with. This government is far too bureaucratic for two bills on the same issue to be floating around at the same time.
Also, our author makes the point that, "If he [Bush] uses money to fight the war that is not approved, they impeach him." As noble as this person is making Bush appear to be, I question where our president is going to cough up over $100 billion to fund this war. Face the facts, whether he likes it or not, our president needs Congress to fund the war.
Another point our budding White House aid came up with was that a time table for troop withdrawal is a war-tactic and because it is not within Congress's power to "fight a war" the Supreme Court would rule in the president's favor that such a bill is unconstitutional. A time table is not a war tactic! It is within Congress's power to decide how the government will spend its money and if they say they want to stop the funding at this point, then obviously the troops would need to come home. Leaving the funding of the war in the president's hands is like handing someone else's credit card to your spoiled teenage girl who wants to go on a shopping spree. After all, it is the money of the American people.
And the way our author summed up his editorial was, "The Democrats will not budge, and I hope Bush stands firm." Well, I hope this person is a big fan of making no progress then. Congress has repeatedly asked the president to negotiate with them on this bill (after all, they're not terrorists). Bush has stood firm this whole time and if you can't see that it has led to nothing, then you are blind. This president is stunned and left confused after seeing for the first time that in a democracy, facing overwhelming change with a totalitarian resolve is met with utter defiance. He can't rule America with an iron fist forever, thank God.
Within Iraq, we can see a perfect example of what happens when the leader of a government acts out of sync with the pulse of the rest of the country. Six members of Iraq's Cabinet loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr will give in their resignations later today in response to the Prime Minister's lack of care toward the Iraqi people. They feel that because the majority of Iraqis wish to see U.S. troops leave their country and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports the motion of keeping the troops in Iraq, the only thing left to do is step away from such a government. It is a shame that power-related loyalties are coming between diplomacy but that is the reality of what is happening in Iraq now. The people are ignored and left to be blown up in the markets of Baghdad while those made powerful by the U.S. occupation neglect diplomacy.
For our budding writer to the Florida Today: when you go back to the fuhrer bunker, say hello to Ann Coulter for me.

Masonry Of The Mind

From Hadrian’s Wall in England to the Great Wall of China, human beings have had a history of building walls. But what is it about a wall that is so comforting to the human psyche that people around the world obsessed over them. In some cases it was to separate civilizations from nature or civilizations from other civilizations. But walls are more than just a tangible form of separation; they are the embodiment of a subconscious concept that has thrust mankind from the pits of primordial ooze to the present.
Within our very own minds we build and bear the weight of walls every single day. One of the most “monu-mental” walls built by the subconscious is that of faith. The experiences that we encounter from early childhood to now dictate the path we all follow in terms of faith. And walls are constructed to keep one’s beliefs in and others’ beliefs out. For some, these walls have many gaps or doors built within them. These doors represent a person’s ability to be open-minded about something. Then you have those who have no doors—only brick and mortar built higher and thicker. These people you hear about in the news after they’ve blown themselves up on a crowded bus in Iraq. For these people, faith is an unflinching principle in their lives that is to be taken to the grave. There is no room for interpretation and no welcome guests allowed in who wish to change these strict beliefs. And when someone has built a wall of this nature without doors something unique happens: the wall encloses the rest of the mind, coming full circle, and in essence traps that person within their own inability to escape. This is why suicide bombers resort to killing themselves and others. This is why people flagellate themselves in the streets. This is what drives crusades, jihads and witch hunts.
When it comes to a person’s faith, by very definition of the word regarding a lack of evidence, doors should be constructed if for no other reason than to act as an air hole in a coal mine. Without some form of a release for the free exchange of ideas which is healthy for the mind, the pressure of one’s own incapacity to understand something as vague, personal and unknown as faith and yet totally commit to something so intangible, a collapse of the mind is the only certainty.
Another wall that the mind constructs is one of racial separation. One of the issues in Iraq can be connected to the majority of Iraqis and the Kurdish population to the north. Even the Iranians who consider themselves Persian have a racial agenda in the Middle East in conflict with Arabs. And yet, only .01% of the genetic code represents salient traits. Race itself is a wall constructed to unite a certain group of people with similar physical features and exclude all others who do not match. These walls, too, have serious consequences much like that of religion. If the wall one builds becomes too massive then race will be the only thing that person sees and will consume their thoughts.
This unhealthy obsession with racial differences has led to ethnic cleansing and genocide on astounding levels from the Holocaust to the Sudan. Most people have doors within these walls that allow them to see other human beings as more than just a color or physical trait. But there are many who still believe that those differences mean something more than an evolutionary history of that person’s geographic origins. It is when their actions become violent in the form of hate crimes that their walls have enclosed upon itself leaving nowhere for the emotional pressure within to vent. This lack of ideas being exchanged between what the person believes and what others believe is what makes that person incapable of living in an ethnically diverse society.
There are many walls we build. They are prejudices that are inescapable because all around us we encounter experiences that change our ways of thinking on a daily basis. It is how we survive in that we are able to mentally adapt to new situations. And so these walls do have a constructive purpose. But it is when these prejudices are built brick by brick to the point where they are no longer able to adapt that the wall becomes fixed and will only devour itself in the end. There is no way to fully deconstruct a wall; it will always remain within the subconscious to serve as a helpful variable in the decision-making processes of our lives. But we can always build more doors.

What Comes Of War

www.villainouscompany.com/.../2005/05/index.html

Fighting The War On War

So far today, four bombs were detonated in Baghdad amidst what many White House republicans would call a successful security crackdown. The number of dead is now at 37 and the injuries including severe burns are much higher. Many women and children are suspected to be victims in these attacks while further violence in Iraq targets their own people in this bloody civil war. Meanwhile, diplomacy towards peace goes mostly ignored.

One of the witnesses of a car bombing, an owner of a glass shop, said that a man merely parked his minibus and walked away. It was nothing out of the ordinary until, "Five minutes later, the bus blew up — damaging the surrounded area and burning more than eight civilian cars that were passing by."

First of all, I am aware of the pure irony in a man owning a glass shop in Baghdad. Second of all, it seems as though the vast majority of these attacks are not targeted against U.S. troops but against the people in an effort to both terrorize Iraqis into believing that they cannot be protected by the U.S. and their own U.S.-installed government and also to push the American people into seeing that our military strategies are simply failing.

Is one tyranny worth trading for another? What the Iraqi people are faced with is a complete political and sociological reversal. It is: oppression by fear of one's government and inactivity of the people vs oppression by the fear of the people and inactivity of one's government.

The Motive V.S. The Crime

Today in Baghdad, 56 people were killed in a deadly suicide bombing at a busy bus stop. A 72-year-old woman ran through the hospital searching for her 6-year-old grandson and daughter. "They were near the bomb. They went to buy something for our lunch. What did they do to deserve this? To whom should I complain? There is no government to protect us," she said, sobbing.
Also happening in Iraq, mainly around Baghdad, was a car bomb that killed 10 people on the Jadriyah bridge. Gunmen attacked the home of Adnan al-Dulaimi who is the head of the largest Sunni bloc of parliament. In the attack five guards were injured and al-Dulaimi was not at home. Three bodyguards of Mohammed Abdul Jabar, the deputy minister of industry, were injured in a drive-by shooting. Three civilians and one policeman were killed in another drive-by shooting. Two policemen and one civilian were killed by a roadside bomb. Another roadside bomb killed one civilian. And a bomb missed by Iraqi security patrols injured three electricity workers.
This exhaustive list of atrocities finally poured over the edge with Iraqis and so a mob rioted around the Karbala governor's office demanding resignations for the poor security they have been offering their people. Police cars were burned and buildings were damaged by rocks being thrown at them.
The situation in Iraq has reached a dire point in need of serious help. This is the product of war. The only thing that comes from war is death and destruction by its own definition. Is this what the U.S. had in mind for a better Iraq? Is this what the terrorists and insurgents want for their own people? They have been killing more innocent Iraqis than the occupying troops have been killing insurgents. The future of Iraq is looking bleak and everyday people are suffering more than the last. As the grandmother in the above quote was saying; there is no government protecting the people. But it is more difficult than that because it is the people who are hurting each other. Only when these issues that are making people hurt each other are confronted diplomatically will the violence end.
For every bomb that goes off and every life that is lost, there is a voice crying for something they feel is worth killing for or even dying for. And it is far too easy to brush it off as pure evil as President Bush has done. The killing and violence is happening for a reason and until people start asking why and begin trying to solve these problems no end will be in sight for those endless droves of men, women and children searching for their families in crowded hospitals. No one should have to live with the sort of terror, anguish and sorrow that the Iraqi people have been living with since being "liberated".

The Sinking Ship Of Martyrs

In response to the suicide bombing that took place in the cafeteria of the Iraqi parliament building yesterday, many Iraqi lawmakers spoke out against the atrocities. Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said in a speech, "The more they act, the more solid we become. When they take from us one martyr, we offer more martyrs."
To further emphasize this sense of unity between all Iraqis, Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said, "We feel today that we are stronger than yesterday. The parliament, government and the people are all the same--they are all in the same ship which, if it sinks, will make everyone sink."
This unity is something that every country needs before it can fully succeed and it is called nationalism. Only when people stop thinking of themselves as Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds and begin thinking of themselves as Iraqis will that brotherhood seep into the patriotic psyche and band the nation together.
Meanwhile, the Islamic State issued on its website commonly used by insurgents, "A knight from the state of Islam...reached the heart of the Green Zone...the temporary headquarters of the mice of the infidel parliament and blew himself up among a gathering of the infidel masters."
If Iraq is a sinking ship and the Iraqi politicians are mice, then it would be wise for the Iraqi people to do what all maritime victims do when their ships are sinking: follow the mice to higher ground. The people of Iraq have two options. They can stay aboard the sinking ship and accept the chaos that has gripped their nation or they can follow diplomacy to the higher ground and avoid the violence and bloodshed. If the Iraqis wish to survive, it is better to follow the mice to peace than to sink with the martyrs of war.

A Mammoth Problem In The Iraqi Tar Pits

The secret ingredient in Thursday's lunch meat at the Iraqi parliament building cafeteria was explosive. A suicide bomber detonated in the cafeteria killing two lawmakers and injuring ten others. Forgive me for sounding a little unsympathetic but this is just another attack within the protected green zone that republicans such as our president and Senator John McCain have raved about in terms of safety.
"I am standing now at the site of the explosion and looking at the severed legs of the person who carried out the operation. If this tells us anything, it tells us that security is lax," said Mohammed al-Dayni, a member of the National Dialogue Front.
Also, another suicide bomber destroyed the al-Sarafiya bridge in Baghdad killing 10 people and injuring 26 others as cars drove into the river amidst the explosion. And with all of this violence continuing in Iraq, who do we blame? Certainly not ourselves. No. We blame Iran.
"We know that there are [EFPs-explosively formed penetrators] being in fact manufactured and smuggled into this country [Iraq], and we know that training does go on in Iran for people to learn how to assemble them and how to employ them. We know that training has gone on as recently as this past month from detainees' debriefs," said Major General William Caldwell, the U.S. military spokesman.
If these detainees' reports are even accurate, citing previous methods by the military to extract information from prisoners (Abu Ghraib), then what exactly is the issue here? I wish that I could simply believe the intelligence but our government's intelligence gathering sources have been--how should I say--completely inaccurate and biased to the administration's agendas up to this point.
The spokesman of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, General Ramazan Sharif said in response to Caldwell's accusations, "This sort of news and information is planned by occupier [U.S.] forces in Iraq as part of their psychological operations against Iran."
Now, for starters, Bush has been the boy who cried war since 9/11. We had sketchy intelligence pushed by the Bush Administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and so we went to war where we found nothing. Oops. Speed up to today and we have once again more intelligence coming in that now Iran is supporting the insurgency within Iraq.
This is where I play the devil's advocate for just a moment. What is Iran doing that the U.S. is not? Assuming that the intelligence (if that's what it is) is correct, Iran is interested in training and arming the Shiite Iraqis because Iran itself is a Shiite nation surrounded by Sunnis. If the armed and trained Shiites succeed in taking the country and kicking out all memories of the U.S. in a traditional Iranian fashion then Iran will have a new neighboring ally in the Middle East which can prove most useful with the growing tensions between them and the west. The U.S. is arming and training Iraqis as well with the hopes of protecting their interests that they have invested so heavily in. If Iraq's oil fields are open to the U.S. then having Iraqis in power who are friends (in debt?) to the United States will prove very useful as well.
Either way, oil is at the base here. The U.S. doesn't want Iraq befriending Iran because then the majority of the world's oil supply is in the hands of our enemies and let's be real--the U.S. needs its oil. Gobble, gobble, gobble. This is all about power and money and who will be the ones reaping the benefits. Unfortunately, neither of these wolves in sheep's' clothing care about the Iraqis themselves. To whom the oil fields are open to and to whom this new nation will ally itself with in the coming conflicts brewing in the sands of the Middle East are the only issues on the tables of Iran and the U.S. Meanwhile, the people of Iraq are suffering as these two powers fight over the right to abuse and exploit these people once stability is restored.
The innocent people of Iraq are drowning in the oil the rest of the world so desperately covets and I'm afraid that despite whoever wins over Iraq, the nation will very soon become nothing more than a tar pit filled with the remains of those who fought for a better life and in return found themselves in over their heads.

Spinning Wheels In The Sand

With the U.S. spending so much time and energy into arming and training the Iraqi soldiers who support the current government and Iran apparently spending so much time and energy arming and training the Iraqi insurgents to oppose the current government, it is obvious that Iraq has definitely become the victim child in a custody hearing; being pulled between two countries highly invested in the future of the born-again nation. And to further show signs of either unflinching commitment or pure stubbornness, the Pentagon has extended the Army's tours of duty for soldiers from 12 months to 15 months and is planning to divert about $1.6 billion of its military budget to fund the troops until mid-summer while Congress and Bush duke out a bill.
And meanwhile, the president invited Democrats to the White House yesterday to discuss a bill funding the war but was clear that he was not going to negotiate a time table for withdrawing troops. With the president vowing to veto a bill attached to a time table and Congress pledging to cut funding for the war altogether if Bush does so, this move on the president's part seems to be yet another backwards step in his continuing dance of shame in this unsuccessful and abusive war. The president should to realize that he needs Congress to fund this war whether he likes it or not. Congress has many times pleaded with the president to negotiate and talk with an open-mind about a bill that would satisfy everyone but Bush has stayed the course and is costing our troops valuable necessities.
With around $120 billion on the table from Congress, Bush has been a fool to turn it down simply because it offers the only logical exit strategy since the war began. If he vetoes that bill, then he better start either reaching into his pockets to come up with some money or pick up a gun and march over to Iraq himself. His arrogance and stubbornness has already cost this country a great deal of suffering and has made few efforts to making our nation safer. He has created more enemies than we can fight and is now undermining the troops by pledging to veto a bill that prevents more young Americans from being into the furnace to try and salvage his presidential legacy.
Seeing as impeachment is beyond the reach of our simple-minded politicians, I can only hope that President Bush realizes that he is staying the course alone and needs the support of the American people before he can support the American troops.

Zimbio Debate Part II

If you are reading this you should first look at the first part of the debate as this whole article would make much more sense.

4-8-07
Jason: Yes, yes it is very hard to sway a person who holds very firms beliefs one way or another. And while I agree that this debate has been productive my endstate is always to win...that is let the other person say "you're right" it happens to my wife all the time. I generally take offense to those who say they support the troops but not the war although I think you are sincere and that your anti-war stance is taken more from a compassion for us than a hatred for them viewpoint. In the end I do not want a warmonger in charge either (I don't think Bush is one), but I want someone with enough guts to stand up to the likes of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and especially al-Queada. This era of blogs and internet postings has certainly given a voice to those of us long silenced by big media. The problem with big media is that you can fill volumes with what they don't report. By the way, I do respect other opinions and ideology. I just can't accept them as having any influence on the direction our country should go.Jason
4-8-07
P.R.: As much as I would like to let you "win" this debate, I am not your wife. Although, I feel that we have a mutual respect for each others' opinions and that is what matters in the end. I too want a president who will be tough against threats to America. I can only hope that our next one creates fewer. And like it or not, other people's opinions and ideologies do have an influence in the direction our country will go. That's a democracy. Good luck in Iraq and I wish you the best for a safe return home and the same goes for all of your fellow soldiers. America and I are proud of you.P.R.

This concludes the zimbio debate. I hope that it helps clarify the views of some Americans today and gives a new perspective to the war in Iraq.

Zimbio Debate Part I

On a seperate website called "zimbio" under the category "war in Iraq" I have been posting my most recent articles as a means of reaching more people. One of my articles, "Bush: The Boy In The Political Bubble" recieved some feedback from a very conservative blogger. I will include our humble debate here on my blog because I think it is valuable in the sense that it reveals a little bit about some of the conservative views in America today and how I respond to them. I would suggest reading the article posted on my blog before reading the following debate.
4-5-07
Jason: Didn't anybody tell you not to drink the Kool-Aid? Wake up and face the facts. President Bush did not lie. If he did so did numerous members of the now anti-war left. Just to break it down for the slow among us, Saddam and his regime had nothing to do with September 11th, 2001. But that is not the point, the point is that we realized who we were up against and we began to take action 1 regime at a time. Remember, Germany never attacked us either.
4-6-07
P.R.: First of all, for the slow among us, Germany did not attack us but Japan did which was part of an alliance known as the axis of evil. Sound familiar in modern times? Second of all, what gives the United States the right to "take action 1 regime at a time"? That must be some kind of prick with his hand on the red button. Also, President Bush did lie and it is a poor defense to say, "well if he did so did the anti-war left". This war is a joke and those who support it need to wake up and face the facts. And the Kool-Aid pun was a flop.
4-7-07
Jason: PR, Just listen to what you are saying. Yes, of course we all know about the tripartrite treaty and the flow of world events there after. Also, it is not a poor defense to say that President Bush along with the leaders of 6 other major, industrialized countries and numerous members of the US Congress all saw the same intel reports. Great Britian was the largest contributor with dossier that was over 200 pages in length with intel as recent as FEB 2003. Now, I will assume that you have not been to Iraq and are thus blissfully ignorant as to what is really happening there. I have been twice and will be returning in mid-2008 so I have just a bit of first hand knowledge. What was the lie, specifically? WMD? Ties to terror groups? Paying the families of suicide bombers? All facts and all true. Wait, wait, wait, you say we found no WMD. All that I can speak to is what has been declassified. Abu-massab Al-zarquawi was operating a terror camp in northeast Iraq before the war SF troops took it out in the opening minutes of the war. Terror group ties? Proven. Saddam paid the equivalent of $25,000 to the families of every suicide bomber to pull the cord in Isreal. Proven fact. Now as for the WMD. No, we did not find it. But in the last several weeks, there have been at least 4 attacks using...gasp...chlorine gas. Also, I was a part of a special security mission in which we had to wear all of chemical defense gear to secure a certain site in a remote area of Iraq. So far as what is declassified there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Check with Syria, they should know more. In fact maybe Speaker Pelosi could have asked while she was consorting with our enemies. So you can read what you will in whatever left wing rag you choose, or as I said before, get actual factual information before making such inflamatory remarks. Also, some new lines of criticism would be nice the "Bush lied and soldiers died" crap is pretty old.
4-7-07
P.R.: First, I would like to address that I am proud of your service to this country. Second of all, I never used the term, "Bush lied and soldiers died" so pin that line on someone else with limited rhyming capability. Yes, there have been ties to Saddam and suicide bombers in Israel. But that wasn't what this administration and others used to as the main point for going to war, was it? The chlorine gas wasn't used in Iraq until we invaded. WMD's, the reason we went to war, were never found. The intel wasn't what was bad unfortunately. The way it was interpreted by those with war agendas in the White House, though, was bad. As for being blissfully ignorant, I wish I had that luxury...but I don't. And though I haven't been to Iraq it does not mean that I am wrong. My opinion is as valid as yours and the only difference is ideology and not facts. And to answer your question, "What was the lie, specifically?" the answer is WMDs. Whether other reasons for invading Iraq are noble or not, what remains undisputed is that this administration used WMDs to convince America to go to war...not links to Palestinian suicide bombers...WMDs. I do not believe that we have the right to play political God and decide who holds power and who does not. The entire argument for war with Iraq has holes in it and I don't think that we should be there. Saddam was an ass, yes. But was he a threat to America as Bush claimed, no. Perhaps the reason Bush lied was because he knew it wouldn't strike a patriotic cord with Americans to have brave soldiers like you dying for oil profits? Either way, if you feel that being in Iraq is where we belong then I am glad you are there fighting for America and I wish you the best of luck and a safe return.P.R.
5-8-07
Jason: I appriciate the fact that you find my service to our country noble. I have decided that no matter what proven facts I write here or which clear inferences should be drawn, there will always be those on the left whose ideology differs a great deal from mine and is therfore used to spin inaccurate and even made up information into "truth". Try as I may I can never convince such people that what they are saying and thinking is actually wrong and even damaging to our country. Those who think being blissfully ignorant is a luxury. So having said that I need to go talk to my accountant about the obscene profits I am making from this "oil war" thanks to a President who "lied for me" and his gang of co-conspiritors who also "misinterpreted" very clear intel reports. In all seriousness though, I truly hope that those on the left see the light before it is too late and terrorist pacification leads to destruction of our country. I will pray that those who will defend us are eventually elected to all governmental offices. Let's not repeat history by not learning from it. I love my country and I want it around for several thousand more years.
4-8-07
P.R.: It is true that convincing people of something they do not believe in is difficult and sometimes even impossible. I have remained as open as I can for some time and I am yet to find information persuasive enough to deter me from my beliefs. I am sorry that you feel that any ideology that does not match yours is used to "spin inaccurate and even made up information into 'truth'". And unfortunately for you, your accountant will have some bad news because those in power making the profits care little for those giving their lives for them. I, too pray that people will soon see the light but with so many differing views, I'm afraid they will be blinded from all the bull crap floating around. And if we are not to repeat history, perhaps we should not elect those with war in their veins to "all governmental offices". I believe we have already seen what that can accomplish. If America is to survive for several thousand more years then we should focus less on making distant enemies and more on waging peace. Either way, this debate has been productive as far as I'm concerned and I wish to thank you again for your service to our country and while I may not support this war, I support you.P.R.

Continued...

Biting The Hand And Freeing The Heart

Tuesday was a productive day for insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. A female suicide bomber killed 16 people and injured 33 in a town northeast of Baghdad. Six people were killed and 21 wounded in a gun battle in some of the neighborhoods within Baghdad. A car bomb exploded at the University of Baghdad killing 6 and wounding 11. And a Katysusha rocket killed a six-year-old boy and injured 17 others. This all came one day after Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr told his people to double their efforts in pushing the Americans out of Iraq but at the same time not killing each other. No American soldiers were reported as being killed in today's fighting.
Now I feel the need to explain the difference exactly between the insurgency in Iraq and the terrorism. While many of the tactics are the same, the ideology behind them are certainly not. The terrorists such as al-Qaeda wish to attack the U.S. and other coalition forces from western civilizations because they feel that their religious beliefs conflict with the west's sociological values. The insurgents in Iraq fight the occupation forces to drive them out so that Iraqis can govern themselves as a sovereign, independent nation. Muqtada al-Sadr leads the insurgency in Iraq and for the sake of progress in a war that is already confusing enough, should not be confused or linked to al-Qaeda.
If anything, today's violence has shown us that the security crackdown in Baghdad is only somewhat working with stiff resistance and the Iraqis have more at stake in this than we do and are thus far more willing to go to extremes if necessary to expel the "American occupiers". Diplomacy requires an open mind and that is something this administration has lacked in.
One of the main issues dividing al-Sadr from the Iraqi government is that he opposes the presidential administrations because they were forged from American hands and then voted on by Iraqis. The Bush Administration opposes al-Sadr because he opposes the government that they have backed. This Iraqi presidential administration is more closely allied with Bush than he is with Iraqi leaders. Iraq has adopted a Bushonian Democracy in which democracy is based on all parties supporting the presidential administration being accepted while anyone who disagrees with certain policies set forth by the administration is considered a threat to national security. Someone with al-Sadr's credentials and public backing has every right to be a part of Iraqi government and could probably be a valuable if not fundamental figure in stabilizing peace within the country.
But the Iraqi presidential administration will not allow this because he threatens their power that has been backed by the U.S. military. The system seems to be that the Iraqi government controls the use of its oil and so the U.S. protects those interests via the military so that that doors to the oil fields remain wide open. And why would the Iraqi government bite the hand that feeds it by allowing an opposing view to enter the political ring? In Iraq, they are enjoying the same sort of democratically-veiled dictatorship that the Bush Administration enjoys here in America.

Iraq: More Than A Shiite Hole

On Easter Sunday, six U.S. soldiers were killed and nothing about it was in Monday's newspaper. I don't know if the news simply didn't reach the Florida Today or if that just wasn't as important as little Johnny finding colored eggs in his front lawn. And meanwhile, marking the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad (coincidentally the same day as the fourth anniversary that Baghdad was still a violent s#*t hole), tens of thousands of Iraqis including members of Iraq's very own police and military participated in a mass demonstration demanding that the U.S. leave Iraq. Amazingly, no violence ensued during the peaceful protest. And what kind of man could organize such a successful sign of progress? Not George W. Bush but his arch nemesis Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Oppressed severely by the regime of Saddam Hussein, al-Sadr grew up in an Iraq where survival meant protesting tyranny underground. The reason Bush has declared him a menace to success in Iraq is because al-Sadr has denounced the government set up by America in his country and wishes that the Iraqis had more of a choice in who was nominated for power. In a way, Iraq is becoming a mini-state of the U.S. with Bush appointing public officials even in other countries. And while the Iraqi people did vote for their president, they had no choice in who the candidates were. It seems as though al-Sadr wants the people to have more of a say in their government. And with Iraq split between Shiites and Sunnis predominantly, why shouldn't al-Sadr have a political seat?
He has proven that he can rally tens of thousands of followers to protest peacefully in a country riddled with bullet holes. And in April of 2003, al-Sadr filled in the public service vacuum in Sadr City that the government could not by providing health care, food and clean water to his people. And sometime later, on August 30, a peaceful disarmament of al-Sadr's men was reached between him and Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. But only a day later, the prime minister backed out and the fighting continued. In his most recent speeches he has told his people not to harm other Iraqis and focus on pushing the Americans out.
Now I rigidly disapprove of any encouragement of violence especially to my own American soldiers. But if for a moment we could look aside the threats and at the bigger picture we may see something valuable. This is a man with immense political potential who has been yearning for stability, peace and unification within his country since the beginning. And only when his voice goes unheard and doors are kicked down while gun barrels are pointed in the faces of his people does he fight back. So ask yourself whether or not you would do the same in his position? We have no right to be occupying Iraq any further. He has no connections to terrorism although insurgency would be a more appropriate word (focusing not on al-Qaeda but anti-occupation fighters) . He has shown that he has what it takes to lead his people and I think he should be given a chance to speak in the Iraqi government.
If this administration truly wanted peace and stability in Iraq, they would look aside American loyalty, as they have here in America shown party loyalty, and see that if the people are going to stop the violence they need a leader of the people in power and not someone chosen from halfway around the world. But perhaps with these views in mind I might find myself an enemy of the Bush Administration. I simply want what is best for America and Iraq and only when we let them be a sovereign nation of their own people will peace and stability reach the country. And I believe that if pro-Bush agendas were set aside and the people of Iraq were taken into consideration, maybe Muqtada al-Sadr could be seen as an asset to peace instead of a catalyst to war. But hell, who am I kidding...Bush doesn't even put his people first in his own country.

Life Imitating Art Or Art Imitating Life?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

This was a little collage I did that acts like a slide-out image from a pop-up book. Rated for

children 17 or older seeing as that is the minimum enlisting age for the U.S. military with parental consent.

If The Streets Of Baghdad Could Talk

When it comes to the reason we're in Iraq right now, it doesn't take a top notch detective to figure out that the motives our government has given us are all wrong. Even if by some incredibly small chance this administration did in fact receive faulty intelligence from the CIA and went to war with the best intentions of relieving Saddam from his weapons of mass destruction, Bush's actions speak louder than words. Even after it was proven that there were no WMDs in Iraq, we are still there fighting harder and longer than ever before. If the previous scenario were true, wouldn't this administration have realized the intelligence was wrong and shifted strategies? But because we are still there for the same reasons it makes me think that this war was going to happen on any terms and the lie of WMDs was merely a smokescreen. Now that we're there, Bush figures who cares now...we're there and we need to focus on victory and nothing else. But whether we leave is partly determined by why we came. That we may never truthfully know. And while I may not have Bush's account number the Saudi royal family is depositing money into, that scenario seems more likely than the one saying that oil has nothing to do with why we're in Iraq. Our military is merely protecting big oil interests at this point.
Also, I find that the only real experts on Iraq are the Iraqi civilians. They have no political agenda or warped perception of patriotism. Their only agenda is to survive. And what is best for the minority is clearly not always best for the majority. Perhaps we should listen to what they have to say about how the war is really going. Perhaps they know better than anyone we could send because they live among the violence everyday while their own friends and families are put into jeopardy. In my opinion, their voices speak the loudest; not the soldiers, not John McCain and not the Bush Administration--the voices of victims...the voices nobody are listening to.

Good War Business (G.W.B) What Else Shares Those Initials?

After reading Time Magazine today, I found out that "the Army is once again getting the smallest share of Pentagon funds", recruits include high school dropouts and convicted felons, mid-level officer positions and military intelligence officers are in high demand with little supply and suicides among soldiers is increasing. With facts like this reaching me, little is left to the imagination as to why I feel that this war is a total bust. And with 13,000 National Guard troops scheduled for deployment to Iraq by next year, Americans are getting tired of the death tolls. And as this administration provokes even further conflict in the Middle East with Iran from sending in carrier groups to run "drills" in the Persian Gulf, making threats against Iran's policies and pointing blame at Tehran for the roadside bombs in Iraq, it seems as though war is the only word on President Bush's lips these days. How did the insurgents get their automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and other weapons? Why doesn't the government look into that? Why are they so interested in Iran? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Iran produces the world's largest supply of oil. Hey, if war with Iran comes about prices will skyrocket and Bush's pals, the Saudis, will make a fortune. And I'm sure none of that "luck" will rub off on George W.
Hell, even John McCain who has taken a beating from his stance on the war in Iraq, jeopardizing his rise to presidency, has been seeing benefits to playing the right hand of the devil. "And McCain's top finance officials say the senator's position on the war has, if anything, helped him with many of his wealthy donors," reported Michael D. Shear of the Washington Post. No one can argue that there is money to be made in war. I only wish that our very own presidential administration didn't have their hands stuck in the cookie jar. The Saudi-Bush connections have been made and oil is the binding factor here between the Middle East and why we give a damn about Iraq.
And with polls showing numbers scattered all over the place, it is difficult to see where many Americans stand these days unless you can cut through all of that political grime. In the Washington Post-ABC News' most recent poll, 64% of those polled said "it [war in Iraq] was not worth fighting." But then in the same poll, "70% of republicans said the Iraq war has been worth fighting." The only thing to figure out is how many Americans consider themselves republican. What this poll tells me is that republicans need to pull their heads out of their chair warmers and let go of their violent blood lust. If they want to fight our "enemies" so badly, then why don't they join the Army and fight? I'm sure they'll be accepted. With the Army taking even convicted felons I can't imagine that war hawk republicans would be denied. Maybe they would shoot better, though, if they could see straight!
Also in the news was John McCain's speech trying to convince Americans to give General David H. Patraeus more time. "This gives him an opportunity to put a marker down on what his foreign policy vision will be and how important it is to win the war in Iraq..." said McCain.
Of course his foreign policy vision will be coming from the standpoint of a military general and so I doubt it will involve the Army leaving any time soon. Job security is on the line, you know. And as far as I'm concerned the war is over and won. Saddam is out and now all that is left is a civil war we have no business being in militarily.
And to finish up probably one of my longest articles; if I hear a sharp-nosed republican saying "if we leave Iraq now the terrorists will follow us home" one more time I am going to vomit. Does anyone honestly think they need a bread crumb trail left behind the U.S. Army to tell where America is? They can look on a f**king map! Having our troops home will ensure a better defense instead of having them thinned out halfway around the world making more enemies.
I hope people try to see the signs everywhere that change needs to be made soon and it needs to be dramatic. The world is becoming impatient with this administration's stubbornness and the only progress being made right now is that the hole we're digging ourselves into is becoming deep enough to fit George W.'s ego.