First of all, I would like to address that I made some changes to a previous post: Saddam's Iraq Will Not Become Our America. I felt that parts of it were unclear and so I found better ways of explaining my view. I understand that this is a journal and I am not really supposed to do that but...who cares?
This journal entry has to do with the civil war controversy over Iraq. Many Americans feel that Iraq is in a civil war while some still feel that they are not. Well, for anyone who cares--they are in a civil war.
One argument I've heard is that only 10-20% or so of the country is actually fighting and so it isn't really a civil war. But our civil war in the 1860s only killed 3% of the population. Not many more could have been actually fighting. A civil war doesn't bring all of the population to arms. Everyone is enveloped in the civil war but only a few are physically fighting it.
Some people who think Iraq is in a civil war, even suggest that we continue to remain there. No one got involved in our civil war. And if someone did, then it wouldn't have remained civil. The point of a civil war is that it is domestic. A foreign entity has no place militarily in another nation's civil war.
And it is too easy for historians to judge past civil wars and determine whether or not someone should have intervened. But policies aren't made in retrospect. No one can play fortune-teller and assume who is going to take power and if that is going to be a good thing for the U.S. And if it is good for the U.S. does that mean that it is good for Iraq? It is unfair to involve oneself militarily in the domestic matter of another nation.
In the end, it doesn't really matter what you call IT as long as IT is acknowledged. I think that people don't like to admit that it is a civil war because that implies that the war is out of U.S. control and that is an unsettling thought. But that is the reality of it like it or not. You can call it a "civil war" or you can call it, "a whimsically violent parade of explosive sectarian balloons" for all I care. Just don't pretend that nothing is happening over there.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Iraq: The American Tarpit
In an ambush about 12 miles west of Mahmoudiya this morning, five were left dead and three missing among a patrol of U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter. Despite the military's best efforts, the three missing soldiers' whereabouts are still unknown. This is yet another tragedy in the ongoing larger-scale tragedy that is the war in Iraq.
In other news today, Vice President Dick Cheney visited the Saudi Arabian King Abdullah in an effort to gain support for the war. The king, who gave Bush much support in the beginning of the war has now declared the U.S. troops in Iraq as being an "illegal foreign occupation".
Also, Abdullah has criticized Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq and refused to see him on his tour for support around the Middle East. Prime Minister al-Maliki is a Shiite leader while King Abdullah is Sunni. There has been much tension over these differences throughout the Middle East and it has turned one of Bush's strongest allies against the war.
King Abdullah is the leader of the most oil-rich nation in the world and also head of a primarily Sunni culture. Iraq is led by a Shiite leader and holds possibly the second largest natural reserves of oil in the world. It is no wonder that Abdullah's support has dwindled to criticism when it looks like an economic competitor is run by a Shiite leader. And the thought of Iraq siding with Iran is too much to bear.
Despite the highly unlikely possibility that Iraq will somehow form a vigilante alliance against the west in oil exportation, one thing remains certain; that oil is a primary factor in the Iraq equation as well as the sectarian differences between Sunnis and Shiites. The Sunnis, who control most of the Middle East (Saddam was Sunni), would like to see Iraq stay ethnically allied with them against neighboring Shiite Iran. The Shiites in Iraq believe that now is their time to represent themselves from the ashes of oppression but face overwhelming challenges ahead.
The real question here is whether or not the Middle East is willing to compromise and allow both sects to rule democratically in the new nation of Iraq? More importantly--are the Iraqis? In such a sensitive geopolitical and religious environment, that Utopian democracy Bush envisioned might be a little too far out of reach. The best strategy for Iraq at this point is to pull the U.S. troops out of the country, assist diplomatically and allow Iraq to be run by Iraqis. Foreign policy should not become domestic policy. But do our leaders have what it takes to bring our troops home and let Iraq go or are we trapped in the oil?
Friday, May 11, 2007
Iraq: An American Frankenstein!
With poll ratings incredibly low for both Congress and the president, things are looking dismal for the direction the United States is headed. The Democrats in Congress have nothing to show for their time in power except a veto by the president while many other issues need to be addressed. And in the same boat is the president, who despite the concern of the American people, has continued his stubbornness and led this country further into the war with no hope of getting out soon.
The president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, has said that Iraq needs about two to three more years before he is confident that Iraqi forces will be able to take over for the U.S. troops. Whether this is true or simply a made-up figure, it may be too little too late. In Congress's latest bill, Congress will fund the war in installments in order to view progress made in Iraq and vote on whether or not or how much to spend in the next installment of funds.
This scenario seems to be quite fair even by Talabani's standards. As long as the Iraqis continue to make scheduled progress, the funding will continue until the country can stand on its own feet. But Bush has continued his vow to veto this bill because it shows a glimpse of U.S. forces at some point leaving Iraq.
Congress, as unsuccessful as it may be, merely wants Iraqis to be held accountable for Iraq. They have had over four years to do it. There seems to be no logical reason for funding the war indefinitely without setting up goals to be reached. And if the funding continues despite the scenario if the Iraqis fail to meet those goals is downright irresponsible of U.S. policy makers.
The Bush Administration's lack of concern for the consequences of this war show that they have been leading this country down the wrong path for far too long. Unfortunately, due to the terrible handling of the war in its early phases there is the chance that even after we leave what may appear to be a healthy Iraq, the Iraqi people could face another genocide. All we are doing is delaying an inevitable civil war for who will control Iraq. This is not our decision to make and the sooner we realize that the better. These harsh facts of life--that terrible things will happen despite all efforts--are facts that need to be accepted. We cannot successfully police the world on our own.
If the Iraqis fought their civil war and forged their own government, it would be the first step they've made on their own towards a sovereign nation. It is a simple inevitability that the Iraqis will only be content when they have created a country of their own without the influence of a foreign entity.
It is not fair for the U.S. to dictate how another country should be run and the American people are seeing that. We need to focus on our own domestic issues and leave the Iraqis with a country post-Saddam. There are more important things than intimidating Iran, which is one of the most democratic nations in the Middle East if only Republicans could look beyond the leadership and at the actual culture, society and base of Iranian government. If you don't believe me, look it up. And there are more important things than rebuilding Iraq in America's image.
War is not an acceptable result of adequate foreign policy. And no matter how much we may want it, Iraq will never survive as an American experiment; it will fall into a violent socio-political void unless it is allowed to grow into the nation it was always meant to be, like it or not--Iraq.
The president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, has said that Iraq needs about two to three more years before he is confident that Iraqi forces will be able to take over for the U.S. troops. Whether this is true or simply a made-up figure, it may be too little too late. In Congress's latest bill, Congress will fund the war in installments in order to view progress made in Iraq and vote on whether or not or how much to spend in the next installment of funds.
This scenario seems to be quite fair even by Talabani's standards. As long as the Iraqis continue to make scheduled progress, the funding will continue until the country can stand on its own feet. But Bush has continued his vow to veto this bill because it shows a glimpse of U.S. forces at some point leaving Iraq.
Congress, as unsuccessful as it may be, merely wants Iraqis to be held accountable for Iraq. They have had over four years to do it. There seems to be no logical reason for funding the war indefinitely without setting up goals to be reached. And if the funding continues despite the scenario if the Iraqis fail to meet those goals is downright irresponsible of U.S. policy makers.
The Bush Administration's lack of concern for the consequences of this war show that they have been leading this country down the wrong path for far too long. Unfortunately, due to the terrible handling of the war in its early phases there is the chance that even after we leave what may appear to be a healthy Iraq, the Iraqi people could face another genocide. All we are doing is delaying an inevitable civil war for who will control Iraq. This is not our decision to make and the sooner we realize that the better. These harsh facts of life--that terrible things will happen despite all efforts--are facts that need to be accepted. We cannot successfully police the world on our own.
If the Iraqis fought their civil war and forged their own government, it would be the first step they've made on their own towards a sovereign nation. It is a simple inevitability that the Iraqis will only be content when they have created a country of their own without the influence of a foreign entity.
It is not fair for the U.S. to dictate how another country should be run and the American people are seeing that. We need to focus on our own domestic issues and leave the Iraqis with a country post-Saddam. There are more important things than intimidating Iran, which is one of the most democratic nations in the Middle East if only Republicans could look beyond the leadership and at the actual culture, society and base of Iranian government. If you don't believe me, look it up. And there are more important things than rebuilding Iraq in America's image.
War is not an acceptable result of adequate foreign policy. And no matter how much we may want it, Iraq will never survive as an American experiment; it will fall into a violent socio-political void unless it is allowed to grow into the nation it was always meant to be, like it or not--Iraq.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Another Bill, Another Veto
The president is once again on a a stubborn mission to veto any bill that doesn't bear his hallmark short-sighted failure stamp on it. A new bill passed by Congress willing to compromise with the White House allows $42.8 billion to be spent on the war until August 1. Then, over summer Congress will vote whether or not to end the fiscal year with another $52.8 billion to last until September 30.
President Bush said, "We reject that idea. It won't work."
Ever since the Democrats took control of Congress, Bush has stubbornly defied every idea that has come to his desk and has shown an unwillingness to compromise or negotiate with Congress on a spending bill for the war. If Bush truly wanted to help our troops he would fund them. The caution in Congress's bill is to allow the Iraqi forces to take over and relieve some of the stress from U.S. troops. This would be the first step in the United States' acceptance of a sovereign Iraq without U.S. occupation. But Bush will not allow any bill to pass into law that does not go along with his totalitarian view of complete and absolute compliance. He is showing the signs of a dictator and not the president of a democratic nation.
Even the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, compared Bush to Hitler in a recent speech given in Red Square. Putin criticized the U.S. for " disrespect for human life, claims to global exclusiveness and dictate, just as it was in the time of the Third Reich.”
I do not understand how people can support the president. I support the troops but this war is unjustifiable and our president is a spoiled little child who cannot agree to share power with the Democrats who happen to be supported by the majority of the American people.
Our troops need to be supported through action and not just through words. Bush's words are cheap and he throws them out over the airwaves with no regard to the consequences they forge; the neglect of our troops to salvage what's left of a miserable presidential legacy.
President Bush said, "We reject that idea. It won't work."
Ever since the Democrats took control of Congress, Bush has stubbornly defied every idea that has come to his desk and has shown an unwillingness to compromise or negotiate with Congress on a spending bill for the war. If Bush truly wanted to help our troops he would fund them. The caution in Congress's bill is to allow the Iraqi forces to take over and relieve some of the stress from U.S. troops. This would be the first step in the United States' acceptance of a sovereign Iraq without U.S. occupation. But Bush will not allow any bill to pass into law that does not go along with his totalitarian view of complete and absolute compliance. He is showing the signs of a dictator and not the president of a democratic nation.
Even the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, compared Bush to Hitler in a recent speech given in Red Square. Putin criticized the U.S. for " disrespect for human life, claims to global exclusiveness and dictate, just as it was in the time of the Third Reich.”
I do not understand how people can support the president. I support the troops but this war is unjustifiable and our president is a spoiled little child who cannot agree to share power with the Democrats who happen to be supported by the majority of the American people.
Our troops need to be supported through action and not just through words. Bush's words are cheap and he throws them out over the airwaves with no regard to the consequences they forge; the neglect of our troops to salvage what's left of a miserable presidential legacy.
Saddam's Iraq Will Not Become Our America
We, as Americans, are in danger of being subjected to the same sort of law that the Iraqis were held under during the regime of Saddam Hussein. If we are not careful, our own politicians may turn our Constitution against us and give the government more unrestrained power than was ever intended.
U.S. citizens have the Sixth Amendment right which states that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall been committed..."
But in a senate hearing in January of 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said to Senator Arlen Specter, "...the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas."
As found on Wikipedia, habeas corpus is the "legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment." In other words, U.S. citizens can NOT be unlawfully imprisoned.
The only exceptions to that are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution in Section 9 of Article One: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."
To simplify things, look at the Sixth Amendment as a positive and habeas corpus as a double-negative. They both state the same thing but in inverse statements. The Sixth Amendment says that U.S. citizens have the right to be lawfully imprisoned if they are to be imprisoned at all. While habeas corpus says that U.S. citizens are not to be unlawfully imprisoned.
So, by Gonzales saying that U.S. citizens do not have the right of habeas corpus, he is inversely saying that U.S. citizens do not have the right of the Sixth Amendment. If, per Gonzales, I can be unlawfully imprisoned then I can't invoke my sixth amendment right. And that is illegal.
But there can be arguments that the "detainees" referred to in the definition of habeas corpus are not defined as the same as the "accused" in the Sixth Amendment, thus rendering my argument insufficient. These definitions were gathered from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Detainee--"a person who is detained; especially: a person held in custody prior to trial or hearing." Accused--"a person who has been arrested for or formally charged with a crime: the defendant in a criminal case."
Both definitions refer to a trial for the individual in question which prevents "unlawful imprisonment". And if that person is not charged, then they must be released within 24-hours as stated by law. If they are charged, which would allow the person to be held as long as the investigation is run, then that implies a trial will be held. And holding someone charged for a crime indefinitely is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" by the Eighth Amendment and is illegal.
All people of the United States are considered innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Taking away habeas corpus from the American people because the Constitution never fully grants it to U.S. citizens and not for reasons listed in the Constitution is illegal as proven above. The state of the nation is not in rebellion and the U.S. is not under invasion and so our government cannot suspend habeas corpus to U.S. citizens.
And though the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 may be considered an invasion--it is not. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines invasion as "the act of or an instance of invading". The United States is not under the act of invasion and the instance of the attack occurred over 5-years prior to the attorney general's statement rendering the instance of the attack void in today's view. In addition, a terrorist attack is by no means an invasion by definition; rather it is a violent means of political and/or religious coercion through the act of harming innocent civilians. Let us not be confused.
Do not allow habeas corpus to be suspended or eliminated all together as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has implied that it can. This is America, we are Americans and we will not be abused by our own politicians--not now nor ever!
U.S. citizens have the Sixth Amendment right which states that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall been committed..."
But in a senate hearing in January of 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said to Senator Arlen Specter, "...the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas."
As found on Wikipedia, habeas corpus is the "legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment." In other words, U.S. citizens can NOT be unlawfully imprisoned.
The only exceptions to that are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution in Section 9 of Article One: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."
To simplify things, look at the Sixth Amendment as a positive and habeas corpus as a double-negative. They both state the same thing but in inverse statements. The Sixth Amendment says that U.S. citizens have the right to be lawfully imprisoned if they are to be imprisoned at all. While habeas corpus says that U.S. citizens are not to be unlawfully imprisoned.
So, by Gonzales saying that U.S. citizens do not have the right of habeas corpus, he is inversely saying that U.S. citizens do not have the right of the Sixth Amendment. If, per Gonzales, I can be unlawfully imprisoned then I can't invoke my sixth amendment right. And that is illegal.
But there can be arguments that the "detainees" referred to in the definition of habeas corpus are not defined as the same as the "accused" in the Sixth Amendment, thus rendering my argument insufficient. These definitions were gathered from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Detainee--"a person who is detained; especially: a person held in custody prior to trial or hearing." Accused--"a person who has been arrested for or formally charged with a crime: the defendant in a criminal case."
Both definitions refer to a trial for the individual in question which prevents "unlawful imprisonment". And if that person is not charged, then they must be released within 24-hours as stated by law. If they are charged, which would allow the person to be held as long as the investigation is run, then that implies a trial will be held. And holding someone charged for a crime indefinitely is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" by the Eighth Amendment and is illegal.
All people of the United States are considered innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Taking away habeas corpus from the American people because the Constitution never fully grants it to U.S. citizens and not for reasons listed in the Constitution is illegal as proven above. The state of the nation is not in rebellion and the U.S. is not under invasion and so our government cannot suspend habeas corpus to U.S. citizens.
And though the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 may be considered an invasion--it is not. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines invasion as "the act of or an instance of invading". The United States is not under the act of invasion and the instance of the attack occurred over 5-years prior to the attorney general's statement rendering the instance of the attack void in today's view. In addition, a terrorist attack is by no means an invasion by definition; rather it is a violent means of political and/or religious coercion through the act of harming innocent civilians. Let us not be confused.
Do not allow habeas corpus to be suspended or eliminated all together as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has implied that it can. This is America, we are Americans and we will not be abused by our own politicians--not now nor ever!
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Debit? Credit? Or National Debt?
One of the reasons the war in Iraq is still going on has to do with perception. But not only perception; most notably the perception of the majority populace. The power of the people is evident not only in a democracy but every form of government because in the end, they outnumber the politicians and run the nation. So what perceptions are fueling this war?
One of the perceptions deals with why the terrorists are attacking innocent civilians all over Iraq. In today's car bombing in Kufa that killed sixteen people left many wondering why they had to be targets. “We are poor people looking for anything to secure our livelihood and we have nothing to do with politics. Why do they do this to us?" said Firas Abdul-Karim, a wounded man from the explosion.
Unfortunately, he and everyone else around him have everything to do with politics. In his case, the terrorists would call them collateral damage. It is the theory of the terrorists, such as al-Qaeda, that if they attack the people, they will feel like the path they are on is not leading them anywhere safer. It is a strategy to turn the people against their government for not providing adequate protection. And in a nation rebuilding itself, that is not easy to do.
But the perception of the people from the Iraqis' perspective is one of two factors keeping this war in motion. They feel the pain on a daily basis and thus the healing can never fully begin. The fear is always in the back of their minds thus life cannot return to normal. They don't believe that their government is strong enough to protect them. And they continue getting blown back to square one, diminishing hope and moral.
The second factor here is the perception of the American people. America is no doubt the prime nation involved in the Iraq war other than Iraq itself. The reason the war is still going on is in part due to the fact that the American people have not voiced themselves loud enough to get the politicians, especially on the Republican side, to react. The polls will only go so far in convincing politicians.
Congress has approved over $609 billion since September 11, 2001 for the war on terror. And yet no one feels a tug on their pocket. This is because of the tax cuts of the Bush Administration and the no-spending limit on America's credit card a.k.a. our national debt. We don't feel the economic effects of war like we used to. There is no rationing going on or food stamps.
But the problem lies in future generations. Bush said in a speech, "This war started on my watch, but it's going to end on your watch." And that is more true than most things he's said during his presidency.
The fact is, when America needs to worry about social security, medicare, support for war veterans and so on, we are going to need to stick our hands into the cookie jar but this war will have drained everything out of it. This war was not meant to be paid for during this generation as a means of gaining support. If the American people's quality of life is not affected, then the war will go on mostly unnoticed. And so our children and our children's children will be paying out of their pockets for a war they never even lived through in the form of government program and funding cuts.
It was a sly move on the Bush Administration but they understood that ever since the Crimean War when the first reporters came back home with news from the front lines, that wars are fought only with the support of the people behind them. And the best way to keep up support for a war is to adjust the people's perception so that it doesn't even feel like a war is even going on at all. Unfortunately for the Iraqis, they're reminded every day at the cost of human lives.
One of the perceptions deals with why the terrorists are attacking innocent civilians all over Iraq. In today's car bombing in Kufa that killed sixteen people left many wondering why they had to be targets. “We are poor people looking for anything to secure our livelihood and we have nothing to do with politics. Why do they do this to us?" said Firas Abdul-Karim, a wounded man from the explosion.
Unfortunately, he and everyone else around him have everything to do with politics. In his case, the terrorists would call them collateral damage. It is the theory of the terrorists, such as al-Qaeda, that if they attack the people, they will feel like the path they are on is not leading them anywhere safer. It is a strategy to turn the people against their government for not providing adequate protection. And in a nation rebuilding itself, that is not easy to do.
But the perception of the people from the Iraqis' perspective is one of two factors keeping this war in motion. They feel the pain on a daily basis and thus the healing can never fully begin. The fear is always in the back of their minds thus life cannot return to normal. They don't believe that their government is strong enough to protect them. And they continue getting blown back to square one, diminishing hope and moral.
The second factor here is the perception of the American people. America is no doubt the prime nation involved in the Iraq war other than Iraq itself. The reason the war is still going on is in part due to the fact that the American people have not voiced themselves loud enough to get the politicians, especially on the Republican side, to react. The polls will only go so far in convincing politicians.
Congress has approved over $609 billion since September 11, 2001 for the war on terror. And yet no one feels a tug on their pocket. This is because of the tax cuts of the Bush Administration and the no-spending limit on America's credit card a.k.a. our national debt. We don't feel the economic effects of war like we used to. There is no rationing going on or food stamps.
But the problem lies in future generations. Bush said in a speech, "This war started on my watch, but it's going to end on your watch." And that is more true than most things he's said during his presidency.
The fact is, when America needs to worry about social security, medicare, support for war veterans and so on, we are going to need to stick our hands into the cookie jar but this war will have drained everything out of it. This war was not meant to be paid for during this generation as a means of gaining support. If the American people's quality of life is not affected, then the war will go on mostly unnoticed. And so our children and our children's children will be paying out of their pockets for a war they never even lived through in the form of government program and funding cuts.
It was a sly move on the Bush Administration but they understood that ever since the Crimean War when the first reporters came back home with news from the front lines, that wars are fought only with the support of the people behind them. And the best way to keep up support for a war is to adjust the people's perception so that it doesn't even feel like a war is even going on at all. Unfortunately for the Iraqis, they're reminded every day at the cost of human lives.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Peace Was Outbid Again
For those people who are under the impression that the violence in Iraq occurs only in Baghdad (and there are those people out there), take a look at the map provided. Today, two suicide bombers killed around twenty people on the outskirts of Ramadi. Yesterday, roadside bombs killed eight American soldiers in the province of Diyala. An ambush by ground forces and accompanied bombing in Baqouba killed two U.S. soldiers and two policemen. And the tortured and shot body of an Iraqi policeman was found in Kirkuk. Here are three locations in two days where violence occurred that are not Baghdad.
In a more interesting story of how war is a business and profits are being made off of this one, NBC News is looking into why last September an Israeli-made weapon for destroying rocket-propelled grenades in mid-flight, dubbed Trophy, was denied by the U.S. Army for production. Our troops have been plagued by constant attacks by these weapons and here is a device that can put an end to that. The Trophy was tested nearly 400 times successfully with no failures on almost every type of RPG and anti-tank guided missile known. And the Pentagon even tested it and said it was 30 for 30. And yet with these astounding figures, the U.S. Army chose to give the contract to Raytheon so that they could build one from scratch. Even in the summer of 2005, the Pentagon Office of Force Transportation did a test of six systems and found that Trophy was the best of all of them.
Adam Ciralsky, Lisa Myers and the NBC News Investigative Unit had this to say, "Pentagon sources tell NBC News--and internal Army documents seem to confirm--that Army officials came to see Trophy as a threat to the Army's effort to field an RPG defense as part of the biggest procurement program in Army history, the $200 billion Future Combat System (FCS)."
This is just another pathetic example of how people are making money off of war and business comes before our own troops. U.S. soldiers are being killed by RPGs when a device that can save them already exists but the military would rather give the contract to a company that doesn't even have one yet.
Let's learn a little more about Raytheon. William H. Swanson is the Chairman and CEO of Raytheon. And despite Raytheon's values of ethics as stated on their website, Swanson was found by The New York Times to have plagiarized his booklet, "Swanson's Unwritten Rules of Management". First of all, if it is in a booklet it is written. Second of all, I found it ironic that one of the sources he plagiarized his work from was, "...from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld..." said Wikipedia. Ah, Donald Rumsfeld and ethics. He was forced to resign not too long ago for his mishandling of the war in Iraq!
Also, Swanson is a trustee of the Association of the United States Army or AUSA. As stated in another Wikipedia article, "...(AUSA) is a private, non-profit organization which primarily acts as an advocacy group for the United States Army."
Well, it seems like Raytheon is certainly making a profit from having their CEO as a trustee of a group that influences the Army. This is war profiteering and it is wrong. How can the government condone such an action when American lives are on the line? A congressionally-mandated review is looking into the situation and I hope that someone goes to prison for making such a greedy and deadly decision.
America is not a corporation that uses politics and foreign relations as instruments to make money. And yet I continue to see blatant abuses of power and influence where corruption and profit triumph over common sense and right. It looks like the American eagle on the back of the dollar bill has found its olive branch too heavy to hold and now its just arrows and money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)