2007-02-20T11:04:08.917-05:00My computer mysteriously broke after falling off my table.
2007-02-08T15:21:37.253-05:00Senator Barack Obama would like to raise general election money now, and give it back later, under one circumstance; each candidate must agree to use only funds from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. The Federal Election Committee will decide whether or not Senator Obama's plan is feasible.
2007-02-07T21:34:22.361-05:00I have to agree with Liberal Oasis on this one. This whole nonbinding resolution thing is getting out of control. It is time to express the Dems opinion on the "surge" plan to the American public, and move on. Whether or not Congress achieves bipartisan support upon the matter is moot.
2007-02-07T20:36:28.870-05:00I decided to see what O'Reilly was "spinning" today, and I followed a link to an article written by William M. Arkin of the Washington Post. Apparently he is quite discomforted by some comments from members of the US military. These comments reflected a misguided view, that those who do not support the war have an inherent dislike for the troops.
2007-02-07T17:18:26.633-05:00"One thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."
2007-02-05T16:59:04.322-05:00As a member of the military I am disgusted by the actions of an Army officer who refuses to carry-out his orders to fight in Iraq. There are many members of the military who do not want to go to Iraq, but must, due to orders or an inherent desire to fulfill an obligation. This man is a disgrace to the US military.
I cannot believe some people actually think we are fighting terrorists in Iraq. I was reading this post and I could not believe that some people still - honestly - believe that we are fighting terrorist in Iraq. DO YOU THINK WE ARE FIGHTING TERROROIST IN IRAQ?
There are a million, maybe a billion, terrorists out there. They do not want to fight our military. Terrorist want to destroy our way of life. They want to disrupt our daily affairs. They are mad at us. The war in Iraq was screwed up from day one, and we did not need terrorist to help us.
The Iraq war is not a war against terror; it is a war which breeds terrorists. There is no such thing as the nation of terrorists. There may be nations which support and/or harbor terrorists, but we cannot attack the entire nation because of this. We must remove the terror cells on a small scale level, without endangering the general population.
Fighting alone will not deter terrorism. Terrorists are united under an ideology; the belief that the US threatens their way of life. If we can destroy terrorism from its roots, resentment towards the west, then we can truly defeat terrorism. This must come through diplomatic means. Of course this is much more difficult then our go fight em' strategy we have adopted. Let's face it; there is no easy way out of this one.
I am disappointed in AlterNet for posting this video. I am a "troop," I am against the escalation plan, but using vets as political puppets is disgusting. Also, you cannot generalize the opinion of the entire military population.
Whether or not you are for or against President Bush's plan does not play any role in determining your level of support for the US military.
2007-01-29T17:36:17.352-05:00Senator Clinton may have made a derogatory reference to her husband, in a comedical context. Is this really an issue? I cannot believe people are actually debating this.
2007-01-26T09:21:21.727-05:00The Bush Administration has announced that coalition forces in Iraq may pursue Iranian forces who pose a threat. This threat must be backed by intelligence. Call me crazy, but ANYONE who poses a threat to coalition forces in Iraq may be engaged. Whether they are Iranian or Antarctician (natives of Antarctica, they are all over Iraq) is moot as long as they pose a threat.
2007-01-25T19:37:45.846-05:00It was announced that Ford Motor Company was 12.7 billion in the red this year. They do not plan on making a profit until 2009. I believe this is a perfect opportunity for Ford to make a serious effort to produce a marketable alternative fuel line of vehicles.
2007-01-19T00:37:37.158-05:00Reading this story I was very impressed. It seems some scientists discovered a cheap and safe drug that kills many forms of cancer (they didn't actually find the drug, just some added benefits of an existing drug.) The problem is, the drug does not have a patent, and this makes it unprofitable. Drug companies will not fund any further research.
2007-01-17T22:43:14.831-05:00Jay Severin posed an interesting question yesterday, is America ready for a woman or a black President? At first, I thought there was a simple answer, yes. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to listen to Severin's opinion. Although he hinted that in his opinion, woman yes, black no. Of course my opinion is gospel, and I am not sure if I can clearly answer yes or no.I will begin with the women portion. We have a multitude of women serving in prominent positions in our government. Why not President?With so much activity in the Middle East these days, would a woman US President receive as much respect as a man in the same position? It would all depend on the group you were working with. Some nations in the Middle East, and anywhere in the world for that matter, would give less respect to a woman leader. Although this would not disqualify a woman from having a great run as President, it could cause some to think twice about voting for a woman. Some people still view woman as weak and/or poor leaders. These views are extremely misguided, but valid to some. I could state a million stereotypes of woman, all unreasonable, but still convincing to some.Is America ready? I have no idea. CBS ran a poll asking if people would vote for a qualified woman. Ninety-two percent of those who responded said yes. Of course, when you ask someone if they, personally, would vote for a woman, they would. Very few people, when questioned directly, will admit that they would never vote for a woman.Interestingly, CBS ran another poll asking whether America is "ready" for a woman President. Thirty-eight percent of those who responded said no, a much greater amount than the measly five percent who admittedly wouldn't vote for a woman. These polls suggest that I (meaning the responder) would vote for a woman, but I'm not sure about everyone else. If I went by the results of these polls alone, I would suggest that America is not ready for a woman; even though we won't admit it. But one CBS poll is not a proper gauge. I still cannot answer yes or no.Onto the black President. Of course, just as there are stereotypes related to woman, there are stereotypes related to blacks. These stereotypes are false, but some cannot look beyond them. I suspect that if you asked a US citizen if he or she would vote for a black president they would say yes, but when asked if America was "ready" for a black president, they would be more hesitant to respond yes.If had to answer yes or no, I would say no to both. I think Americans are weary of electing a black or woman President. Only on Election Day will the true answers be revealed.Tags: Jay+Severin Woman+President Black+President President [...]
2007-01-16T15:00:23.862-05:00Laura Ingraham never fails to drive me crazy. That incessant laugh, which screams out tones of her obvious ability to speak nothing but the truth. She is a classic right wing pundit. Although, I love to let her fire me up.
2007-01-16T14:22:51.008-05:00Recently, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy was asked whether President Bush should be worried about Leahy's new role as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Leahy responded:
2007-01-16T00:37:28.052-05:00"I don't want people blamin' our military" George W. Bush
2007-01-16T01:16:47.121-05:00Sen. Joe Lieberman stated yesterday on NBC's Meet The Press that:
2007-01-16T01:19:03.089-05:00There is obviously some controversy surrounding our motivation to enter Iraq. We will most likely never know all the truth preceding the invasion. Alternet published an interesting article which shed light on the possibility of oil being the prime motivation for the war in Iraq (part1/part2). More recently, Seattle Democrat Jim McDermott mentioned this article to the Senate (video).
2007-01-12T14:24:00.406-05:00If there is any body out there who has questions, feel free to ask. I can't go a day without somebody asking me something about my experiences, but I generally dislike talking about it. I am much more comfortable writing. The offer is out there.
2007-01-16T01:24:14.567-05:00I have neglected this blog so long now. I think the time has come for me to jump back into the real world. I have been in vacation mode since I have been home. Here goes nothing.Writing and talking about Iraq is so much more difficult now than it was a year ago. The experience changed me forever, and although some may think I am a bit crazier, I think I made a change for the better. Everything has changed from my personal life to my social life, but one salient point remains the same: Iraq still sucks.With Bush�??s new plan for Iraq in the forefront of today�??s news, now is a great time for me to look to the past and offer some options for the future.Before I left I had no idea what to expect. I had been in a �??combat zone�?? before, but it was lame. Was Iraq going to be similar to my first experience? On the other end of the spectrum, was it going to be like the old scenes of WWII? The area I was in fell somewhere in between lame and full blown battle. It was a frustrating battle; one in which you fought a nearly invisible enemy. There was a constant struggle between fighting and winning over the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. It was this struggle that makes this war, occupation, whatever you want to call it, so difficult.Your buddy gets killed, you kill someone out of fear and anger, he may have been a good guy or a bad guy, either way, his buddy�??s kill someone else, in the same passions of fear and anger. It is a cycle that will continue throughout an occupation unless each side agrees to a cease fire. It�??s simple; neither side is going to get along if we continue to kill each other. It�??s not rocket science. Since neither side is going to get along in the near future, how about stability.How do you bring stability to a nation? At this time, we seem to be attempting to rid the country of the bad guys. But it is so difficult to determine who the bad guys are. Are you a bad guy if you fight to remove an occupying force from your home? Or are you a bad guy if you fight to bring power to your people who have been left in the dark for so long? If we define the bad guys in the former sense, then stability is an easily achieved goal. We leave, they stop fighting us. It is the latter definition that causes problems.Imagine you live in a country where you and the group of people who share your beliefs have been ostracized for years, even though you are the majority group. Suddenly someone steps in removes the machinery that has held you back, and you suddenly have the power to take control of your home. It all sounds great, until you throw another variable into the equation: the people who ruled over you. Even though they are the minority, they are accustomed to possessing the majority of the power. This all leads to civil war.Civil war will ultimately be the outcome of the war in Iraq. It is inevitable at this time. We are attempting to create an Iraqi army. This army mirrors the population. Just because a Sunni wears an Army uniform doesn�??t mean he will get along with a Shia in the same uniform. When we leave, the army will divide itself just as the population has. All the force in the world cannot change the intrinsic beliefs of a society.We could send a million more troops to Iraq, but we will still see the same outcome when we leave. We can stay there for the next twenty years, but the bad guys will still be there with us. Guns do not kill ideologies.Tags: Iraq War Bush Combat Battle Enemy Occupation Stability Civil+War Sunni Shia Troops [...]
2007-01-16T01:26:24.161-05:00It has been awhile since I have written anything. I find it difficult to express hostile feelings towards the conflict in Iraq while some of my brothers are risking their lives, and others are making the ultimate sacrifice for their country. I have tried to hold back until I get home, but one of the headlines I read today brought me over the edge.
2007-01-16T01:30:16.049-05:00"But it's not a war. It's an occupation. You don't "win" or "lose" an occupation."Avedon Carol (Liberal Oasis)Fortunately, I made some time today to browse through the blogosphere, and I was particularly taken by this comment on Liberal Oasis. Are we fighting a war, or are we experiencing an occupation? Good question. There is a fine line distinguishing the two. I would have to say, we are fighting a broad war on terrorism, but we are occupying Iraq.A war on terrorism is such a vast proposal. Terrorism takes on so many forms. If literally fighting terrorism is possible, it cannot be done in one location. And it is completely ludicrous to believe that terrorism can be eradicated through force alone. Terrorism must be fought on many fronts, and through many means. The ultimate end of any act of terrorism is physical destruction, but a return of force is not the only solution, never mind the most practical. Any problem must be solved from its roots, and the root of terrorism is ideological differences. If we try to kill all the terrorists, we will only create more terrorists in the process.Hence, we are having problems with our occupation of Iraq. Lets face it, the Middle East is somewhat of a bastion for terrorists. Iraq is in the heart of the Middle East, and our presence there only fuels the terrorists' hatred for us. The longer we remain in Iraq, the more the terrorists' resentment for us grows. The war in Iraq ended long ago, but our current occupation will provide terrorists recruits for years to come.Avedon Carol is right. We cannot win or lose in Iraq at this point. We won the initial war in Iraq, but are we ready for the consequences of an occupation?Tags: Iraq War Occupation Win Lose War+on+Terror Terrorism Force Terrorists Middle+East Avedon+Carol [...]
2007-01-16T12:13:22.384-05:00This is an exchange between myself, and a friend of mine who is also a Marine, Lester Torrey.I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you to a degree. However,I think your post makes two assumptions. One is that anyone can ever defeat terrorism. I'll save that for later. The other is that we have any intention of leaving the area at all.Eventually we will pull some troops out. But we now have a strong influencing a region that is both problematic and full of oil. What reason do we have to get out? A few dead soldiers? Please! The general public has shown that it can be appropriately sad about dead soldiers and yet can forget about them easily enough. We will most certainly keep a lasting military presence there, just like we have in Korea, Japan, Europe, etc. While many people are getting tired of the war, most of them are not so disgusted with it that they would cry out for its end. Those that are crying out are loud, but still a minority. I don't expect us to ever fully pull out.On to my second point. Can we ever really beat terrorism? I don't believe so. Terrorism is a big concept, and one with a lot of gray areas. But if we focus on the situation at hand, I have to wonder if our presence there is not instigating these terrorist acts. Are we fanning the flames? Some have already claimed that the war has drawn terrorists to Iraq that would otherwise have been terrorizing on US soil. This is good in that it may have saved some American lives, but bad because it has turned Iraq into a quagmire, a field for us to fight a continuous stream of terrorists from all over the world. How many of these terrorists would have become so if we had never gone into the country?Too many people still think we are fighting a war against a traditional army, where all we need to do is kill all of their soldiers, then we win. But the very act of fighting this war gives validity to the enemy's rhetoric, which incites a hate for us. The more we kill, the more people enlist against us.And though you make the point that we only need to be there until the Iraqi army can defend Iraq, I have to ask, Who is the Iraqi army and who are they defending against? If there is really such a split along religious or idealogical lines that it would be a long hard trek to close (as you mentioning another post) then can we believe that these two groups can work together within an army? Or will the army be comprised totally of one faction,leading inevitably to a great imbalance of power, and then to corruption again?My response:In response to your first point, although there are numerous incentives for us to maintain a strong presence here, I am not sure if it would be possible. First of all, they do not want us here, especially in the Sunni areas. We get shot at everyday, and we are blown up everyday. Their (the insurgents) desire and/or resources could diminish with time, but that is only a possibility. Our resources are diminishing. Financially we cannot support ourselves if we "stay the course," for another 3 years. Politically this war is becoming a burden to all those associated with it.Now, if we do maintain a strong presence here, I disagree that it would comparable to the situations in Korea, Japan, Europe, etc. In those instances, we fought for a just cause, with the backing of the world powers. To be blunt, they screwed up, we toppled them, we said we were staying, and the world supported us. In the Iraq war, we entered unde[...]
2006-05-23T06:43:30.740-04:00I stumbled upon this letter today while I was surfing my units webpage. It is letters like this which lead me to believe that there is some very good things occuring here. I encourage anyone who dissents to this war to read it (that includes myself).