Making the Case for War with Iran?

From the early days of the Iraq (war?) I had seen t-shirts that jokingly stated that the US should get out of Iraq, and into Iran – a play on the peace activist’s request to abandon the military actions of the region. For many years during the Bush administration, and now as we well into Obama’s second year, the US Government seems to be building a case that would appease the witty t-shirt designers.

From nuclear development to supporting insurgents in Iraq, Iran has been in the crosshairs of the United States for some time. I recall the Strait of Hormuz incident in which Iranian speed boats were ‘harassing’ the US war ships, an incident which incited saber rattling by the pro-war groups while equally evoking memories of the ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ from the anti-war league. It seems that ne’er a day goes by in which I, as a citizen of the US, am not being pressed by my government to believe that ‘I want to go to war with Iran’.

This week's leading story, just under the BP oil FUBAR in the Gulf of Mexico, has been that Osama Bin Laden is living the high life just north of Tehran – enjoying falconeering, high lifestyle, and surrounded by his wives and children. Even the President of Iran was asked the question, to which he responded ‘I don’t know – hey, he could be in D.C., too’.

If I am following the carrot stick correctly, the entire purpose for Obama to surge in Afghanistan, bring a drone war to Pakistan, and leave Iraq was to bring the fight to Osama Bin Laden and destroy his Al Qaeda network of terror from the top down.

If it is found that Bin Laden is not in Pakistan, rather, in Iran, doesn’t that give Obama the same authority to enter THAT country in the name of justice, the same way that he entered into Pakistan? And doesn’t this provide a convincing final piece to the puzzle for building a case for war against Iran?

I am finding myself compelled to join forces with the anti-war crowd, calling for an end to this perpetual Orweillian war in which the war remains the same, but our enemies and allies mysteriously change on any given day. I must ask the question regarding our role as the 'world police' and if there is any correlation to us being THE world target... increasing the likelihood that our soldiers become targets within the countries that we currently occupy (which STILL include Germany and Japan from WWII). I am at a point where I have to stop the propaganda, and raise some serious questions about when and how these continuous wars will ever end.

Sadly enough a brief look at the history of the United States shows a country continuously at war since before its inception. From fighting the native tribes for conquest of their lands and resources, to the invasion of foreign countries in an imperial effort, the United States has known no time of peace – and it is most certain that the United States has no intention of ending nearly 250 years of aggression – even against her own people. (Has anyone seen the stories on the Pennsylvania ‘we will find you’ television tax ads?)


In closing, when one citizen unplugs from the propaganda bombardment long enough to piece the true history of this nation together and recognizes the habitual pattern, it is little wonder why there is a rising disdain for our nation both from outside sources and from within. With this in mind, I have to raise the red flag on the perpetual war drums from DC, the continued case for war against Iran, and the lengths that the US is going to convince me that ‘war is peace’, and that my ‘ignorance’ is the US’ ‘strength’…

*GRAPHIC LANGUAGE* - On the Iraqi Beratement Video

The following is the much talked about YouTube video from Iraq, where a US Serviceman gives the Iraqi Police Force a tongue lashing due to their lack of action in securing their country. I warn you, the language is fit only for sailors and bikers...



All I have to say is HOORAH!

This is the tough talk that we need out on capitol hill!

It is unfortunate that the Obama administration will most likely, behind closed doors, identify this leader and flog him harming the US image abroad.

In Other News - I have not gone away. I have been holed up with a sick kiddo and now am sick myself (not swine flu). When I am ready to climb out of the cave, I will get back to the action.

In the mean time, take a day and make it your own... as for me, I need to get back to sleep!

Who throws a shoe?... Honestly...

Forget being boo-ed... President Bush got Shoe-ed!

Iraqi TV reporter Muntazer al-Zaidi threw two shoes at President G.W. Bush's head while giving a farewell press conference in Baghdad, leading to his detainment and a question as to how to punish the man - though current reports indicate that he will merely be tried for "insulting the Iraqi state".



This is not the first time that Bush has been targeted by thrown objects - the most deadly was a grenade thrown in the Former Soviet state of Georgia a few years back.

This marks the end of Bush's Iraq war... a war in which he has gone from liberator to tyrant in the minds of the people of that country... media bias getting all the praise.

The Shoe Incident is getting much press all over Iraq, and protests have sprung up all over Baghdad in support of the "Iraqi Hero", calling for his release. al-Zaidi is being praised as a national hero by the people, who are angry over the civilian casualties associated with the war in Iraq.

Bush was obviously shaken by the incident, but attempted to shrug it off as a sign of progress in the war-torn country - indicating the freedom that the people feel to protest their government... a freedom not celebrated under Saddam.

I see it as humiliating to the United States... a literal footnote to the last eight years... Let us hope that the history books are kinder to Bush than al-Zaidi, and Iraqi public opinion.

Remembrance Day

On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month... The first great war came to an end - a war in which many men gave their lives and service to put an end to conquest between kingdoms of Europe. It brought to close a war that changed the way wars were fought - no longer was war a gentleman's feat. The Great War introduced chemical warfare, trench warfare, aerial combat, arms races which took advantage of industrial technologies, and a total warfare that would make Sherman blush.

It was an end to the "War to end all wars".

Unfortunately European Nationalism replaced monarchies, and the hellish scene was replayed a generation later - leading to the second great war, WWII.

By the closing days of WWII, fascism saw defeat, but the world saw a war machine that had gone nuclear, and was intending on a permanent presence.

Since then, the world has been in a constant state of war - that is to say that the United States itself has directly been involved in a hot/warm conflict since the beginning of WWII - 67 years of war - and it has begun to define the state of our union:

1941 -1945: WWII - heavy active combat in Europe, Africa, Middle East, and East Asia
1945 - 1989: Russia - Cold War instigated numerous conflicts world-wide
1945-1946: Philippines - Occupation for Independence
1945 - 2008: Korea - Initial occupation to fight socialists, then Korean War, then continued occupation. Actual HOT conflict 1950 - 1953
1950 - 1955: China - multiple small conflicts as the country fell to communists, ultimate US withdrawal of troops
1956 - 1958: Middle East - the US acted as security for international interest in the Suez Canal Crisis and the Lebanon Crisis
1955 - 1975: Vietnam - bailing out the French, the US became the main fighting force by 1959, marking the beginning of the Vietnam era in the US - including bombing campaigns of Cambodia and Laos along the Ho-Chi-Minh trail
1962: Thailand, Cuba, Laos - The US deployed troops around the world to fight the spread of communism
1973: Israel - US assists in delivering arms during the Yom Kippur War
1975 marked a near unilateral withdrawal from major conflict zones in the Middle East and Southeast Asia
1976: Korea - the US surges troops along the DMZ to reduce tension and NK aggression against the US and SK
1978: Congo - the US bails out the French and Belgians from central Africa
1978 - 1989: Afghanistan - covert war against the Soviet Union, funded by the US and fought with US weapons
1980 - 1990: Middle East - US is involved with operations in Iran, Libya, Sinai, Lebanon, Egypt, Persian Gulf (Iran) - acting as security forces for regional conflicts and protection of oil shipping lines
1988-1990: Central America/South America - The drug wars of Panama, Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru
1991 - Kuwait: First Persian Gulf War against Iraq, lead to occupation of Saudi and Kuwaiti territory from 1990 - 2003, enforcing no fly zones
1992 - Somalia: Part of Peace Keeping operations with cooperation in the UN
1993 - 1999 - Balkans: Us involved in ending armed conflict between ethnic groups
1998 - 1999 - Kenya, Tanzania, Afghanistan, Sudan: battle against al-Qaeda begins globally
2001 - 2008 - Afghanistan: war on terror
2003 - 2008 - Iraq: war against Saddam Hussein, became central front of war on terror

There you have it - 67 years of continuous US involved wars, conflicts, etc... The list is much more extensive, including deployment of small forces for training, special ops, etc... but the major battles and conflict are shown above, indicating a change in the world in the face of new war technologies.

So on this Remembrance Day, I ask that we not only remember the service and dedication to the missions that so many men and women have valiantly conducted their missions - but to also question the escalation of post WWII violence around the world.

I can speak for many when I say that there is an increased tension in world security, world peace, and ideological conflicts in our time - much more so, I would surmise, than in the years leading up to WWII.

This Veteran's Day, remember our service men and women - but also remember the intent of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month - a Remembrance of what the sacrifices of the Great War represented - a reminder that it is more important to strive for peace than for war... the toll is much too high, otherwise.

Maneuvering Iraq out of the 2008 POTUS Race?

I have noticed a trend in headlines regarding Iraq - The Conflict is Nearing End.

It may be so much so that by the end of the summer, should we continue down the path we are on (no major offenses by militants), the final plan for US presence in the country could be set.

I recently posted regarding a story that the Iraqi government is asking for a planned end to combat forces in their country based on the end of the UN Mandate requesting the US forces for security reasons. While this is taking place, Iraq and the US are working out a long term plan allowing some sort of bases and freedom to engage Terror Organizations within the country. This plan is due to be completed by the end of July... Two weeks from today.

Once this plan is established, all the debates regarding timetables, etc. are moot. Could it be that George Bush is effectively taking the wind out of the sails of the Liberal Warships by eliminating this topic as a major need to be filled by the next President? Possibly.

Barack Obama is attempting to claim success (and a win) in the Iraqi request for a planned troop withdrawal after the UN mandate expires. However, it has been the policy of the Republican President, GWB, to finish this conflict and secure the region.

Bush's policy has caused much consternation in the liberal ranks... however, the same policy has freed the country to democracy, free market, foreign investment, and security in the face of radical threats. Let's take a look at some advancements in Iraq that are being hushed by the left, but on day one of an Obama Presidency, victory will be claimed along these same lines (effectively taking credit for Bush's successful policy in Iraq):

*Iraq's economy: Foreign investment is on the rise, coming from Europe and Asia - the stability in Iraq is leading private investment firms to begin flocking to the country, bolstering the fledgling democracy.

*Iraq's economy: The UN is encouraging neighbors and world partners to forgive the Hussein debt of Iraq, allowing the country to start fresh on the world stage... The United Arab Emirates (UAE) took the lead and forgave $7 Billion (roughly 1/5 of Iraq's entire debt). The UAE has taken the additional step in reconnecting ties politically to the country, giving legitimacy to the government in the region.

*Iraq's Security: 15 of the 18 benchmarks set forth by the US Congress in relations to Iraq's security have been met. "The embassy judged that the only remaining shortfalls were the Baghdad government's failure to enact and implement laws governing the oil industry and the disarmament of militia and insurgent groups, and continuing problems with the professionalism of the Iraqi Police." The current plan for Iraqi oil is privatization - though Iraqi oil unions are fighting against that end.

I firmly believe that the mission in Iraq is complete... We have eliminated the country's ability to make war with their neighbors and with the US, we have built and backed a democratic government representative of the people of Iraq, and we have trained and prepared the Iraqi people for security of their own country. The rest is up to them.

Now that we are in the phase of long term planning for troop deployment, the successes will have to be weighed and announced - and the results must indicate that combat is over, and the troops should be brought home (Less the necessary non-combat troops required to populate bases to ensure lasting security in the country - similar to Germany's bases post WWII). Continued combat missions should be halted, and the Iraqi police should conduct such missions. The US presence should be limited to strengthening the Iraqi military by way of continued training.

We will ultimately have to see the outcome of these security discussions (Status of Forces Agreement has been abandoned and replaced with this "bridge agreement"). But in the meantime, the successes in Iraq are evident. The need for US troops elsewhere are evident. The draw-down of US troops in September is evidence that Bush is planning to end this war, effectively removing it from the issues needing to be handled by the next President.

Will it be enough to remove it from the minds of the voters?

Success in Iraq - Mission Accomplished?

How does one go about measuring success in Iraq? The benchmarks set forth for the fledgling Iraqi government are nearly met (15 of 18 successfully met), violence and casualties are at a nearly all time low, and the government is able to act independently from the US forces.

In fact, countries that had been opposed to the war have begun bidding for free market contracts in helping rebuild the economy of the country - China, France. The economy is being stimulated by debt relief and re-establishment of foreign relations with it's neighbors - the UAE just forgave $7 Billion in debt accrued under Saddam.

Today, the Iraqi government made it clear that they intend the US to hand over control and security of the country shortly after the UN mandate for security of the country expires at the end of 2008. The government has made it clear that they are ready to assist the US with a phased withdrawal, proposing a timetable that would be conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. Iraqi police are battle hardened, after being dug in with their American counterparts; the tiny air force may be ready to take control of the airspace of Iraq, defending it from foreign invaders (Iran); and the people of Iraq have taken personal roles in ensuring safety and security in their own communities, often aiding in the routing of local thugs.

Could this mean that regardless of the Presidential race, the US will begin a withdrawal supported by the Iraqi government in early 2009? And is this the elusive "Mission Accomplished" that Bush has been looking for in Iraq?

I would say that this success, and the ability of Iraq to secure itself, is a victory for the United States. This is a war that is ready to be ended, but not for political reasons... because the country is ready for the war to be over.

The US should maintain a presence in the region for stability, as in Germany and Japan post WWII (and Korea, post TKW)... of course, at the request (or agreement) of the US backed Iraqi government.

If this is a successful end to the war, perhaps that is why Obama has flip-flopped on the issue and is now "considering the input from the generals on the ground"... I guess it feels good to be on a winning team after all!

Iran - US: Battle in Hormuz

As the war of words heats up surrounding Iran's defiant nuclear program, both countries are beginning to unveil what a war between the two countries would look like.

Israel will clearly make the first blow, striking the nuclear sites of Iran in hopes that they can curb their nuclear weapons development. This is going to happen sooner rather than later, and is going to be a massive country wide attack, necessary to destroy all of the nuclear development. As well, Iran's nuclear sites have been built in reinforced bunkers to avoid an Iraq-style destruction (the Israeli's destroyed Iraq's above ground nuclear sites in the early 80's), so these bombs would have to be of some substance.

Iran has declared that if they are attacked by Israel, they will retaliate by destruction of Israel. One would assume that they would push the button and activate their army of suicide bombers to cause civil unrest in the Hebrew nation. Israel's response would be nothing short of total destruction of the Palestinian territories as a reminder that they exist at the pleasure of Israel.

Meanwhile, Iran has declared that any attack on their facilities would cause a closure of the Strait of Hormuz - a 21 mile waterway connecting the Persian Gulf and all her oil resources to the Indian Ocean. The Strait lies pinched between Iran and Oman. Iran closing the shipping lanes in the Strait would prohibit the shipment of 40% of the world's oil supply - a move that is not going to be taken lightly by the world community.

As well, Iran (who is counting on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as their main
defense against attack), has been studying US military ship operations in the waterways in an attempt to face the foe off their own shores. Iran has developed a "stealthy" sea plane (see picture) that is intended to deliver torpedoes and other anti-ship weapons. (The plane is not stealthy, as the top-mounted rotor would light up any radar detector)

The Untied States reminds Iran that the Naval 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, just on the Persian Gulf side of the Strait, and that any attempt to engage the Navy militarily would be met with "Captains who are ready to defend their ships".

Let's analyze this situation for a minute. The most dangerous foe is one who has nothing to lose. George W Bush is out of office in less than 6 months, with no concerns of re-election. After the November election, regardless of the outcome, Bush has absolutely nothing to lose. November 5th is a day that Iran should circle on their calendars. With the elections behind him, George Bush has a blank check of power that he could use to unleash hell on Iran, especially if Obama becomes president... a legacy ended with an exclamation point!

Should Israel attack prior to US election day, there would be some politicking, but the Iranian Navy would see instant and utter destruction at the hands of the US forces before one missile was fired from their Naval Missile Boats. The Iranians are outgunned, outclassed, and outnumbered in their own waters. Any threat to the US vessels would be seen as an act of war and would be cause for annihilation. The Iranian Navy would last less than 24 hours as we hit them with everything we have got.

On the ground, a campaign of bombing training camps for military and terrorists, as well as military and nuclear bases, would ensue. The US would not need to put boots on the ground. Our goal would merely be to take away Iran's ability to make war. Their infrastructure would not be able to stop the cruise missiles, and other bombs.

The Iranian Air Force would be eliminated while their planes were still on the ground. Bases would be struck overnight. Any plane that did manage to scramble would have no friendly territory to land... and without an enemy actually in the air to dogfight, they would be forced to land at their own peril.


The POTUS has the ability to take military action without the approval of congress for a period not to exceed 90 days. This would make an attack on Iran legal and legit by American Law.

The Iranians talk as if they have a big stick... but what a whiffle bat has in size, it lacks substance. The Iranians are being permitted to exist at the pleasure of the United States... If we decide that they have crossed the line, and actually pose any sort of a threat, there would be hell to pay.

disclaimer: "Iranians" refers to the government of Iran, the military infrastructure, and the other than friendly citizens of that country... all others are exempt.

Eurofication of the American Left

The left is afraid to let the United States fight the war that needs to be fought. I have written about my frustration in this war against Islamic Totalitarianism, in that our goal is to make everyone love us instead of doing what is right.

I blame the left. I blame the weak politicians on the right for giving in to the left.

I was at my graduation ceremony last night for the LPR (Leadership Program of the Rockies), and our keynote speaker was Dennis Prager. Mr. Prager said something that inspired my column today: "Instead of learning from the Great Wars that it is our job to Fight Evil, Europeans learned that it is Evil to Fight." (this in response to a report that German soldiers are ordered not to fire on Taliban troops, despite their actions, unless fired upon first)

The Europeans became pacifists in world and internal affairs, in hopes of a unification of Europe. They have their unification, but at the cost of the downfall of all that is and ever was Europe. There is no spine in Europe, no one to stand up for values that have shaped Europe over the last 2000 years... and no desire to act as the same atrocities that occurred in Germany and Poland in the second World War are taking place throughout Africa, Pacific Island Nations, and throughout the Middle East... as such, America is left to do what is right... and be the police to the world.

Prager also said that it is better to do what is right and be hated for it, than to do what is wrong and be loved. If you are loved by all, then you have done something wrong... you have sacrificed your principles... This is true for the military intervention in the case of genocide... Rwanda, Congo, and other African Countries have seen more sheer numbers of dead due to Genocide than all military and civilian deaths in World War Two worldwide... yet the world, and namely Europe, does nothing.

They do nothing because they refuse to be hated as the United States has been seen as being hated around the world... and in their silence, they sin. Their very inaction is a crime against Humanity.

And the American left is under the same spell... it is more important to them to be loved around the world than to stand up and do what is right. Send aid to Darfur, but not the military necessary to stop the Genocide. What good is aid when you are murdered by a machete, raped, and burned in your home with your entire family?

No... the left is more interested in appearing to be doing the right thing... but no action is taken for fear of being hated... because they, much like the European Pacifists, have learned that to Fight is Evil.

Deep in the gut of every man, woman, and child around the world is a feeling... a pinch... you know the difference between right and wrong.

If you see someone committing a crime against humanity, you know it is wrong. And if you get that pinch, but do nothing, you too have committed a crime. You are at fault for not doing all you could to help... to stop the rape, to stop the killing, to stop the violence... even if it means giving your life to save another. That is the American Way... not Pacifism... not sitting by and watching as the world burns around us.

I don't care how the conflicts started... All I care about is how they are ended.

If you went in to a doctor to cure your lung cancer, and instead of curing you he continually blamed you for smoking... you should find another doctor!

So if it is our job to stop genocide in Africa, and prevent it in Iraq by up and leaving, we should do the job, not obsess on how we got there in the first place.

How do we save as many lives as possible?

By doing what is right.

The left, somewhere along the way, have learned that it is evil to fight.

The truth is that it is our duty, our moral authority, to stop killing, raping, and inhumane acts around the world... all things that we can consider evil... it is our obligation as a free and enlightened society to fight evil. That is real change!

The Defeat of America: Proof Positive - GET US OUT OF IRAQ

My Official Stance on the War in Iraq: GET THE US OUT NOW.

I am talking drop everything and head for the exits... no phased withdrawal, no permanent bases... Get out.

Have I become a Liberal Democratic Defeatist?

Quite the contrary. I simply refuse to stand by and support military action when our government does not have the resolve to conduct a war the way it needs to be conducted.

The Iraqi Islamic Party is calling for "the severest punishment" of a soldier who used the Koran as a target in Iraq. The punishment, they say, will serve as a warning to US soldiers to "consider the feelings of Muslims". And of course, the severest penalty, in their minds, is death. So the politicians of a defeated country are calling for the death of a US soldier in a country in which we are currently conducting a war. All the while, we are bending to their will by at least issuing an apology and sending the soldier back to the states.

"I come before you here seeking your forgiveness," Hammond said to tribal
leaders and others gathered. "In the most humble manner, I look in your eyes
today, and I say please forgive me and my soldiers."

Major General Jeff Hammond - a fearless leader in the US armed forces, humbly asking forgiveness from THE ENEMY.

That brings me to the point of this article:

HOW CAN WE FIGHT A WAR WITHOUT KNOWING THE ENEMY?

The "war" in Iraq is a fake war. It is not a war at all. In war, an enemy is defined and subsequently beaten into submission... You define the enemy, and take away the will or ability for the enemy to fight.

The "War On Terror" is an ambiguous war against a tactic of fighting, not an actual enemy. So who is the enemy? And how do we know when the "job is done" in Iraq? If we keep "fighting terror", the job will never be done.

The enemy is Islamic Totalitarianism, or Islamic Fundamentalism.

Saddam Hussein was actually a stabilizing force AGAINST Islamic Totalitarianism... making him the enemy of our enemy, and thus a friend. Not the best bedfellow, but a friend in this struggle.

We entered Iraq without adequately identifying the enemy of the Global War On Terror. Had we done so, we would not have allowed the SCIRI party of Iraq to take charge of the country... SCIRI, by the way, stands for: Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

SCIRI is a political party based in Islamic Totalitarianism...

That is right. We have invaded a country on the premise of fighting global terror, only to hand the country over to Islamic Totalitarian Forces.

This is equivalent to invading France prior to WWII and allowing the NAZI party to take the reigns.

We have done the work of the enemy, and are continuing to engage in a struggle to support a government that NOW represents the ideals that we should be attempting to eradicate!

HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE?

The two top fundraisers for Islamic Totalitarianism comes from the countries of Iran and Saudi Arabia. If we intend on ever actually winning the war against I.T. we need to take away the funding, and decimate the enemies will and ability to fight. THAT is a war!

War is not dropping food instead of bombs, keeping the population happy.

War is not apologizing to the enemy for insulting them.

War is not having your armed forces building the infrastructure of a country.

War IS removing the capability for the enemy to fight. Take away the will to fight. Annihilate the resources and eradicate the ability to make war.

This means destroying the Islamic leaders of Iran, and the Princes of Saudi Arabia... both groups are funding the expansion of Islamic Totalitarianism... Both groups are hell-bent on destroying the US... and both groups are responsible for ALL acts of terror around the world... Follow the money.

This is a Casus Belli - an act threatening our country, justifying war.

As long as we continue "humbly apologizing" to the enemy, instead of fighting the source of their ability to make war, The United States has NO BUSINESS putting our military in harm's way.

If we do not have the resolve to fight the war that needs to be fought, then we need to come home and hope that the next time we are attacked, the resolve will be strong enough to do what needs to be done.

We MUST engage Iran and Saudi Arabia with EXTREME PREJUDICE... secure the oil fields, destroy their economy, execute their leaders, and destroy the will of the people to revolt against our forces. Once this is accomplished, we will rebuild. No More Eggshells for me.

Name the True Enemy, Fight the battle that needs to be fought, and WIN THIS WAR!

Iran's Goal: A Nuclear Apocalypse

Iran's quest to bring about the End-Times is as clear as listening to a speech by any one of her leaders. The self-fullfilling prophecy of bringing about the savior of man, or the next prophet, is done so by tragic warfare, with total destruction of humanity in it's current form... It would appear, to anyone actually listening, that Iran's hopes for world peace come only from making haste on bringing about global nuclear war.

This is the problem with religious fanaticism in leadership positions... such as the Iranian panel of religious leaders and the Ayatollah, in charge of overseeing all that the governemnt and people do. Their hope is to please their god by aiding the end times.

Don't believe me? Iran has been trying to obtain the technology to build nuclear wepons since before the revolution, and since 2003 has redoubled their efforts to create not just enriched Uranium for fuel, but Plutonium for bombs. All the while speaking of peaceful energy use, but ending the speeches and policy with "and by the by, we also are going to blow Israel off the map"... let me guess, blow them off the map with peaceful energy?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regularly mentions the Mahdi, the Muslim Messiah, in his speeches regarding the future of Iran and Iran's energy program.

If we analyse the events and the rhetoric, we can better understand what is unfolding.

The use of religion, or the invocation of the name of a god on behalf of one's cause has been the oldest and strongest form of coorsion in the history of man. Fighting in "god's army" has been a battle cry of both sides of countless wars throughout the ages. Most famous was the Crusades, in which the Holy Land was being reclaimed in the name of Christ. What better way to get atonement than to glorify your god in battle?

With this in mind, there is no question that the leaders of Iran look to influence their subjects, as well as Muslims around the world, who see the tasks they are undertaking as the work of the muslim god. As a muslim, or a citizen of Iran, how can you question the actions of your divinely inspired leaders? To do so would be blasphemy... and to blaspheme would mean death. So it goes, that the leaders of Iran have taken the most widely used page out of the history book, and are once again invoking religion over reason, and their loyal subjects are powerless to stop god.

Next, let's evaluate the "code words" being used by Iranian leadership. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often talks about the use of Uranium for "peaceful purposes" while in the same breath talking about the destruction of Israel and the West. Let me explain: in the eyes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad they are not mutually exclusive... they are, in fact, one in the same. According to the story of the Mahdi, there will be peace on earth when the restores righteousness and changes the world into a perfect and just Islamic society alongside Jesus (who, of course, was Muslim and not Jewish... right?). So the peace comes when the world is controlled by Islam, and we are all subject to Islamic law. That is the ultimate "peaceful purpose"... death to the infadels, and survival and submittal of all loyal islamic subjects to the islamic leadership... I mean allah, of course!

Iran is in a dangerous bind... and that bind is tying knots in the stomach of the rest of the world.

Should Iran obtain nuclear weapons, or the capability to manufacture them, we will be within a decade of nuclear war.

I ask, if we can see the future and know what tragedies are going to come, is it our obligation to stop them?

Of course I am not suggesting all out war with Iran... but destroying the ability for Iran to enrich nuclear material... for energy or for weapons.

The alternative could be much worse.

Violence in Iraq Spikes Under Al Sadr, What’s our Role?

"Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's followers say security forces are abusing a
cease-fire by his Mahdi Army militia to unfairly target them in raids.
The government says it is acting against criminal gangs. "

The answer to Iraq’s security issue has to be regional security with allegiance to the central government of Iraq. This is the same system that the US uses, where cities and counties take care of local issues, followed by state government, who all pledge allegiance to the federal government.

The mistake in Iraq has been too much focus on the central government, and the central government’s subsequent fighting with the regional security forces.

As much as I hate the devil child, Muqtada al Sadr, he and his followers may be more in the right than we think. Now, of course, al-Sadr has not been elected councilman of anything… he is a self proclaimed leader and head of an illigitimate gang… so IMHO he needs to run for a post, or petition his government for the creation of regional posts, like city council or county commissioner. That will legitimize he and his followers, and bring people in to the political process.

Notice that I use “illegitimiate” instead of “illegal”. It is for a purpose. We in the United States have set rules and regulations, the breaking of which is against the legal system as voted on by the people or their representatives… thus illegal. In Iraq, there are not the same set of rules, elected representatives, or an effective democratic structure. It is a land of renegades and regional order (or disorder), with groups fighting with the US troops or the Iraqi government because they have no other way to petition their government – the system doesn’t exist. So they engage in civil war, or widescale gang war…

With the lack of rules of, by, and for the people, and the increased frustration of the people in Iraq, I have to ask myself and our countrymen: what is our role?

I was discussing the war with my best friend, Curtis, during our road trip. Curtis is active military, scheduled to deploy in January of 2009. He said, “It’s our job to stay there until the job is done”. To which I replied, “What is the definition of the ‘job’ and how will we know when it is ‘done’?” He couldn’t answer, so we discussed the irony of being in a war, and supporting a war to which there is no end in sight, or there are no clear objectives.

Should the objectives be set per my guidelines, we could end ground combat within a year, and chose to establish a few permanent bases for regional security should we so chose.

My guidelines for ending the war would be this:

1. The establishment of regional states, which would establish rule of law in accordance with the Iraqi Constitution, the election of regional or state Governors and legislature, and the creation of these state’s own constitution, as prescribed in Chapter 5 of the Iraqi constitution. Each region would have one year to complete a draft regional constitution and submit it to the voters.
2. Complete the training of the Iraqi Military for basic infantry combat. Our continued presence with bases can continue training higher tech military personnel and officers.
   

That is it. Two goals. Establish the rule of law, and provide for the defense of that rule of law. Everything else is extra, as part of a post combat effort.

If we continue our combat in Iraq as part of a “stop all violence” effort, we will have zero chance of success. What we are now is the Iraqi police, fighting thugs and gangsters.

The role of the US combat troop in Iraq is done. The political process, however difficult, needs to be allowed to work. We should establish a combat ready force at local bases to ensure there are no strings of genocide, and to help qwell a civli war… but our task must be complete.

For those who disagree, I would argue that most combat that is seen now is, in fact, an attack by a gang (you may call them terrorist groups, but they are gangs). This is reminiscent of Los Angeles during the gang war years.

So my plea to the US government is to define the job, so we will know what it is that needs to be done. Let’s finish the job you define. Let’s end combat in Iraq and unite this country!

Can Democracy Survive in the Middle East?

Our founding fathers made an astounding declaration to the tyrannical King of England in the late 1700's, stating that it is the natural order of humanity that we are endowed with Life, Liberty, and the freedom to Pursue Happiness. In doing so, they were effectively signing their own execution papers, should a Revolution Fail. But what they did was more than profound in a philosophical sense... it was the essential beginning to a people becoming self governing.

Their basis rejecting being ruled by the King of England was not in favor of rule by a church in their own land, rather a recognition of the basic rights of humanity, and building on that principle, founding a government of the people.

Now it is well discussed that during the American Revolution there were about 1/3 who were "gung-ho" for fighting the British, about 1/3 who decided to stay neutral, and about 1/3 who remained loyal to the crown. The Revolution came about on a political and militaristic front, keeping opposition at bay while maintaining and winning the war.

So now, I want to consider the requirements for freedom, and ask whether the people in the Middle East can actually survive in a democracy, and enjoy liberty.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

All of the countries of the middle east seem to have a Theocratic form of government... even the more secular countries are still under increased pressure from the Muslim Leaders. The theocratic rule is impossible to contest, because the laws and enforcement of those laws are the "word of god" (sic). And as we have seen in the last few years, the theocratic radicals are highly motivated to fight for maintaining their form of prophetic doctrine by ruling over the people with fear of having "god's punishment" handed to you. This would represent the 1/3 loyal to the crown, or in this case, loyal to their religious leaders.

In countries like Sudan, you are not only killed for being Christian, but you are sentenced to death without trial by the people for allowing a teddy bear to be named "Muhammad". In Saudi Arabia, you are not allowed to make the mark "X" as it too closely resembles the Christian Cross... punishment could include life imprisonment. In Iran you are hanged for homosexuality.

What we see is the ability for a democracy to be created, and to survive... if Democracy, in the crudest terms, simply meant "Majority Rule"... but American Democracy is something different... something that can not exist in that part of the world without drastic changes. American Democracy includes Liberty. The ability to lose a vote, but challenge the outcome... to be wrong, but still be heard... to live how one chooses without fear of persecution or death for choices... the only place where the mind, body, and spirit can be free (current government oversteps excluded - we are talking ideology here). In these countries, you do not have the same respect for basic human rights... You do not have the freedom to protest, not even in order to stay your own execution.

The 1/3 who want change in these countries cannot say so for fear of death. The other 1/3 seem content, until their son or daughter is killed by masked men because they were seen showing too much skin or not praying the correct way.

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams

"...give me liberty, or give me death!" - Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

If Democracy is becoming a gift given to people, misused by electing leadership that promises to harm others for political or religious gain... then Democracy is little more than a mob rule. We can fight to give it to any and all countries.. Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine... and it is a gift in which there is no understanding of the meaning, or the intent. The people are sure to squander it, and will find themselves once again in bondage.

But if Liberty is a prerequisite for Democracy, and the understanding of the principles of basic human rights are fully understood... well, then my friends, we will surely see a Middle East destined to be free.

Have we seen signs of this happening? For sure, there have been some. In Iraq, the people have begun rising up against the terrorists, fighting for their own peace. So there are signs of hope... but they are as brief flashes in a sea of despair. One can only hope that Liberty as well as Democracy takes hold in the Middle East, and true freedom and peace will prevail.

Iraq war to end in 2008? "Yes" says Iraqi Government

The Iraqi Government is on the verge of ending the war for us! That's right! A political solution that very much resembles that of Japan and Germany in the post WWII era (less the Berlin wall).

According to this article, the Iraqi government is requesting an official end to foreign peacekeepers in their country, the removal of all UN sanctions against the country that no longer apply, and a continued US presence in the country for stability.

What does this look like? Well, it looks similar to Germany and Japan, where the US sets up bases outside of and away from major cities, giving the government some independent legitimacy, while at the same time ensuring no threats on the sovereignty of Iraq.

Such a move means that the combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom may be over by the end of 2008. Setting up bases and standing down combat operations is the only logical way to conclude the war and maintain stability in the nation.

This could also change the entire tone of the 2008 Presidential elections. The discussion of bringing all the troops home has always been laughable because a power vacuum would ensure civil war and genocide based on religious warfare... and furthermore, splitting the nation into three sovereign nations was even worse of a plan. But now, with invitation of the Iraqi people, the presence of American bases, as well as the continued training of Iraqi security forces and support of their local economy, Iraq has taken the initiative needed to truly be a free society. No politician can argue that this is a bad idea... except Ron Paul who does not believe that we should deploy peaceful troops around the world for stability reasons...

I am curious as to why this is not getting more air time?!? Perhaps the news agencies are waiting until the actual requests are filed in the next month to the UN. Or perhaps this is part of the "ignore the good news, report the bad" program that the MSM has been following for years.

Can Iraq Exist Without the US?

Reuters has published a new article discussing Turkey's increased drive for invading Northern Iraq, the most stable region of the country. Their main reason is because of a the US commented on an incident which happened in 1915. There is always the pesky business of controlling the Kurdish regions in South Turkey by controling the Kurdish north in Iraq.

So with Sunni Turkey chomping at the bit to invade from the north, and Shiite Iran already making incursions into the country from the East, the question is this: Can Iraq continue to exist without a strong US presence?

Considering that the central government will never have the complete control over the country as Sadaam did, and that national pride is lower on the totem than religious loyalty, it would seem that Iraq does not have a chance at survival.

Assuming that the US leaves, and the country is left without a national army able to defend it's borders, then the most likely course of events (as I proposed earlier this year) are that Turkey succeeds in moving into the north for "security" reasons against the Kurds - as they are already attempting to do, Iran moves into the Shiite strong holds of the South-East, and eventually takes the southestern region. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will have to militarize their borders for fear of a Shiite incursion into the Sunni lands, and another attempt at taking the oil fields of the region. The eastern half of the country is desert, and therefore would be claimed by one or the other invading countries...

Which leaves the security of the region up to the Turkish/Iranian relations... which are shaky at best.

So how is the country of Iraq going to be able to fight off invaders? There will be much resistance in the north, as the Kurds do not want to be ruled by the Turks OR the Iranians, but would rather form Kurdistan. There would be little resistance in the south, as the Shiites would most likely find comfort in the safety that Iran could provide against Sunni Al-Quaeda attacks. Iraq will be unable to sustain itself or defend itself without the protection from the US.

And the rest is history.

Muslims Crucifiying Christians in Iraq

According to a World Net Daily News report, Dutch ministry officials conducting an investigation into violence against Christians in Iraq have discovered that Muslim terrorists have been crucifying Christians in Iraq.

The article did not go into too much detail, but said that most of the crucified individuals were from religiously mixed marriages or muslims who converted to Christianity.

Middle East - Ticking Time Bomb

The ever evolving conflict in the Middle East has taken yet another turn. Al Qaeda has given a two month ultimatum to the Iranian government to cease all ties to the Iraqi Shiite government or face war.

This is the "spilling over" that we had been warning neighbors in the region about... so by arming radical elements and funding their operations, even if just the US, is now going to start spilling across international borders.

This is at the same time when Iraqi politicians are invoking the US second amendment, and urging the citizens to take arms and defend themselves, as a last line of defense against criminals and terrorists. In the wake of the deadly attacks over the weekend, one which killed over a hundred innocent civilians, the Iraqi government has finally asked the people to start taking responsibility for their own safety... (this may be the first step in them understanding the need to fight for their own survival and freedom, and stop depending on the government for a socialist solution)

So as the US is in a showdown this week, where the answer may be given as to when the US will be pulling battle forces out of Iraq, the tensions in the region are escalating... perhaps in anticipation of the US withdrawl. The US congress is debating a defense spending bill, and with Republicans jumping off of the President's war-wagon, it is likely that we will have a timetable for troop withdrawl... What this will look like, what bases will remain, what forces will remain is all to be decided.

What I see as happening if the US withdraws all forces, bases, etc, is as follows:

• Al Qaeda makes good on their promises to attack Iran
• Iran invades Iraq as a response, since Iran houses the terrorist group
• Turkey invades Iraq from the north to secure northern oil fields in the wake of the Iranian invasion
• Iraqi-Sunnis begin fighting Shiites who support the Iranian invaders (this is already taking place)
• Syria and Jordan move forces into the Iraqi desert to secure their borders, and ensuring the violence and/or the Iranians do not move into their country.
• Iraqi government surrenders to invading forces, agrees to disband and divide country to newly recognized borders.
• US liberals begin outcry as to the lack of our involvement in the humanitarian crisis during this war

I have suggested 7 events that may take place due to our withdrawl in the face of escalating international pressures. Each event is a cascade from the previous event... and it only makes sense considering the current tensions bundled with the previous hostilities between the regional neighbors...

The point is that the people of Iraq are at the point where they see the necessity defend themselves, thus building a sense of national pride and will to self govern... and that Al Qaeda, seeing the potential for a wider regional conflict, is willing to pull Iran into this knowing that it will increase the body count... and the US is powerless throughout this entire unfolding because we have been emasculated by socialist-world-government-liberal-Americans.

It is like a choose your own adventure book... Total chaos by US withdrawl, or an increasing sense of stability by US presence?

Hell, we are still in Germany and Japan after more than 60 years of post WWII peace... what about that don't the Liberals understand? Stability takes time, and American Unity...

God Bless...

How Bush Could Ruin (or save) the 2008 Elections

One word: Iraq

According to a CNN poll, 51% of Americans said that Iraq was going to be "extremely important" when they make their decision for the next president.

43% think healthcare issues are extremely important...

Trickling off after that are economy, terrorism, Social Security, education, etc.

So how is it, you ask, that Bush can ruin the 2008 elections? The answer is simple: Not fixing the mess in Iraq. Bush has about a year to make some MAJOR headway in Iraq, layout a political plan, get other Middle Eastern neighbors involved in securing the region, and be firm with (but PLEASE dont invade) Iran.

It is imperitive that the Democratic candidatates NOT be elected into the White House in 2008... for so many social, economical, and even American unity reasons...

I am not advocating an anti-war message... What I AM advocating is an anti-screw-up message.

I have my fingers crossed... Bush, fix this mess!

What is the main issue that will decide YOUR vote in 2008? Vote here.