Iraq Debate--Judgement vs Experience etc.

Barack claims superiority based on his choice of being against the war with Iraq he made prior to becoming a U.S. Senator. He could have made the choice based on a coin flip for all I can determine; he does not give any background as to why he made his choice, so I cannot determine whether he made a good judgment or just a lucky choice. After the fact he argues that the war was expensive in dollars and lives; the normal consequences of any war and a "no-brainer". Just being against war generally does not count. As to Hillary's choice, she just climbed on the patriotic "Bandwagon"; choosing to play it politically safe since 70% of the public was for attacking Iraq and the Al-Qaeda "bad guys". I don't see any "fine points" being laid out in the general argument going on about Iraq--past or present.
McCain plays the "History" ploy, that we are in Iraq and so must stay in Iraq as we have been in Japan, Korea, Europe for over 50 years, so that makes it OK to be in Iraq indefinitely. There is one big difference between Japan, Korea, Europe etc. and Iraq--we had the moral high ground in those cases, but do not have the moral high ground in Iraq; since we invaded Iraq on multiple pretenses, not because we were attacked by Iraq, or were being threatened by Iraq. On top of this we will never really "win" in Iraq. Our presence will never be accepted by the Iraqis and those countries that constitute the Middle East. A good example is the Israeli conflict that has been going on since the 1920's. Rockets, suicide bombings, and assassinations will go on and on ad infinitum until Israel is no more. The moslem religion and Arab politics are so intrinsically linked that there is little chance the Israelis and the Arabs will find a way to make peace.
So where is the "win" in win? Do we figure on outwaiting Iran for control of Iraq? The shiites out number sunnis and the Kurds are relatively content with their enclave. Of course the Turks may feel threatened by an oil rich Kurdish enclave giving harbor to terrorists. Do we naively think that we can create a country in the Middle East after our own image? What we have is a tiger by the tail--we can't hang on, yet don't dare let go. What I'd like to see is some clarification as to what our goal is; other than providing security for the Iraqis so that they can become politically stable. And then there is the "War on Terror". How do you fight a war against an idea? Al-Qaeda is not a country but a concept, one linked to a religion. It does not need a "base" from which to attack us or others. Training and supplying can be done in garages, hotel rooms, apartments, open fields, forests, in the mountains, anywhere. Our politicians keep saying that our presence is required in Iraq so as to prevent Al-Qaeda from building bases from which to attack us. Al-Qaeda's air force is someone else's passenger planes, their bombs are strapped on or placed in stolen automobiles, so why do they require a base from which to attack us? If anything judgement can be judged by scrutenizing a politician's arguments and definitions.

The Dem Texas Debate--What a Bunch of B.S.

I kept looking for the "beef", which was notably absent. Generalities, generalities, and more generalities. It all sounded good, with all the requisite emotional appeals and "buzz" words. Is the public being "duped"; you bet it is--like an audience watching a couple of magicians doing their stuff. And illegal immigration? Now if anyone was seeing what was really going on they would see why nothing has been done over the years to stem the flow of illegal aliens over our borders. Both voted for a fence at the border and now both are saying they will not build a fence--oh yeah, cameras anyone? I haven't seen a camera catch a single illegal alien. They have been good at showing scores of illegals scampering from Mexico to the U.S., like cockroaches scampering across a kitchen floor when the lights were turned on, but by the time the border patrol could respond the illegal aliens would be miles away and well hidden. There were abundant emotional appeals; like all those abandoned "babies" because their parents had been deported. Then there was mention of the Brownsville University losing part of its campus to "the nasty old border fence". Comprehensive Immigration Reform, according to Hillary and Obama, means no enforcement, no immigration constraints at all, no change in past and present policy. If any of these clowns are elected we will deserve the chaos that will follow. None of the "candidate wannabes" are capable of making sound decisions--their expertise is in verbal slight-of-hand. Yes, they are playing a bunch of dupes. I predict that the political honeymoon with Congress and the People will last less than a year; for their incompetence will show up in short order. Ideologues lack intellectual depth, which is a necessity when confronted with problems outside one's expertise. Obama and Hillary are lawyers, a profession whose purpose is to present a point of view not related to reality and one that the listener should adopt. McCain is the professional hero; a super patriot who is still fighting the Viet Nam war, and one who is prepared and ready to fight the next war, which happens to be going on now; and according to him will last for the next 100 years. some choice.

Where's The Outrage?

If any other country had an invasion amounting up to 6% of its own population, 20 million illegal immigrants to a population of 300 million, who then flaunt their presence by marching for special favors, they would be outraged. Why then aren't we?
A comment made by a proponent of amnesty for illegal aliens set me off again on the subject of illegal immigration. The comment was that Conservatives were using "rhetoric" to oppose Amnesty. They don't have to use rhetoric; for their arguments are strong by just stating the facts. Amnesty doesn't work--period. All it did was encourage more illegal entries into the U.S., allow employers to employ cheap labor illegally, bring in more crime and drugs into the U.S., provide a broader base for illegal aliens to spread out throughout our society, increase our taxes in order to provide education and services for aliens, destabilize our politics, encourage pandering and special interest lobbying by our elected officials, and the list goes on. The bottom line is WE, THE PEOPLE, are losing control of our own country. We have been emotionally cudgeled by the proponents of Amnesty so badly that we have given up our survival instinct. Where we should be expressing outrage all that is heard is a faint murmur from a few against an invasion of our country by millions--with many more coming.
If the proponents of Amnesty have their way the numbers of illegal aliens will increase exponentially--that is if the next step isn't open borders, where the only sign of a border is a sign saying "You'all Come On In Now--Free Medical Care, Education, Country". A major highway from Mexico into the U.S. is now being planned--the old roads are sufficient for the next wave of illegal immigrants who will come in when the next regime is in place.

The Glamor Trap

Barack Obama is being compared to John F. Kennedy, popular, good looking, charismatic etc. -- however, we are voting for a President, a person who will undoubtedly be faced with fast paced crises, where a misstep might mean millions of lives being effected: perhaps mortally. JFK made mistakes despite his intelligence, education, and popularity; remember the Bay of Pigs fiasco? JFK had to deal with "The Cold War" during its worst period, The Cuban Missile episode, the beginning of The Viet Nam War etc. Experts might well question his handling of foreign affairs during his Presidency. So comparing Barack Obama to JFK might be a mistake, or a warning not to vote because of a persons charisma.

Something Wrong With John McCain?

When I listen to John McCain give speeches or in general discourse I get a feeling that there is something wrong with the man. I remember how he got a "religious conversion" when he became one of the Keating Five, how he campaigned for campaign finance reform after being found out. His continuous use of "my friends" as he addresses the public sounds too pandering and gimmicky, which indicates a deep dishonesty--in my opinion. His rigidity is exceeded or met by one individual, who has turned out to be one of the worst Presidents ever, in my remembrance, President GW Bush. That McCain embraces GW's policies and philosophy of governance is doubly troubling. One hundred years in Iraq? The oil will have run out long before that time, in Iraq as well as in Saudi Arabia; so what is the point? McCain embraces extreme and radical Conservatism--the economic philosophy which encourages and implements run-a-way Capitalism. He uses weasel words and sentences to circumvent issues which the Public holds too--such as no Amnesty for illegal aliens. His "border first" is a dodge, for he will pay lip service to enforcing the border, do nothing about employer enforcement, and slip in Amnesty for 12 t 20 million illegal aliens after a time and pronouncement that border enforcement has been achieved; and after the Public has lost interest in the issue. The reason I believe this is because he has not said explicitly how he would enforce the existing laws now on the books. He said that the public wanted border control, and left out the rest, such as "no Amnesty" for illegal aliens; which to my mind means that he is deliberately avoiding that part of the issue. By his past actions and his present handling of issues I have to question his honesty and character. I have to ask who are his major moneyed contributors? He supports tax cuts for the most wealthy of Americans. How does the tax cuts help the average American? When we vote we should keep this in mind.
We are not really changing anything if we vote for McCain--more war in the Middle East, intransigence in foreign policy, more Corporate welfare, environmental threats to such places as ANWR, etc.

Bring 'em Out of the Dark

Hillary and Obama out did themselves on the illegal alien immigration issue this last debate--aired ad infinitum by CNN. Their position on illegal alien immigration is quite clear--outright amnesty for millions of aliens that according to our laws and public opinion do not have a right, legal or moral, to be in this country. The only people who benefit to any extent by are farmers, meat packers, restaurant owners, motels, hotels, and small construction owners and of course the illegal aliens themselves.
The losers are the American taxpayers and American workers. Public sentiment has been held at bay by ethnocentric groups and politicians who have been bludgeoning their opposition, those who have tried to bring reason and common sense to the issue, with emotional appeals and slogans. Appeals, such as everyone should act "humane", and slogans such as "bringing them out of the dark'; like illegal aliens are like cockroaches? The "humane" appeal has already been addressed in one of my recent blogs, but "bring them out of the dark", a slogan hasn't.
What is involved in the Amnesty program? Well, promised by a reward of "amnesty" the illegal aliens will rush down to some government office to sign up for "the process"; presumably with $3,000 in hand, employment and rental records, and "proof" of who they are, such as a Mexican birth certificate or whatever serves as bone fide ID. Will stolen or faked Social Security numbers or cards serve as "proof" of residency? Then there is the question of English. How fluent in the English language must one be to become a citizen and who determines language competency? A great chance for fraud and deception here. since a lot was overlooked and ignored after the 1986 Amnesty program. Then there is the question of employers--there has been 22 years of breaking the law by employers. We are supposed to be a Nation of laws--right? Excuses aside--many employers put forth the argument that Americans won't work in the fields, meat packing plants, and restaurants. No they wont, at least not for sub-standard wages and working conditions. These businesses have set up working conditions that Americans find it hard to work under--if they are hired in the first place. Most employers hiring illegal aliens use labor contractors to provide workers, and if not they use word of mouth, from illegal alien to illegal alien, to find workers; thus shutting out American workers. The American worker has been deliberately displaced, physically and economically in such industries. But back to 'bring em out of the dark issue'.
The main argument used against enforcing immigration law is "it is impossible to find them and remove them". The physical requirements and costs to enforce a round up of aliens would be costly and hard; true. On the other hand implementing an Amnesty program is even more hard and just as costly. Social Security benefits, welfare, subsidies, administering programs, education, crime, and enforcement, and many other social considerations, make Amnesty on this scale a nightmare.
Then there is the problem of the continuing problem of illegal aliens entering the U.S. Arguments against the "wall" are proof that a wall would work--why else would such strong opposition to it continue? The Big Question is: if the present administration has not enforced immigration laws, and past administration has not enforced immigration laws why then should we trust that a new immigration program, basically a copy of the last Amnesty of 1986, will be enforced? Then add in the disrespect of our laws that caving in to Amnesty will result in. Fool me once, shame on you--fool me twice, shame on me.