© WithComment.com 2007
Elections matter! Tuesday’s “State of the Union” speech by President Bush has been viewed by most as a “good” speech. However, I saw it as a president who has been brought to his knees.
Most of the president’s problems have been self inflicted. His plan for a quick victory was brilliant and correct, however, his plan for winning the peace has been just as bad and slow as any guy off the street could have designed.
President Bush’s speech did point out very clearly the problem in Iraq, on the one hand you have the Sunni minority who had supported Saddam Hussein and were seen as the problem in Iraq. Those Sunni’s that have decided to take up arms have aligned themselves with Al-Qaeda. On the other hand you have the Shiite majority who has the support (openly) of Iran. So what are we to do?
The answer, not an easy or simple one, is to kill the leadership of the Shiite & Sunni militias and organize a strong central government. However, that government is always going to have to have a strong hand in dealing with religious thugs.
Because of the problems in Iraq, President Bush can not deal with N. Korea and Iran in the way that he needs to as he pointed out so correctly in 2002 as the “Axis of evil” We now get reports that N. Korea is directly helping Iran with its testing program. Ahmadinejad has promised an active enrichment process and bomb in their new year, which begins on March 20th, 2007. He has also continued his promise to end the “United States and the Zionist regime of Israel” Words that we must listen too. Although I know Iran is not ready to “destroy” the U.S. it would not take much to devastate Israel.
The Democrats have made it very clear they do not want to do anything that would expand the war in Iraq or move on to Iran. They won’t say they want to cut and run, but instead continue to use words like, “precipitous withdrawal”.
Tuesday night, newly elected Sen. Webb (D-VA) said, “…immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq." Sen. Webb’s words seem reasonable, but he doesn’t give us specific information on how the peace will be won, if our troops are off the streets and out of Iraq. I guess they will just come together, hold hands and sing some song from the 60’s.
President Bush is weakened and now we are in a more dangerous place, in this mad world.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
It is lonely being the world leader
© WithComment.com
These are the main areas that the world has a problem with us in: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm
*The war in Iraq: an average of 73% of respondents disapproved (57% in the US). Disapproval was strongest in Argentina and France, while people in Nigeria, Kenya and the Philippines were more likely to approve.
*Detainees in Guantanamo: 67% disapproved (50% in the US). Backing for America on this issue was highest in Nigeria, where 49% approved.
Israeli-Hezbollah war: Washington's role met with approval from respondents in Nigeria and
*Philippines, but on average 65% disapproved across the 25 countries (50% in the US).
Iran's nuclear program: again, support for US actions appeared strongest in Kenya (62%), Nigeria (53%) and the Philippines (52%). But, overall 60% of respondents disapproved (50% in the US).
*Global warming: more than 80% of respondents in Argentina, France and Germany disapproved compared to 56% overall (54% in the US). But the White House had 50% or more support among those polled in Nigeria, Kenya, the Philippines and South Korea.
*North Korea's nuclear program: opposition to US policy was strongest among respondents in Argentina and Brazil. On average across the 25 countries 54% disapproved (43% in the US).
The heart of this poll was to see if the US was a stabilizing power in the world. Countries that have never liked our “cowboy” diplomacy don’t like it now even more. France and Argentina have never been real friends to the US and I doubt anything we do gets a positive response.
As far as the War in Iraq and Club Gitmo I disagree but understand their problem with our involvement. However, I don’t understand the negative view of the Israeli-Hezbollah war (we weren’t involved there militarily) other then we support Israel. Same with our handling of Iran’s nuclear program. What are we to do, nothing? Allow a country that supports terrorism to have a nuclear program? Again, anti-Israel.
Global warming is a bill of goods sold to people who are self haters. That the world would be great if it were not for man. Specifically the US and its industry, which isn’t as pronounced as it use to be. But we are just energy wasters as we produce 20-25 percent of the world’s GDP.
N. Korea is ran by a whack job and what are we to do, nothing? I guess we would be much more popular if we did nothing and just went a way. Then there would be no check on evil people in the world. The world may hate us but they need us on the wall.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
These are the main areas that the world has a problem with us in: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm
*The war in Iraq: an average of 73% of respondents disapproved (57% in the US). Disapproval was strongest in Argentina and France, while people in Nigeria, Kenya and the Philippines were more likely to approve.
*Detainees in Guantanamo: 67% disapproved (50% in the US). Backing for America on this issue was highest in Nigeria, where 49% approved.
Israeli-Hezbollah war: Washington's role met with approval from respondents in Nigeria and
*Philippines, but on average 65% disapproved across the 25 countries (50% in the US).
Iran's nuclear program: again, support for US actions appeared strongest in Kenya (62%), Nigeria (53%) and the Philippines (52%). But, overall 60% of respondents disapproved (50% in the US).
*Global warming: more than 80% of respondents in Argentina, France and Germany disapproved compared to 56% overall (54% in the US). But the White House had 50% or more support among those polled in Nigeria, Kenya, the Philippines and South Korea.
*North Korea's nuclear program: opposition to US policy was strongest among respondents in Argentina and Brazil. On average across the 25 countries 54% disapproved (43% in the US).
The heart of this poll was to see if the US was a stabilizing power in the world. Countries that have never liked our “cowboy” diplomacy don’t like it now even more. France and Argentina have never been real friends to the US and I doubt anything we do gets a positive response.
As far as the War in Iraq and Club Gitmo I disagree but understand their problem with our involvement. However, I don’t understand the negative view of the Israeli-Hezbollah war (we weren’t involved there militarily) other then we support Israel. Same with our handling of Iran’s nuclear program. What are we to do, nothing? Allow a country that supports terrorism to have a nuclear program? Again, anti-Israel.
Global warming is a bill of goods sold to people who are self haters. That the world would be great if it were not for man. Specifically the US and its industry, which isn’t as pronounced as it use to be. But we are just energy wasters as we produce 20-25 percent of the world’s GDP.
N. Korea is ran by a whack job and what are we to do, nothing? I guess we would be much more popular if we did nothing and just went a way. Then there would be no check on evil people in the world. The world may hate us but they need us on the wall.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Plan "B" for Baghdad
© WithComment.com 2007
President Bush outlined a plan to increase the number of troops around Baghdad by 21,500 in the near future. His reasoning was that 80% of the violence in Iraq occurs within 30 miles of the city. This level of troop increase would also double the number of U.S. troops in that area. Not insignificant.
As we get farther away from the initial invasion, the more I question the strategy of the war. I however, do not question the need for the military action. Hussein had to go, the middle-east needed to be changed and made more connected to the west. These countries are slipping away from the world, the more the Islamic fascist are gaining power. Iraq may have not been directly involved with 9/11 but were sympathetic to the cause.
Obviously I am not a military strategist, however, I have reviewed military actions in history and know that in every situation there are multiple plans and back ups when encountering the actual enemy and not a theoretical one. Why we would have a plan that didn’t also have plans for 20, 50 & 100,000 troops in reserve if needed is beyond my understanding. From my reading of the Pentagon they are always writing papers on this stuff and have plans to invadeCanada.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
President Bush outlined a plan to increase the number of troops around Baghdad by 21,500 in the near future. His reasoning was that 80% of the violence in Iraq occurs within 30 miles of the city. This level of troop increase would also double the number of U.S. troops in that area. Not insignificant.
As we get farther away from the initial invasion, the more I question the strategy of the war. I however, do not question the need for the military action. Hussein had to go, the middle-east needed to be changed and made more connected to the west. These countries are slipping away from the world, the more the Islamic fascist are gaining power. Iraq may have not been directly involved with 9/11 but were sympathetic to the cause.
Obviously I am not a military strategist, however, I have reviewed military actions in history and know that in every situation there are multiple plans and back ups when encountering the actual enemy and not a theoretical one. Why we would have a plan that didn’t also have plans for 20, 50 & 100,000 troops in reserve if needed is beyond my understanding. From my reading of the Pentagon they are always writing papers on this stuff and have plans to invadeCanada.
One thing I do know is that it is the President's responsibility only, and the Democrats trying to get involved with this issue is wrong and without bases in the constitution. The President told us last night that the enemy in Iraq will be very willing to increase the violence as the new troops enter the country. What he failed to mention is that the media and the Democrat leadership are also willing to increase its verbal violence too. The administration might not confirm a “Plan B” but they better have one ready!
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
Other Minor Powers: North Korea
© WithComment.com 2007
The fact that I even mention North Korea as a “minor power” is stretching it. They have no economy and a conventional military that can only hurt S. Korea. So the only reason they are a world player is that they are testing nuclear weapons. More importantly they have missiles that could carry them to the U.S.
Kim Jong il (best portrayed in the movie: “Team America: World Police”) raised in Russia during WWII, educated in China, he is the “Manchurian Candidate”. He became leader after the death of his father in 1994. N. Korea has broken a deal with the U.S. made in the 90’s, some say it was because the Republican controlled congress pushed too aggressively against N. Korea, but the fact is that this country has too many problems to be concerned about nuclear energy or weapons.
I see N. Korea as a person who threatens suicide without really going through with it. Why do they do it? For the attention. “The leader” who has a degree in Political economics (what ever that means) hasn’t a clue to running any type of economy. So he resorts to blackmail and forgery to prop up his country. A government official of N. Korea was busted with millions in forged U.S. currency and N. Korea had the balls to ask for the cash back.
This failed communist dream of a country is another example of why that form of government and economy goes against human nature and does not inspire the best in man. I rank Kim Jong il as most likely to use his nuclear weapons in a suicide attempt. The question is how we will retaliate with China and Russia as their neighbors and throw him on the trash heap of history.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
The fact that I even mention North Korea as a “minor power” is stretching it. They have no economy and a conventional military that can only hurt S. Korea. So the only reason they are a world player is that they are testing nuclear weapons. More importantly they have missiles that could carry them to the U.S.
Kim Jong il (best portrayed in the movie: “Team America: World Police”) raised in Russia during WWII, educated in China, he is the “Manchurian Candidate”. He became leader after the death of his father in 1994. N. Korea has broken a deal with the U.S. made in the 90’s, some say it was because the Republican controlled congress pushed too aggressively against N. Korea, but the fact is that this country has too many problems to be concerned about nuclear energy or weapons.
I see N. Korea as a person who threatens suicide without really going through with it. Why do they do it? For the attention. “The leader” who has a degree in Political economics (what ever that means) hasn’t a clue to running any type of economy. So he resorts to blackmail and forgery to prop up his country. A government official of N. Korea was busted with millions in forged U.S. currency and N. Korea had the balls to ask for the cash back.
This failed communist dream of a country is another example of why that form of government and economy goes against human nature and does not inspire the best in man. I rank Kim Jong il as most likely to use his nuclear weapons in a suicide attempt. The question is how we will retaliate with China and Russia as their neighbors and throw him on the trash heap of history.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)