Delayed response to the State of the Union:
-Bush did make good points about the ongoing Iraqi operations. But he missed the key points. We might be winning the war on paper as long as American troops are in the middle of the country playing wack-a-mole with the enemy. We might be winning on paper but a simple fact is that once those troops leave all hell will break loose. Muqtada al- Sadr was not destroyed when he could have been; instead our policy seems to be to "politicize" the Islamist. As if one's intention to establish Islamic law and wage jihad will be made less onerous by the means by which you position yourself to do so. Iran is continually infiltrating and the cleric, Ayatollah al-Sistani has declined Iraqi citizenship and still remains the spiritual head of the Shities of Iraq.
Democratization may succeed in the Middle East, but with the current weak-hearted policy nothing but tears will be our inheritance for this outpouring of blood and treasure.
What is the true problem with Islamic society? Or is it the Arabs who are ill? Which is it? The question ill be of this nature: Did Islam create Arab culture or did Arab culture create Islam?
I believe Islam, with its notions and practices, wipes out all that comes before. The problems and injustices rampant in Islamic nations do not have temporal causes or political ones; indeed they are spiritual sicknesses. And it is a sickness that is not contained, but is growing.
Hamas was elected in the "Palestinian" territories and yet no one seems to see. Democracy brought about the theocracy in Iran. The current Iranian President was elected. Democracy will solve the regions problems. If Egypt and Saudi Arabia became democractic then they would become Islamic states. Most likely they would force some kind of Union. So we can easily see a scenario of America setting up Islamist governments in Cairo, Gaza(already done), Iran (thank you Carter), Iraq (yet to be done), and Saudi Arabia(already Islamist, but it likes to play both sides and hold down the more radical elements).
These governments by necessity will be anti-American. Why? It is simple: we are unbelievers.
Bush made other foolish claims. He basically called upon the Iranian people to rise up against their government. This would be welcome. But what do we really know about public opinion in Iran? Nothing. But I will go out on a limb and say this:for lack of intelligence on the matter, we have to consider Iran to be well-represented by its leaders. Indeed we must bear in mind that a mass-revolution put in power the current regime and a massive Basij milita keeps it in power. Can we expect the average Iranian to be hostile to Islam and Islamic scripture, which surely does call for war against infidels? No. Who are those dissidents who stand against the government? A tiny portion of young students. They are probably taken no more seriously in Iran than is Cindy Sheean. I hope I am wrong, and would welcome a Second Iranian revolution to bring in a more pluralistic society, for the early Caliphs found their most ardent heretical sects coming from Persia. But we cannot make policy on such a hope.
"We respect Iran," says Bush. Do we? What has Iran given the world since it became known as Iran? How did Persia suddenly become Iran? Why to please Hitler. Like most Islamic nations the Persians took the side of Hitler, seeing in him their closest idealogical ally. Iran basically means Aryan.
We must not stop here in our step back. The question now becomes, for those few invisible people who respect Iran, what has Persia done for he world since Islam marched against Rastum and the Sassanians were destroyed? Not much. The majority of the early Islamic philosophy and science was done by Persians. They were all eventually destroyed by the intolerance. All other non-orthodox creeds, while enjoying spates of toleration, were pushed to the margin of society.
So if nothing positive has come out of Islamic Persia then what has? The opposite, that of negative things. First, the Sultan known as the Kwarazmian Shah ruled his empire. He sacked a convoy of Gengis Khan. This provoked the Khan to send another envoy to clear the missunderstanding. He was killed. By this action the Mongolians were provoked, and they set upon his land and eventually took Baghdad in 1258. This led to the near death of Islam, for at the same time Crusades bit as them from the other side.
Earlier and some later, Persians joined and supported the genocidal invasions of India. Sixty million Hindus seem to have disappeared like so much dust in the wind during the years of Islamic rule.
Later still, Safavid Persia battled the Ottomans, thereby creating a second front which distracted the Sultan from a complete conquest of Central and Eastern Europe.
These things at last, Iran can claim to have done since it became officially Muslim........
Bush has committed America to a long war. This is sure to make the Chinese happy and no one else. No one has ever benefited from a protracted war. The horrifying prospect of fighting multiple guerilla wars across the middle east with one hand tied behind our back is very real. The war will be lost in this way; when one commits an army to occupation it has committed the army to do the work of governance over fighting, a work which invariably fails. Do we have the time, or manpower for such a strategy? Perhaps in this 'war on terror' were the last war in all of history, we could bide our time. But what about China? Does he really hold the belief that China intends peace and love for its neighbors? Does Bush really believe that the Chinese will forever remain less advanced than the us? What of our enemy? Does he seriously think that decades of fighting will not teach them better how to defeat us? He is gambling; gambling with the future of our position in the Western Pacific and gambling with our current policy. Does he believe we can take on at least 200 million Muslim jihadis and the Chinese Juggernaunt at the same time on two sides of the world? What about when they work together?
The world does not need a police man; indeed the problems are too great. Instead the world needs a S.W.A.T. Team.
The war does not have to be long, provided we seek bold victories. It does not necessarily require horrible destruction either. But it requires courage, strategem and will. These things are sorely lacking in American politics. Bush is not "a man of steel" nor does he appear to be strong on the issue of the war or any other. When taken in the totality of history he seems to be juat another foolish man. Sure, he is better than those who believe we face no threat or those who wish to surrender. National survival is at stake. We need more strength from Mr. Bush.
HIV and AfricaHIV is probably the only epidemic in history which in most cases is totally preventable. Are the American taxpayers to be made responsible, through Marxist redistribution of wealth to the poor nations of Africa, for the poor decisions of those African nations citizens? Mr. Bush thinks so. And apparently so does Congress. So we, America, with poor people flooding the nation all the time, wages frozen and jobs constantly lost to China; with GM being destroyed by unchecked Japanese competition, with an economic growth rate of 3% v.s. a projected 5% Japanese growth rate, a 6-8% Chinese growth rate, and a 10% Indian growth rate, are to be expected to enrich Africa? With the government seizing wealth more and more all the time to feed the avaricious appetites of our so called leaders, whose wealth will be left for his purposes?
The poverty and disease of the African nations is a symptom of barbarism and lack of civility; not a cause.
Surely this has to be the fault of colonialism. Or is it?
Has it ever been different? How many pre-Colonial African polities can really be called nations? Carthage(destroyed by Rome), the allies of Carthage(absorbed by rome), Egypt(absorbed into other cultures), Nubia(absorbed by Egypt), Abyssinia (now Ethiopia, used to cover parts of Somalia as well), the Zulu(conquered by Britain), Ghana (dissolved in general), and Mali(survived to this day). Otherwise than these there existed a mass of Africa populated by great hordes of barbarous peoples, and I fear little has changed. Out of all these only one nation was truly colonized by a western nation; that of the Zulus. This and Iraq taken to together bring up the next point:
Is America destined to clean up all the messes of Britain?
Counter addressThis indeed is distressing. One can agree with the democrats general point: which is that Bush has bungled much. But did they offer anything in its place? No. In fact, instead of highlighting trade, or another issue on which they may take a correct position juxtaposed to the unlimited free-trade policy of Bush, they harp on foolish Marxist grounds. They spew platitudes and foolery. Democrats, please, find another way. There is a better way, but it is not paved with Red brick.
The foolishness of their position can be summed up by their claims of 'excess' profits. This is a nice phrase. It can appeal to those who either believe that such a thing exists, or to those unwashed masses who have grown fond of such red-tinged language.
Contrary to what the media would like to tell you, a Corporation is not by itself evil or good. It is neither. Corporations are made up of individuals. They are not of themselves living. Yet, a moral judgment of evil is surely applied to the Corporation, an inanimate object. Whether the people in it are good or bad; patriotic or not, is a symptom of how society views these tendencies. I think they are neither crooked nor straight more so than the average cross sections of American society. The slew of scandal signifies not the base evil of corporations or capitalism, but the decline in moral standards among the American people. Once again it is a problem of spirit.
What happens when the State declares profits 'excess'. Why they seize them. Who tells the government what is excess or not? What about the government having excess profits from the business of governing? The people are accorded that right to dictate those terms, in theory. Unless the people are educated by said government and thus fooled into thinking the excess seizure of wealth by government is a just action. The democrats in large maure devised and manipulated our current tax code and educational system. Can they be again trusted to lead us? By no means. For whatever Bush's foolishness, the little good he has done has been blocked at every turn by this party. I say the government is reaping an excess profit pilfered, privateered and impiously pirated from the people. Who can be counted on to give us back our due of these excess profits in our time of higher energy prices and rising debt?
Once government applies this standard and infringes on the rights of companies (a collection of individuals), it can freely do so to the citizens as well. What if you make 'excess' profits in your job? The inequity of the tax system levies such a standard. Each year billions and indeed trillions of dollars are seized and wasted by the government in a scheme known as 'withholding'. In addition it levies a tax on income, interest and dividends. So the individual, economically speaking, is very much oppressed already.
What of the corporation? Does it really pay much less in taxes? Before the Corporation forms it must first be gathered. Capital, from the individual, must be earned. This means first a corporations' initial funding must survive the taxes levied by the government on individuals. Then, when gathered, the Corporation must comply with regulations, raising cost. These include who must be hired as judged by various affirmative action boards and hordes of lawyers waiting to sue at the slightest infringement of the 14th Amendment and its collary of legislation. As it hired individuals to work, it must next pay them according to whatever wage laws exist in the area. Then, it must pay for health coverage and other benefits which are required by law. Then Corporate taxes are levied and dividend and Capital gains taxes are taken. It is really a miracle that with all of this a business can make any money at all.
Indeed taken together, it will be a miracle if America survives the silly Republican-Democrat game at all.
