You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘war protests’ category.

Delaware has 3 C’s.  Carney, Coons, and Carper all representing us in our national assembly, Congress.  As the vote for Syria gets put on hold, it becomes time for Delawareans to call up their three Congressional representatives and give them insight into what their constituents are feeling.

Simpler for all, is their email form at each representatives website, easily searched by your favorite search engine.  In cases like these, especially war and death, your opinions matter.  Each Representative has a dual obligation… One, they must do what is best for the America they serve.  Two, they must do what is best for their constituents back home who elected them.

Occasionally the official line of the American Government is at odds with the feeling of the constituents back home.  In the old days of kings one could only complain.  With the American form of democracy, one can take action..   Our Congress as would any person, only hearing only facts from one side, only hearing only opinions from one side, only hearing emotions from one side, … would have a hard time going against the only side that one hears.

Today, every congressperson who has not committed, is being lobbied hard to sign up for war by the Administration.  Phone calls, personal visits, complete with all the trappings required to sway a vote, are being sharply applied to our three people to insure they follow the wishes of the government over those of their constituents back home.

Unless you call and express YOUR view,  they will win.  It’s is inevitable.

However since YOU actually cast the vote that has given (and in the future will allow them to continue what may be called) one of the best jobs in the world,….  what “you” think… matters more then what ten employees of the Administration think…  Really!  For sure! Look within yourself!  Do you care what a coworker thinks, over what your boss thinks?  I hope not;  if so your priorities are in the wrong place.  it follows suit with them too.

We are talking about going to war.  If you don’t call on this, really… why are you even an American?

YOU have an obligation to make a call on this issue and tell them why you think, the way you do….  Every call is important, either way, in helping our Congressional delegation align themselves with their constituents.

Remember, email on their websites is better, but if calling is easier for you, here are their numbers…

Senator Tom Carper (D- DE)    iPhone:   202-224-2441   Fax:    202-228-2190

http://www.carper.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-senator-carper

Senator Christopher Coons (D- DE)   iPhone:  202-224-5042  Fax:   202-228-3075

http://www.coons.senate.gov/contact/

Representative John Carney (D – Delaware At Large)   iPhone:  202-225-4165   Fax:  202-225-2291

https://forms.house.gov/carney/webforms/email-me.shtml

And before I leave, let me explain the Fourth “C” in my title… The fourth “c” stands for “credibility”…  Without you, our congressional delegates have no credibility.  You are the fourth “C” representing us in Congress…  If you ever get mad at your delegate for voting against the way you think he should, BUT YOU DID NOTHING TO LET HIM KNOW WHAT HE SHOULD OF DONE,  well, dude, it’s on you!

If one constantly hears that only one  path to take is good, and never hears the other side’s opinion…. how can anyone expect them not to vote for what they think is best?

On the other hand, If you called and they voted wrong… sure, you are allowed to be angry!  But if you did nothing. nothing!  nothing?  Then it is all on you!  What were you thinking?

Currently all three C’s are leaning towards bombing Syria.  Most Delawareans are against it at by least 80-20.   Everyone of those 20’s will be calling in to demand more war…  You can’t speak for all of the 80% not calling in,  but you can and must, speak for you…

If you don’t,  you let America and Delaware down.  You are the fourth “C”…  You are the credibility that gives the other 3 C’s the right to serve us in the halls of Congress.

Advertisements

Let us start here.  A good leader takes his people where they want to go.  A good leader does not force his people to go where they definitely don’t want to go… That is ruling.  Not leading.

A good leader convinces his people why they must do something.  He makes sure he puts in how it will benefit them.  If it doesn’t benefit them, he is ruling.  Not leading.

A good leader creates good out of evil.  There is a moral equivalency to leadership.  It can be defined shallowly at times.  Such as calling Hitler good leader based on his strategy of conquering France. But time makes such affirmations short lived.  I don’t think anyone looking over the rubble left of Germany in 1945 at that moment considered Hitler a good leader after viewing his legacy.

A good leader does not follow the rules… He decides when and where the rules apply.   Some would apply the name “great leader” to one who never wavered.  Well, such a leader would have ruined the life of a little boy whose grandmother sent along a knife to cut the cake, not knowing that knives in school were grounds for expulsion.  A lot of misdirected people in leadership positions in that particular school district, made bad decisions based on their mistaken view of what makes a good leader.  A good leader does not always follow the rules.

A good leader decides when and where the rules apply.

In Syria we have controversy.   We have one argument stating that Syria must be punished.  We have the other that says War must be reserved only for something Huge.  That “Huge” is of course undefined and fits in with “we know it when we see it.”

As the executive of the world’s largest force, militarily, economically, and morally,  our president pretty much get to decide.

Here is what a great leader would do.  He would find a way to unite the two sides into one…  He would find a way to punish Assad of Syria in a way that would scare any other despot thinking of using chemical weapons,  and do it without going to war.

That would be great leadership.

So what would scare Assad the most?   It’s hard to tell, but my guess is that his biggest fear as a man, is if his palace is overrun by Syrians, who basically tear him apart, and do his wife and children, then systematically erase any acknowledgement  that he or his dad ever existed…   That whole reign of terror becomes ridiculed, laughed at, for the rest of History.   i would guess that is how you could get to Assad.

So, we, (not just the US but the rest of the world) have to make that threat real.. We don’t have to carry it out necessarily, but we have to make it real.   How can that happen?

I think first, is that we make crossing the border out of Syria a real good move for Syrians…   Send the signal, that if you leave Syria, the world community will settle you somewhere, give you a job, and a chance to begin a life of freedom and prosperity. ideally what we are doing is a Cold War.  Over time we are saying: “See how great the Rest of the world lives?  Oh, you poor Syrians… Escape and come join us”. Where could we relocate them?  Iran could step up, Jordan,, and Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States,

This is how your hurt Assad… Turn his own people against him… No ruler can rule a group of people who don’t want to be ruled.  He can use brutality to a certain extent, but the numbers are completely on the side of the population wanting him gone.  With our intelligence capacity, he will never be safe… Every bodyguard is a potential killer..

And that, more or less, is what we should do… It is what a great leader does… He solves problems in ways where the evil get punished and the good win out.

Going to war, rewards those doing evil, and hurts the good….

It is time our President, become the great leader.  Not by  digging down and reinforcing the costly methods promoted in the past..  But to devise and implement new methods which because of their success, will be utilized far into the future….

You will be asked to represent the people of Delaware. This is an accountability vote. One which will always be used against you, by someone, no matter which way you choose to vote. Hillary’s similar vote cost her the Presidency. These type of votes don’t die. They are never forgotten.

Your Great- Great Grandchildren’s descendants will rate you based on this vote. This is one you don’t want to cast lightly. You, no doubt, will be offered a lot of short term promises, in return for the loyalty you choose to show the President. It would be wise to remember that a promise easily made, can just as easily be broken.

But if you get this vote wrong, it will haunt you.

There are huge questions that need answered. By you.

  • Why is launching cruise missiles the “only” option being considered?
  • What is the Pentagon’s and outside experts’ assessment of the damage, a “limited” attack will cause?
  • How does this petty retaliation show resolve? For example, if you put a starving man in jail for stealing an orange off a fruit stand, does this act affect his behavior a week later when he is starving again?
  • How does any act against the regime, not worsen the plight of those who live within its borders? Any damage suffered by the military will get repaired asap while taking resources away from the already suffering population.
  • How does sticking to our principals, when the world tells us our principals are dead wrong, “win us friends and influence people?”
  • Exactly how is using chemical weapons good when it is the US Marines making it rain white phosphorous as was done over Fallujah, and only bad when it is someone else?
  • If the US launches an attack, and fails to achieve the teaching of a lesson, doesn’t that in real life, embolden Iran that much more, knowing that if the USA can’t effectively execute against Syria, it surely is not a threat to Iran?

And what is the other sides argument?

  • We have to look like men, and defend our honor.
  • Nobody will respect us if we don’t respond ruthlessly.
  • We have to do this (kill more poor innocent children) so those children who died in the chemical attack, did not die in vain,
  • Our Pentagon has new surface to surface weapons we have not yet tested in combat,  This is our only chance to do so.
  • It gives our nation macho-swag.
  • We always go to war when we feel like it; why stop now?
  • We want to see the footage on TV.  This television season is so boring already  (Just don’t bomb between 9-10 on Sunday nights!)
  • As soon as the first bomb will fall, Assad will apologize, step down, and surrender, and not retaliate in any way, just as did the USA after being attacked on 9/11.
  • It is too much expense and trouble to actually “do something” meaningful in Syria, to make life palatable for those living there.   Just send them a delivery by air mail and then be done with it.  Like wiring some flowers on Mother’s Day.

All these are very valid reasons for launching cruise missiles into Damascus and the surrounding desert.  So you, Carper, Coons, and Carney, must weigh these opposing arguments very carefully, and not only be conscious of how opinion flows today, but as everyone directly saw after the invasion of Iraq, be very wary of how all that “we yet don’t know”, can rise up and forever attach itself to your reputation for as long as men look back upon this time.

You have to get this one right…..

My advice?  (you knew it was coming…. )  Listen to NO ONE in official capacity, because everything they say will be slanted.  Get your “read” from your children, your mom and dad, your aunts, uncles, grandkids if you have them.  Your friends from high school and college.  Go into a bar incognito in another state and listen to what real people are saying….

These kind of decisions are not to be decided lightly.  These are not decisions of the moment.  These decisions come from whom you really are….  Someone who decides for themselves?   Or who decides based upon which option looks the best at any given moment?

For if you are right.  And you know it, Then history will be kind to you.  You will be able to rest in peace.

 

(Senator Barack Obama (D-Il), then an Illinois state senator, delivered these remarks in October 2002 at the Federal Plaza in Chicago.)

“I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don’t oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don’t oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that…we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.”

=======

Wow! What goes around comes around…. It is haunting how by simply subbing the word Syria for Iraq, how truly this 11 year old statement applies to the situation today….

With an editorial in the Washington Post titled “With No Consequences, Our Credibility Is At Stake“, Mr. David Ignatius makes some erroneous suppositions, then basis his argument upon them….

His words:  “It becomes obvious in recent weeks that President Obama whose restrained and realistic foreign policy I admire, needs to demonstrate that there are consequences for crossing the American Red Line.   Otherwise the coherence of the global system begins to dissolve…”

Is that true?  Do you lose respect for someone who doesn’t Immediately punish you after catching you red handed?  

That, I think, depends upon how much clout that person has.  Let’s look at this same situation in other types of relationships.

Parent-Child.  Do you punish your child for every single wrong thing they do?  From toddler up?  If so, where do you stop:  at 21 or when they move out?  Bottom  line, one would be hard pressed to find someone who belts their child over every little infraction. That childhood punishment would be the equivalent of war I think.  In fact, most of us who knew of a parent who did so, would feel obligated to call Child Services.  A parent could use a time out corner.  Take away a privilege, or in most cases, threaten a punishment and not deliver, and get sufficient results.

You reading this are grownups.  Some of you were whupped, many of you weren’t.. Is there anyone out there who doesn’t respect their parents because they weren’t excessively belted?  I’d guess very few.  The point is, that we respect people for making good choices; not for pettily following rules, which may be petty at times.  We respect people who make punishments fit the crime.  We disrespect those who pull out the belt over every tiny infraction. Those that suffer the belt, only do so because they know that if they run away, they have no food, no shelter, no toys, no money. They figure better to take the momentary abuse, than run.  The fact they choose to take it, doesn’t make it right.

Let’s jump to the workplace.  And look at the relationship with one’s supervisor.  We all know that the bosses we respect, are the older ones who practice wisdom, who arbitrarily apply punishments only when they are necessary.  And when they do, all means get exhausted first, before firing the employee, (probably the equivalent of a first strike in this situation). They never lose respect; they maintain it.  It is those brand new mangers no one respects, who walk with a book in their hand, and upon any infraction, they fire people. The movie depiction of the young kids who were fast food managers is a good example.  if someone uses multiple threats to fire, and then acts accordingly, he has no respect.  None.  In fact, he is disrespected  to the max simply because he fails to apply wisdom to the issues at hand.   In fact one has the most respect for a supervisor, who has the right and valid reason to fire you, but gives you one more chance.  Most of us respond and change our behavior to justify his wisdom in choosing that action.  Our actions prove him right, and we have tremendous respect for that.

Again, respect is not derivative of excessive behavior.  Respect is garnered more strongly to those whose decisions we trust

And what about respect in marriage?  Does one have to be the dominatrix and the other subservient, for a marriage to function?   Most would say divorce would be far better.  Do you really want a spouse threatening you, then taking those threats out on you while you sleep?  Not much sleep you will get.  Our future president once had to make that choice.  Under a lot of advice to dump her cheating husband, for some reason she chose not to.   And it worked.   It always works…

Which is why it is extemely odd for David Ignatius to propose that unless we go to war RIGHT NOW,  no one will respect the United States.  I beg to differ,  Just saw a poll of 93% against Syrian action, and only 6% in approval.  Truly, do you think that by going to war, those 93% are going to respect the president?  What a ridiculous notion!

Do you think most of the nations we have to work with, will respect us if we go into Syria, even after they have all stated they would not join, and would not support such an action?  If we attack Syria, will all those nations and their inhabitants hold us in higher esteem?  I think not.

Since in these four real life cases, the premise stated by David Ignatius is the exact opposite of what actually works best, most normal people would be hard pressed to accept that in the case of Syria, against natural law, it would achieve the desired results….

The premise that our respect comes only from our ability to deliver upon threats, is childish in the least.  Most people lose that idea forever with their first baby.

Next, David makes a very odd, perhaps misguided assertion.  He says:  “Look around the world and you can see how unscrupulous leaders are trying to attempt to exploit Obama’s attempt to disentangle America from the tumult of the Middle East… “

Is that true?  Is a nation that’s felt the onslaught of America’s military ordance within it’s own territory, really unscrupulous because it doesn’t automatically succumb to what the USA wants?  

In Yemen and Pakistan, we send drones overhead on a regular basis to take out hideaways.  Would Americans roll over if we were the ones getting our airspace violated?  Iraq, suffered American occupation for over 6 years.  Are they now unscrupulous, because they don’t automatically succumb to what the USA wants?  Iran, as actually since the last election, become far more moderate.   Even with that, despite our history, should they acquiesce to whatever the USA might want?

Almost as if wiping out the history of the past decade, he makes the assumption that only a military strike into Syria, would again pull these people back under America’s umbrella.  I really can’t see the reality David thinks he is standing on.  If you were in a bar with your best friend, and someone walking by suddenly suckered-punched him, really hard, putting him on the floor, according to David, you would get off your chair, shake hands with the perpetrator, and scold your best friend for whatever he must have done to make this nice guy knock him out.  According to David, you would not grab the perpetrator by the collar, and you would not attempt to slam your closed fist into his nose repeatedly!

What kind of world does David live in?  (Oh, I see.  He lives inside the Beltway! Ohhhhh)…

Then he says:  “Here is another thought to ponder. Is it possible the the Syrian chemical weapons attack was planned and coordinated with its key ally, the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards?  Surely they were in the loop.”

He knows this….  how?

Isn’t this what we call pure speculation?  Does he have the cable dispatches from the NSA?  How does he know they didn’t collude with North Korea?  They did before!   From the buzz I’ve heard the only people who really know what happened were on the ground at the attack, and inside Assad’s palace in Damascus.  But David makes the assumption that Iran must also be in on it, because it fits in nicely with his scenario of how the Middle East works.  Forget reality.  It is what’s in David’s head that matters.

He solidifies:  “The main rationale for military action by American and it’s allies should be restoring deterrence against the use of chemical weapons”.

Syria has been at war for 2 years.   if it hasn’t changed its attitude while being under attack from the constant bombardment by the rebels, how will a few more extra explosives change his will which seems bent on keeping power?  if you are going to get bombed by the USA, might as well do it now, when all they will be bombing, is already slated to be torn down and rebuilt…

He defines:  “The strike should be limited and focused. rather than a roundhouse swing aimed at ending the Syrian Civil War.  But it should be potent enough to disable Assad’s command and control structure so he can’t conduct similar actions in the future.”

So let’s be clear.  He spend all his effort describing how we need a gigantic threat to cow the middle east in line, and we are going to do it with very limited means.

let’s replay that bar scene above, except this time the stranger just flicks the ear of you friend…  Does your friend go: “gee, ha, ha, that was funny, Biff.  You a thousand laughs, Always a joker”?  My guess is that he will try to hurt the perpetrator, and you might help him.

So what does an ear flick prove?  Can you imagine John Kerry’s press conference, “We have sent a signal to the world;  if you use chemical weapons, we will flick your ear.”

But that is exactly what David is arguing for.  Saying we are going to teach the world a very valuable lesson in respect…. (flick.)

Then to make his point, he becomes very confusing.  He brings in Putin, and decries that Putin is determined to take advantage of our reticent president and the fatigued nation he represents.  Well, duh, that’s his job, isn’t it?  To pursue Russia’s interests? He next jumps to Saudi Arabia and Iran.  “US action against Assad, might not deter the Iranians, but it will at least make them think twice about crossing Obama’s red line.”

“Ok Iranian Council.  Has anyone thought about the US retaliation?” A hand goes up. “Has anyone else given thought to US retaliation?”  Another hand goes up.  “Ok, that’s twice, We’re cleared. So when should we begin our action?”

And then he comes to the point.

The contention among members of the Mideast, is that Obama is a weak president. Obama won’t change the opinion by a military strike. But a military strike will at least remind people that American military power is not to be taken lightly.

A weak president?  Hmm.  He sent a task force into Pakistan and captured Osama. His administration sends drones into three nations daily to hunt and kill citizens of those nations. He orchestrated the toughest economic sanctions against Iran hthat have ever been seen.  He hammered out an agreement between Israel and Morsi, that completely shut hostilities down on the West Bank. He changed the regime in Libya by going in with force.  He is forcing the Afghans to come to grips with the fact the US is leaving Afghanistan on a strict timetable, with no delaying action.

David must be having hallucinations.

So a dad must belt his child. So a young boss must fire over every single violation. So a married couple must divorce at the first sign of disagreement……

If none of these are true, neither is David’s argument over Syria.

There are many ways we can achieve the same ends, as does a parent, as does a wise boss, as does a willing spouse, without having to immediately take the path of our most forceful action!

The biggest question today…. is why does David no know this?

Destination Sanford, Florida, Republican Capital of the World

Just read that the NSA is pressing for a Justice Dept. probe to find out who leaked the PRISM plan to the Guardian…   I’m slightly befuddled.  Why don’t they just look in their files?  They have the records.

“The events in Egypt and Libya show the failure of the Egyptian and Libyan governments to uphold their obligations to keep our diplomatic missions safe and secure and the regard in which the United States is held under President Obama in these two countries,” he told Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin. “It’s all part of a broader scheme of the president’s failure to be an effective leader for U.S. interests in the Middle East.”

Wrong… Wrong… Wrong

It was because of a movie.   A really bad movie… in fact.   I was offended by it.  Deeply so.

If  someone made a similar movie about Jesus,  the American Tea Party would have done exactly the same as did those Muslims.  They would have attacked a black church, killed the preacher and burned it to the ground.

The problem is the movie., not Obama.  A movie that was incidentally funded by groups also providing support to the Romney Campaign, and to the Republican Party.  The same benefactors.  As soon as the New Century Club’s  name come up,  it begs for a comparison to using public events to mold and formulate policy.  It now appears that the riots were staged as a cover up for the murder.

Delaware Liberal provided a list of those advising Romney on foreign policy.  Many of  those names  give credence to the unthinkable, that this event was staged by supporters of the Romney campaign, to make Obama look bad…….

It is obvious Romney is being advised by nuts.  People who are just nuts.  They are nuts on foreign policy. They are nuts on economic policy.  They are nuts on women.  They are nuts on religion.  Simply put, they are nuts.

How can anyone who is a real Christian, support these nuts?

Today’s joke:   Why did Romney’s staff scatter when the convention was over?  They thought they saw a squirrel…..

 

 

It makes people angry….

Which is why, we have to be very careful whether this video, which purports to show U.S. Marines urinating on dead Taliban fighters, is doctored of not….

If you’ve been in war, and most of the third world has, this action is believable.. After all, these dead characters had just tried to take the live ones life in a game of brinkmanship, and the Marines prevailed… There is sort of a giddiness that up-wells during moments like that. Sort of the real world’s equivalence of a touch-down dance… one that could easily happen during such a moment of euphoria… One person comes up with the idea, probably as a joke, and in their limited world of the moment, there appears to be no harm done, and it happens… Anyone who has ever been in war, knows a lot worse things could have happened. …

But there are a couple of problems with this easy answer. One, this is the Second Battalion of the Third Marine Corp.. It is one of the finest in the world. Very hard to believe that four guys who one day one day are building a hospital in a village to show we are the good guys, (who are positively trained and aware of how their personal behavior ripples out to determine the fate of the war), are peeing on cadavers of slain enemy warriors on the next. Yes, it can happen, of course. But I would believe David Anderson turned Muslim, before I’d believe THIS group would violate everything they’d been trained to do… (It would take hell freezing over for me to believe David Anderson had become a Muslim.)

Of course, I can be accused of turning a blind eye because ” I CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH”… lol.. I’d say, no… I’d think the video was faked because that, considering all the players, all the activity, a fake video would actually make more sense, than having four random Marines desecrating several enemy bodies…

How? You Ask?

Ok, you twisted my arm so tight it hurts…if you promise to let go, I’ll tell you……

The United States is pulling out of Afghanistan. That means there will be no market for munitions. Currently the United States and Afghanistan have a very fragile relationship. There is little trust. We do not trust Karzai and his way of governing through corruption. We know he is in cahoots with the Taliban. Not publicly, but privately. We don’t tell him much, because it will cost American lives. He, upon realizing we are acting unilaterally, doesn’t trust us at all, because we will one, not confide in him, and two, not listen to him because the intelligence he could be giving us, could be leading us into a trap… One that will cost American lives.

Anything that pours gasoline onto this fire, will reap great amounts of money for people who sell weapons for a living… The absolutely very last thing those people want, is a cessation of hostilities. They will do anything possible to prevent that from happening… Not publicly of course, but surreptitiously .

So there is this tremendous pressure building, much of it emanating from the America Right and remnants of what once was called the Military Industrial Complex, that does not want this conflict to end…. And that pressure, is what makes this video popping up right now, kinda suspicious…

I’m no expert, but even as I looked at the difference of shadows between the bodies and the soldiers, I noticed the sun was at different angles.. (you can tell by tracing the shadow to the object and the angles should be identical). So I asked a 14 year old knowledgeable about video editing if such a thing was possible.. He responded by running the video through gaming software, and replaying the video with miniature anime characters holding umbrellas dancing on the dead bodies as the urine cascaded down… It was that easy…

So, looking with a clear eye, we have the motive. We have the means. And we have the evidence.

Of course, I could be over-speculating; it could be a real event, but I will hold my breath until the military investigation is complete. We have the Marines, we know by now who they are, we know if they are guilty or innocent. If guilty, we will condemn them and punish them just like we do a touchdown dance that goes too far… If it turns out they are innocent, and this is a circumstance of trying to poison the well, we can recognize the real enemy: those who sell weapons to both sides, and negate their influence on the diplomacy of that region…

It would be no different than two people at work, who upon finding they’ve been manipulated into hating each other, join forces and together, expel the perpetrator of all problems…

It is a simple vote…

Should we or should we not put this man in an administrative function.

Please vote yes…. or no…..

(It should be open cut because a majority have already said they would support Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Agency.) Just get it done…

But, it never goes to vote. In a motion to stop debate requiring 60 votes, 53 are found….

There is nothing more to debate. Vote yes or no… The argument has been on the table for months… But no… it cannot go forward because the Republican Party (all of it) had 45 members who voted against it…

The agency still has no one at the top to get it rolling. There is no one regulating Wall Street as we speak, simply because the entire block of Republicans, who voters put into minority receivership based on their previous track record, voted NOT to stop debate.

There will be no government until there are no Republicans.
There will be no Congress, until there are no Republicans.
There will be no Democracy. until there are no Republicans.
There will be no United States of America, until there are no Republicans.

(Sad thing this is not hyperbole. This is not campaign rhetoric. This is not hateful bantering. This is what is really happening. Makes a veteran want to cry)