What do we win?

Is it a trophy? Or a new car? Or do we get free oil? Maybe we get a year's supply of paper towels. I don't know what we win. All I hear about is how we need to win the war in Iraq. No prizes have been revealed. Maybe its like the lotto where you paid to get a ticket and then you may or may not win something, I don't know. Maybe we get to keep the land, no thats not it. So what - what is so valuable for us behind the curtain?

By all estimations our lotto ticket is about 10 to 15 billion dollars and we have been buying them every month for the past 5 and a half years, this should be one hell of a powerball!! Oh yeah and I forgot how many people died buying tickets - over 4000 presently, who gets their share of the winnings? The answer to all these questions unfortunately is nothing for the vast majority of americans (Halliburton executives may argue with that considering the no bid contracts and all.) I didnt even get to decide if I wanted to play this game, I dont even know the rules, none of us do - but we all will eventually have to pay for it.

The shame is that this war in Iraq is being fought because we wanted to eliminate the select few at the top but we dont see how the majority of the people in their country are poorer than we could ever imagine and many of those innocent have died in the crossfire. Its a shame that the money we are borrowing to fund this war will go to other nations to fund their initiatives. The worst part is that I know who actually "wins" this war - fundamentalists. The people who already hate america have more and more reason to hate america. Don't be so naive to think that they hate us for our freedoms - they hate us for our exploits.

You can't win a war on terror - it is impossible. For every family in Iraq that has lost a child there is a brother or sister who has a reason to hate. For every person that has an empty spot in their heart there is a recruiter ready to fill it. If you disagree ask someone who lost a family member on 9/11. We arent spreading freedom and democracy - we are perpetuating the cycle. We have created the instability (reason to hate) if we stay we are occupiers (reason to hate) we need to begin a withdrawal as cautiously as possible and prepare to defend our own borders. We created the opportunity for terrorism now we have to sit back and defend ourselves against it. Keep in mind that in the federal budget the money we give the military is called defense spending; we also have the national guard. I've never seen the word offense in there anywhere.

What we win is nothing - hopefully we can bring our troops home and restore some credibility in the world and save ourselves from more financial ruin. Lets invest the Iraq money into new energy markets or the financial markets - lets put it somewhere where we can get return. Lets stop being the world's police force and start trying to be a world's leader again.

There is nothing behind the curtain - theres no powerball - theres no trophy and theres no way half of the people will ever consider this and that scares me.

Nuremburg Principles

Just ran across some interesting info about our nation's position in Iraq.

The Nuremburg Principles were created to define what constitutes a war crime - these guidelines were necessary to bring justice to the Nazi's following WWII.
Principle I and VI are the most relevant. They are as follows:

Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a)Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

War of aggression is a military conflict waged for the clear purposes of territorial aggrandizement and conquest. Waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law.

The Iraq war was waged unsanctioned and with no international legality. It was not out of self-defense nor did it settle any boundry dispute therefore the US invasion of Iraq can be considered a war of aggression and a violation of international law subject to punishment by the international community.

George Bush is technically a war criminal as defined by the Nuremburg Principles and the UN.

Just pointing it out.

Pot, Kettle, Black

Recent events in the Caucus state of Georgia have got our government all stirred up, the looming possibility of military action between Russia and Georgia is buzzing all over the world police blotter. The two countries are essentially in a dispute over property lines involving South Ossetia and Abhkazia (these settlements orginally were part of Georgia and now are being treating as independants by Russia). The conflict has seen Russia (a UN security counsel nation) begin crossing over Georgian borders without any UN resolution and of course the US seems ready to intervene with the moral military. The major infraction is that there is a UN security counsel nation beginning the invasion of a soverign territory and they are doing it with no resolution passed by the UN.

Okay now that we have that straight let's see what VP Dick Cheney has to say on the matter: U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney condemned Russia for what he called an ``illegitimate, unilateral attempt'' to redraw this U.S. ally's borders by force.

``Russia's actions have cast grave doubts on Russia's intentions and on its reliability as an international partner,''

``as you work to overcome an invasion of your sovereign territory and an illegitimate, unilateral attempt to change your country's borders by force, that has been universally condemned by the free world.''

``Now it is the responsibility of the free world to rally to the side of Georgia,'' the American vice president added.

While not identical to what we engaged in with Iraq there is still great similarity. We didn't invade to redraw borders but we did invade and wage war on a soverign nation without the necessary UN resolution. I would venture to say that the world is a better place without Saddam and the Baath party running things in Iraq but there needs to be some consistancy in our policy. Right now it seems the only rule is "do as I say not do as I do" and that is not right or fair. We seem to aspire to be the world's police but we have a bunch of dirty cops on the force and the majority of them are at the top.

A Hero's Welcome

Lets state the facts:

John McCain is: a vetern, a hero, and a tough sonofabitch. Now he is also a candidate for the presidency of the USA.

For guys like McCain - I truly respect and admire all of our current military and our veterans for the time they have served this nation and for any ridicule, injury or injustice they have observed in the process. I know that I don't have what it takes to serve but I am thankful that there are people like him who can do it.

All due respect but... I don't think it necessarily makes you a better leader. I'm sure the knowledge helps and I am sure that the strength and fortitude help but I think that these traits are available to non-veterans as well. After all we did elect to the highest office an alleged draft-dodger and a member of the Texas air national guard who was known more for his time missing than his time served.

The word out of the RNC is that John McCain is the only candidate who has actually "fought" for our country. Battlegrounds of war and violent combat are not the only places to fight. Sarah Palin has fought battles in the Alaskan state government, Barack Obama fought for the workers in Chicago, and Ralph Nader has been fighting for consumers rights since before McCain went to 'nam. All of our candidates and elected "fight" but they wear different uniforms. Continuing to harp on the notion that he is the only one who has "fought" is false advertising and misleading to potential voters.

I am touched by the details of his story, he is true grit and I am a fan of that kind of selflessness and strength. That said - I believe that the RNC is using his background as a smoke screen to gloss over his policy ideas and pull at voter's heartstrings. I understand that there are tactics being used on both sides of this debate but this one seems to be the most obvious to me. His military record may be enough for some and that is fine but it is not for me and that is why we all get a ballot, I just feel that this should be noted.