Tag Archives: Taliban

Are You Smarter Than a Supreme Court Judge?

Stevens’ idea for amending the Constitution is a loser, too.

Stevens’ idea for amending the Constitution is a loser, too.

April was not a good month for Americans that still believe the Supreme Court is a font of legal wisdom. Former Justice John Paul Stevens authored an Op–Ed in the WaPost proving you can be ignorant of history, blinded by ideology and confused regarding the plain meaning of words and still get to wear the black robe.

Stevens’ essay was titled ‘The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment.’

And no, Stevens’ five words weren’t “you can’t have a gun,” but that’s a good guess.

He began his effort in problem–solving by using the left’s favorite technique: Use distorted statistics to shock the public and advance a disingenuous argument: “Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents.”

That’s a big number. Almost as big as the total number of Americans killed each year in car crashes. What Stevens purposely leaves out is the fact that 19,392 — or six in ten — of those deaths were suicide!

Once the suicide is removed from the total, it become obvious that riding in a car driven by a cell phone–wielding woman is much more dangerous than living in Virginia where people are allowed to carry guns openly. And cell phones aren’t protected by the Constitution.

What Stevens should be calling for is federal suicide control. If Congress would stop listening to the mortuary lobby and pass an effective law banning suicide — or at least get the ball rolling by creating suicide–free zones (this alone would speed up Metro travel in DC) — we could eliminate almost two–thirds of the gun deaths overnight.

The rest of the country could experience the safety and tranquility that residents of Detroit and Chicago currently enjoy in their gun–free cities. Once suicide is outlawed only criminals will kill themselves, surely a win–win.

But suicide doesn’t generate much news coverage so publicity–seekers aren’t interested in this sensible step to prevent unnecessary death.

Stevens contends the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was ‘settled,’ much like global warming science, until the NRA went rogue. “For more than 200 years… federal judges uniformly understood that the right…was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms.”

That’s accurate without being truthful, since for two centuries neither states nor the federal government were trying to ban types of weapons, restrict the sale of weapons or impose ownership restrictions. So who would file a suit to stop an infringement that didn’t exist?

As for not imposing a limit on state or local governments, Stevens proves his knowledge of the Constitution is limited. If what he wrote is true then the Bill of Rights wouldn’t prevent states and cities from limiting speech, searching without a warrant and shutting down the newspaper if it criticized Barack Obama.

Stevens then lurches from urging judges to butt out because, “Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters’ elected representatives, not by federal judges.” To complaining that those same legislators aren’t doing enough to seize weapons from the law abiding in the wake of Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook.

Before gracing us with his five–word prescription for domestic gun bliss, Stevens’ last contribution is to completely misrepresent the Bill of Rights and specifically the 2nd Amendment. He claims the amendment “was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated.” This is ludicrous on its face. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect individual rights and without those 10 amendments the Constitution would not have passed.

The obvious plain language of the 2nd protects an individual right to own weapons, but that’s evidently too subtle for a retired Supreme Court justice.

Then Stevens graces us with his solution: His amended amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

If anything those five words would initiate an explosion of litigation.

In Athens a citizen was subject to military service until age 60. I figure I can pull a trigger until well into my 90’s. Sixteen–year–olds often served in militias, too, so many underage restrictions go by the board, thanks to Stevens.

As a serving militia member I will need my weapons at hand in case of a sudden call out. That makes militia members immune to any restrictions on carrying a firearm. I can carry in schools, courtrooms, national parks, football stadiums and even Toby Keith’s.

Stevens evidently believes the same legislators who aren’t passing the gun laws he wants are suddenly going to come down hard on militias. Historically militias were locally based and locally run without interference or control from the state government.

Each militia decided what weapons to carry, uniforms to wear, method of selecting officers and how often to meet. With Judge Stevens help you can think of the new militia as the Shriners with sidearms.

And as for what weapons to carry, let’s look at the world’s best–known militia the Taliban. The Talibs have RPGs, fully automatic rifles, grenades, heavy machine guns and donkeys. Everything the well–equipped American militia member could want, except for the donkey.

Stevens’ ‘solution’ removes age restrictions, expands the scope of weapons allowed for personal ownership and eliminates most geographic restrictions on where weapons can be carried. It’s the exact opposite of what Stevens wants, but not an unusual outcome for leftist social engineering.

If it weren’t for those boring monthly militia meetings, I would support him 100 percent.

Obama’s Treason: Update

talibanCDN was kind enough to publish “Obama Flagrantly Commits Treason” on January 13, 2013. The article highlighted how Obama approved, with Mohammed Karzai’s acquiescence, the Taliban to open an office in Kabul, Afghanistan. The office is supposedly, in “Dear Leader” Barack Hussein Obama’s own words, “… to facilitate talks.”

But, the Taliban doesn’t appear ready to talk. Afghan police say a suicide car bomber targeted a convoy of NATO supply trucks on January 25, but failed to hit them. A spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force said no NATO troops were killed or injured in the attack for which the Taliban have claimed responsibility.The Taliban have claimed responsibility for the attack.

“… to facilitate talks.”

That’s well and good, but actions speak much louder than words. You would think that Obama would have learned that fact with the Taliban. But, to quote John Belushi on SNL, “Nooooooooooooooooooo.” It seems that the Taliban, in 2011, targeted an American consulate convoy, and that two Americans were “slightly wounded.” But the fact that Americans were “slightly wounded” is beside the point. The Taliban attacked an American convoy, and continues to attack American ally convoys.Yet, Obama somehow saw fit to reward them.

Did Obama’s reward end the attacks? “Nooooooooooooooooooo.”

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Obama Flagrantly Commits Treason

taliban
If this isn’t treason, then I don’t know what is. The US Constitution defines treason in Article 3, section 3 thusly: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

The Taliban harbored al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the lead up to the 9/11 attacks on America in September 2001. Obama even recognized the Taliban as a terrorist organization when he said, “We went into Afghanistan, because 3,000 Americans were viciously murdered by a terrorist organization that was operating openly and at the invitation of those who were then ruling Afghanistan.”

Now that same Taliban is to have an office in Kabul, Afghanistan. That same Taliban will engage in direct talks with the democratic government in Afghanistan. I somehow don’t expect the Taliban to talk in good faith.

“Dear Leader” President Barack Hussein Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai made the announcement on Friday, January 11. Here is some of what Obama said:

“Ultimately security gains must be matched by political progress, so we’ve recommitted our nations to a reconciliation process between the Afghan government and the Taliban. President Karzai updated me on the Afghan government’s road map to peace, and today we agreed that this process should be advanced by the opening of a Taliban office to facilitate talks.”

So, according to Obama, “security gains must be matched by political progress …[.]” The Taliban has certainly made political progress, as witnessed by the opening of its office. Did I somehow miss our security gains? Has Homeland Security and the TSA been disbanded?

Just so you know, 72 percent of the Afghan war casualties have occurred during Obama’s watch. And, now, Obama is spitting on the graves and wounds of brave, honorable Americans.

IMHO, Obama’s only “out” is that the war in Afghanistan has not formally been declared by Congress. Obama is (again) hiding behind a technicality. But, regardless of whether the war is declared or not, the Taliban is fighting, soldiers are dying, and treason is treason!

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Afghanistan Readiness-Not As Hoped

Against the recommendation of many the United States is sticking to its arbitrary pull out of Afghanistan. Are Afghan troops ready to take on the Taliban?

Embedded ABC journalist Muhammad Lila witnesses first hand the chaos that erupts within the Afghan troops when they are ambushed by the Taliban. Read the encounter here or watch the shorter version on the video below:
video platform video management video solutions video player

The Cost of Bargaining with Al Qaeda

Imagine a street in a city in Pakistan. There is a marketplace nearby, and there are women and children going about their daily business, buying food and other goods. The only arguments are between customers and vendors, but they are not mean-spirited – just the typical bargaining on prices. Suddenly, a bomb goes off, and as the smoke clears, the marketplace is leveled. Body parts litter the ground, and screams replace the sound of the blast. The lucky ones that were only wounded slightly are seen wandering, covered in blood, looking for friends and family members in the rubble.

Unfortunately, that is part of life in Pakistan. We have seen it countless times on news clips. Sometimes one radical organization or another claims responsibility, sometimes not. On rare occasions, it is not the result of a bomb, but of an errant missile from a drone operated by the U.S. military. But that is assuming that the marketplace is truthfully only dealing in produce and household goods – it is silly to assume that weapons never make it to largely civilian marketplaces, making them a military target. Regardless, it is unlikely that the U.S. government would tell the truth anyway, because it doesn’t make the situation any better to do so. If anything, it would probably be worse if terrorists knew that the U.S. was aware of how they move weapons, so it’s better to call it a mistake, and offer a boilerplate apology.

The war on terror started in Afghanistan, and has shifted at least in part to Pakistan for obvious reasons – al-Qaeda has migrated there. It is no surprise that as the trial of five 9/11 conspirators begins at Guantanamo Bay, there is a video released of an American captive of Al Qaeda begging Obama for the release of terrorists in custody – presumably including the ones on trial.

I would like to say that I am certain that the President is preparing a letter of condolence for the wife of Warren Weinstein, instead of actually considering bargaining for his release. But given the fact that the trial of the 9/11 conspirators was literally hijacked by the defendants, turning what should have been a short arraignment hearing into a day-long affair, I’m not so sure. In the effort to be seen by the world as the better party in these proceedings, the U.S. is catering to the defendants. The unfortunate result will be depicting the U.S. yet again as the weaker party, at least to those in the Islamic world.

While it would be counterproductive to stoop to the point of engaging in intentional bombings of civilians abroad, and summarily executing 9/11 terrorists, it is equally harmful to bend over backwards to accommodate those defendants. The female defense attorney that attended the hearing wearing the hijab should be censured, and if she still insists on appeasing her client in that regard, she should be removed and replaced either with a male, or a female that will not do the same. It may seem petty, but it is important. To those defendants, her actions show that she acknowledges her “place” in their world. They are not entitled to that, by any stretch of the imagination.

Back to Weinstein, if he is still alive, it is insane to assume that he will ever be recovered alive. Given his health problems, it is quite possible that he is already dead. If he isn’t, there is no reason to think that al-Qaeda would release him regardless of what the U.S. would do. On the contrary, it is in al-Qaeda’s best interest to kill him on video, and release that footage after detainees had been released, to further prove their supremacy over the “weak” Americans. No matter how sad it may be, one American life is not worth giving in to al-Qaeda, period. Such bargaining would only serve to strengthen the resolve of terrorists, and most likely lead to more American deaths from future attacks.

Contrary to what the U.S. has hoped, killing leadership of al-Qaeda has not lessened the threat from the organization significantly enough to render it irrelevant. Pakistan is not a reliable U.S. ally in combating al-Qaeda, and it is foolish to think that it will become one. Without the aid of that nation, putting an end to the terrorist organization once and for all is virtually impossible. The mere fact that there is still a U.S. military presence in the region is fuel for Islamic terrorist organizations in general, so attempts to eradicate radicals is necessarily leading to the creation of more radicals. It has been argued ad nauseum whether or not “enhanced interrogation techniques” are torture, and more importantly whether or not that has lead to more potential members of organizations like al-Qaeda, hell bent on waging war on America.

FDNY Ground Zero

slagheap (CC)


Now, with the circus of a trial at Guantanamo Bay, it can be argued that the U.S. really has lost sight of what this is really about. Bargaining for peace with the Taliban includes releasing high level prisoners, and all the U.S. wants in return is a pledge that these detainees will not fight again. That is simply “peace at any cost”, and should be an indication that it is time for the U.S. to disentangle itself from the region. The focus should be on trying and punishing the 9/11 conspirators we have in hand. There is no real option for lasting peace in that region, especially not with any level of Western intervention. That intervention is arguably what lead to 9/11 in the first place. We cannot bargain our way to anything other than making ourselves look weak to those that have a deep-seated desire to destroy us. Catering to the enemy is a deadly game that we need to stop playing. If the next trial session at Guantanamo Bay goes as this first one, we have lost. We need to remember what this is about. Anyone that wants to sympathize with these defendants should be forced to watch the most graphic footage available of what happened on 9/11. They should be forced to watch people jumping from the towers to their deaths, over and over again. That is what these men did. That is what they must be held accountable for. We owe them nothing, but we are kind enough to give them their day in court. Get on with the trial, remove the defendants if they will not respect the court, reach a verdict, and put an end to this. Just by having a trial at all, we have taken the higher ground. That is more than enough.

Crossposted at Goldwater Gal.

About the Conduct of Our Soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan

I am submitting this in response to the comments about the Marines who were video taped pissing on dead Taliban members. This is a post I first wrote on the original Patriot Action Network site on October 19, 2010 at 3:40 a.m. It was originally addressed to some who criticized me and others for advocating working through the political system to solve our political problems. They were calling me and others names because we were, and are, working hard to prevent a war here in America. Although written for a different subject matter then, it is very appropriate in the context of the story of our Marines pissing on dead Taliban.

This is addressed to anyone who feels they have a right to criticize our military people fighting the battles day in and day out, and especially directed to the lame politicians and bureaucrats in Washington D. C.

I am writing this in response to Gerald, Gary, Jaymes, and others of like mind. You posted comments that denigrate the attitudes of me and Dave Ruhoff about our ideas of using peaceful means to take our country back from the leftists who now run our government. I don’t know any of you and never saw your names before this discussion. I have some thoughts for you in regards to your comments about “sunshine patriots” and “collaborators”. If anyone has a weak stomach do not read this. It is not vulgar but is rather graphic to make a point I think is very important to those who think violence is the answer to our woes. If you have ever been in combat you should be ashamed of yourselves. If not, you shouldn’t be spouting the way you did. I went to bed but could not sleep and hope that expressing my thoughts will clear my head and allow me to sleep, and at the same time, give some of you something to reflect upon.

Before thinking ill of us, go enlist in the Army or Marine Corp. Volunteer for combat as an infantry soldier. Spend a couple of years in the mountains of Afghanistan. Spend every day with the threat of death at your elbow. Take that 100 pound rucksack and carry it until your shoulders ache from the load. Walk until you hips, legs, ankles, and feet cry out in pain. Go until you think you can’t walk any more and then keep on going. Go experience the freezing cold, the snow, the rain, the mud. Volunteer to be the point man. Walk along terrain that is so slippery you can barely sand up. And while you are doing this, be on constant alert for snipers, booby traps, or the ambush waiting around the next bend, past the next tree, or past the next boulder. Watch a 180 degree arc side to side and from ground level to the tops of trees, rocks, ridges, etc. for the ambush that could come at any second without warning, just the sudden burst from a grenade, mortar, RPG, or machine gun. Watch east step you take because the rock you kick might have a live grenade under it, or a trip wire, waiting for some poor unsuspecting grunt to kick it and have his legs blown off, or worse.

Lay there at night among the rocks, too tired and scared to sleep, every noise you hear being the chance of an enemy sneaking up to slit your throat. Experience the ambush, bullets tearing the ground around you. See the guy next to you get hit and feel his blood splatter all over you. Feel the relief, and the guilt, when your first thought is “I am okay, thank God it wasn’t me” as he lays there bleeding to death because you can’t quite firing long enough to help him as you are outnumbered 50-1.

Experience the fear of hand to hand combat, you with your knife and the enemy with his. Feel the pain as his knife slashes at your body. Feel your knife plunge into his sternum or stomach and the sensation as it stops when the hilt hits and his blood begins to run along your hand. Or hear the hissing of an enemy hand grenade a split second before it explodes, hurling hot metal into your body and the concussion knocking you to the ground. Feel the pain and fear as you lay there, semi-conscious and unable to defend yourself as enemy soldiers run past you, hoping they don’t stick you with a bayonet or pump a few rounds into you for good measure.

Or feel the sensation of being shot, the hot flash of pain and the feeling of being hit by a baseball bat swung by a Major League slugger. Live like this day in and day out for a year or two. Then come talk to me about “sunshine patriots”. Then come talk to me about “collaborators”. Then come talk to me about “weak willed people only willing to write letters or vote”.

Before judging people like Dave and me, walk a mile in my shoes and see if you can come up with a better plan. See if you can understand why pounding the pavement to get out the vote and writing letters to elected officials to get your point across and accomplish your goals is acceptable. My apologies to those who find this disturbing. My goal here is to; hopefully, give those who are looking for a war something to think about. How about we try it my way? America is worth it to me.

God Bless America.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
January 20, 2012

Obama "Reaches Out" To Islamist




Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi is the most influential Sunni Islamist in the world. In 2003, he issued a fatwa calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq. Now the Barack Hussein Obama administration has turned to al-Qaradawi to mediate secret negotiations between the United States and the Taliban.

al-Qaradawi says that Islam must dominate the world, under a global caliphate governed by sharia. He maintains that Islam will conquer Europe and America. He says that the conquering will be done via a da’ wah, a mission to spread Islam. However, the da’ wah will not spread a set of spiritual principles or beliefs. Rather it works incrementally to impose a social system with its own authoritarian legal code, covering all aspects of life and instituting a caste system in which women and non-Muslims are subjugated.

Da’ wah uses pressure, such as political campaigns, infiltration of the media, control of the education system, to advance the acceptance of Islamic principles, and to limit the principles of free speech and economic liberty that are found in competing systems, such as is western civilization. To maintain that da’ wah is non-violent is foolish, suggesting that the mission of da’ wah is to rationalize terrorism as divinely mandated self-defense.

al-Qaradawi publicly praises Hamas’ mass-murder attacks and suicide bombings. “They are not suicide operations,” he stated. “These are heroic martyrdom operations. The martyr operations is the greatest of all sorts of jihad in the cause of Allah.”

In 2009, al-Qaradawi prayed that Allah would kill all Jews: “Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers and kill them, down to the very last one.”

After thousands of young Americans died to protect the United States from jihadist terror, President Obama seeks to end the Afghanistan war by asking a-Qaradawi to help him strike a deal that will install the Taliban as part of the sharia state we have been building in Afghanistan. And this mediation includes the release of Mohammed Fazl, a ‘high-risk detainee’ and a senior commander of the Taliban army, held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison. The Obama administration will also agree to the lifting of UN sanctions against the Taliban. Further, it will recognize the Taliban as a legitimate political party. In return, the Taliban will pretend to forswear violence, to sever ties with al-Qaeda, and to cooperate with the rival Karzai regime.

So now the shameless President Barack Hussein Obama has “reached out” to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi to mediate with the Taliban. Is there nothing Obama won’t do?

But that’s just my opinion.

Access to other articles like this one can be found at RWNO, my personal web site.

With Friends Like These…

Since the beginning of the War on Terror, the United States has taken on the task of forming hostile nations into allies in the Middle East. The best analogy I can think of to currently describe the way things have gone is likening our nation building efforts to the comic strip “Peanuts”. The nations that we go to war with are much like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, America in this scenario, to kick. We run to kick the football, Lucy moves the football, and we fall on our behind. The difference is that immediately afterward, Charlie Brown knows that he’s been had and vows to never fall for that again, before he inevitably does. Our politicians on the other hand, refuse to reflect on the results of past interventions and many times embrace a “full steam ahead” approach.

I don’t write this as apologetics for Ron Paul, the Cato Institute, the founding fathers, Reason Magazine or any other well known libertarian intellectual cause. Instead, I’m going to use an inherently conservative thought process, the cost-benefit analysis. Liberals hate the cost-benefit analysis because it shows that their government programs to be counter-productive; this is why they often resort to arguing based on emotions and intent. Unfortunately, despite President Bush’s noble intentions, the major engagements of the War on Terror may not pass the cost-benefit test.

We invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to eliminate Al-Qaeda and to topple the country’s acting government, the Taliban. While fighting the enemy, we also helped set up an acting Afghan government. And in 2004 Hamid Karzai was elected president of the country and the US has supported him ever since. However, it has been revealed that Karzai and his family are corrupt and that he perhaps fraudulently won re-election in 2009. The US decided to express its disapproval by sending a troop surge of 30,000 to double down on our efforts of giving him a stable country to govern. Worse yet, its also been learned that Karzai, behind our back, has been in talks with the Taliban and has had diplomatic relations with Iran. But even before Karzai’s corruption became apparent, he still wasn’t exactly our BFF. Karzai frequently threw the US “under the bus” in press conferences and openly supports the farmers there growing Opium poppy despite our requests. Even taking Karzai out of the equation, a cost-benefit analysis must be done (not in this article) on whether or not we should still be fighting in Afghanistan. Former CIA director and current Secretary of Defense Leon Panneta estimated in 2010 that there were no more than 50-100 Al-Qaeda still in the country.

Next we turned to Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator who ended up getting what he deserved, not many Americans on either side of the political aisle would disagree with that. But, as the Iraq war winded down and the US turned into a police force to help stabilize their government, the people at home wondered what the new Iraqi government would look like. While still in its infant stages, details of the new Iraqi government have been disappointing at best. It appears as though Iraq has warmed up to its former hated enemy, Iran. This is particularly bad, because the Iraq-Iran conflict helped to keep Iran in check. This is why in the 1980s we helped supply Iraq with materials to produce chemical/biological weapons; with the idea of them to using the weapons against Iran. Further showing its gratitude towards the US, Iraq recently voted against Saudi Arabia’s proposal to increase oil production at OPEC’s 2011 conference. Seeing nations turn their back on the US after the US had invested large sums of money isn’t particularly unusual, but what makes this different is that the US still has 50,000 soldiers over there. This is a blatant slap in the face.

Worst of all is Libya. If there is something positive to be said of the War in Libya, one could say that its been the least costly of the wars. Despite its comparatively low price tag, Libya could quite possibly have the costliest long term consequences. To clarify, just like Saddam, Muammar Gaddafi is an evil dictator who deserves whatever grisly fate that awaits him. But, the United States went to war for the stated goal of stopping an alleged massacre that never took place, not for “regime change”. Then, in spite of goals which stated otherwise, we stayed until the regime change was complete. Now the question that remains is, “What now? Who are these rebels?”. That answer appears to be an interesting mix of regular citizens who grew tired of their oppressor, radical Islamic insurgents, and long term US ally Al-Qaeda. Wait… no, that’s not right, Al-Qaeda’s goal is to destroy the US and Israel. While the new Libyan constitution hasn’t been written, it was released that Sharia law is anticipated to be the main source of inspiration. If the Muslim Brotherhood’s popularity in Egypt is any indication, the so called “Arab Spring” will not have positive long term effects on the US and it’s allies. Rarely do events have 100% negative consequences without a silver lining, and Libya very well could be one of those times. In life there are disappoints and ideas that backfire, but rarely do you spend money and resources to create a nation whose leadership’s stated goal is to destroy you. Before many marriages that end in divorce go bad, there is usually a blissful honeymoon. Likewise the Libyan rebels started off giving the US a deserved gift, by denying their request to extradite Lockerbie bomber Al-Megrahi.

The Middle East has plenty of hostile countries, some unfriendly indifferent nations, and very few allies. One of those nations considered friendly to the US is Kuwait, particularly after we saved them from Saddam Hussein’s invasion in Desert Storm. Now to Kuwait’s credit, they have repaid us with their support in the UN by voting against us a region-low 67% of the time. More and more on the right, people grow disenfranchised by our foreign involvements. Republican California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said that behind closed doors, most republicans will admit that Iraq was a mistake. This sentiment briefly gave businessman Donald Trump the affection of some republicans when he considered a presidential run. One of Trump’s main platforms was taking trillions of dollars in oil from Iraq to offset our costs there. The fact that the idea garnered some support among republicans shows that at the very least, they’re willing to admit that the Iraq war didn’t yield desired results; so they feel the need to get something out of it. I agree that in retrospect, knowing what we know now, it was a mistake. But you can’t go around taking nation’s oilfields or anything else for that matter, might doesn’t make right. The equivalent I draw from the people who support the US taking oil from these nations we intervene in is this: Let’s say I cut your grass without me asking. You either try to stop me or passively let it happen. When its done I take some household appliances to compensate myself.

A best case scenario in these countries is that we pay billions yearly for their defense, having them become reliant on us, allowing them to become socialist in nature; all while complaining about our presence and influence. This allows them to become what I like to call “International democrats”. They do nothing to warrant the US taxpayer paying for their defense or fighting for them, yet we do it. What would be better is if we charged them at cost or more for us to protect them, but even then, that’s only a solution if you want to use our military men and women as mercenaries instead of only using them to “protect the US Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic”. Better would be forcing these nations to pay for their own defense, taking them off the government payroll.

In the world there are going to be problems that arise on an international level. Friendly dictators and elected officials alike will lose power or get overthrown from time to time. When a US-friendly regime loses power its one thing, when the US pays great costs in lives and money to create a hostile regime is infinitely worse. Woodrow Wilson’s progressive dream is alive and well today with the goal of “making the world safe for democracy”, championed by republicans (McCain, Graham) and democrats (Lieberman). Creating democracies in a region where the people who make up the electorate despise the US would seem to make the policy mutually exclusive with safety at home.