Sunday thoughts

Ok, it's Sunday January 13th, and I'm neither a Dallas Cowboy or New York Giant football fan, so the gave is on but in the background. After three games this weekend, my football synapses are kinda' fried. And I wanted Jacksonville and Indianapolis to win too. Can't win them all since Green Bay won. Ok, one of three ain't bad.

Anyway, the news?

First and foremost, CBS Sunday Morning has an excellent story on the views of Bush's trip to the Middle East by the media networks there. Really good stuff as the world sees it totally differently, like duh, but very enlightening and, in my view, understanding, as they make one interesting point or question depending on your perspective. Whats' a radical, fundamentalist religous idealogue? The Islamic Jihadis? Or President Bush? Or both?

The point is well made that Bush is not that much different than some of the Middle Eastern government he criticizes, including Iran's. Change the religion and the leader, and it plays the same. Not? Ok, when Bush makes statements or speeches about Iran, change Iran to US and the words almost play the same. He talks about state-sponsored terrorism, nuclear threat, military intervention, curbing human and civil rights and so on. Everything we've done in Iraq, Bush says Iran could (also) do.

So who's the evildoer there? Are we really supporting building a democracy or building a country that allows us to establish permanent bases, like we did in Iran under the Shah, have in Kuwait and have in countries bordering Saudi Arabia - they buy our military hardware and training, so it's much the same as us, for geopolitical control of the Middle East to prevent other nations from controlling the oil in Iraq?

Ok, this is harsh considering things, but also consider we supported brutal dictators in Iran and Iraq - remember we supported the rise of Suddham Hussein and his regime from 1980-1989 in his war with Iran, we put the Shah of Iran in power and supported him until his overthrow, and we continue to support a non-democratic government in the Family of Saud in Saudi Arabia and other smaller middle east countries.

And we're trying to prevent Russia and China from supporting Iran, and we're losing badly as the harsher the rhetoric Bush gets, the more support they get from those countries. And the more we provide a voice for Iran. We're actually making Iran bigger than it really is in the Middle East. We seem, and especially Bush seems, to be saying do as we say, not as we do.

Enuf of that, onward.

This is one you simply gotta have a WTF moment. The gun company which designed and produces the highend pistols for the City of Los Angeles Special Investigations Section (SIS) is marketing this gun to the public as the SIS model. For $1,200 you can have the same gun as the police. So, is private industry really on government's side as they say?

Pakistan. While the President and the military say they might begin covert, and maybe in overt, incursions into Pakistan to fight Taliban and Al Qaeda forces, President Musharraf said if they do, those forces will be met with Pakistani forces. What doesn't our military understand about borders? Do we feel we're so much the world's police we can ignore the defined, sovreign borders of another country, especially one considered an ally?

The military says it has to do this becuase of the turmoil in Pakistan. Those who specialize in this region of the world say this would only exacerbate the turmoil and intensify the Tribal leaders with the Taliban and Al Qeada against the US, and maybe even the Pakistan government for allowing the attacks.

We know the military has always wanted to go into Pakistan in the hunt for and fight against the Taliban as they have used Pakistan as a safe haven. We also know the military has long conducted covert missions and surveillence in the Tribal areas of Pakistan. And no one can dispute militarily the border is a hindrance in that war. But the border is real and there, and must be respected, along with the decisions of the Pakistani government and leaders. We would only do the same if the situation were reversed.

Let's hope discretion is better than international stupidity.

The surge. I've written a little about is simply as a casual observer from the news I read. It's obviously working militarily. That's the good news. But we don't have 160,000 troops there as reported but closer to 180,000 with all the additional support troops, And sure enough it's providing a save place for Iraqis to live. But at what costs in terms of lives.

The Iraqi and US have reported different numbers of Iraqis killed since the war ceased in 2003, even Bush quoted less than 100,000 and the Lancet estimated 600,000 from a random sample model that has been reviewed and verified as a good model. Only the number is in dispute.

Well, now the World Health Organization has estimated a minimum of 151,000 have died. Ok, it's now likely between 200,000 and 400,000 with several million who emigrated to neighboring countries and several million more displanced or moving elsewhere as ethnic groups shift their geographic areas. And the point?

Well, as the Wall Street Journal ask, if this is what the surge is about? Are we providing a safe place for Iraqis to live and work? And with the benchmark of a stable national central government, now likely going the way of regional ethnic governments, what happened to the benchmark? Or are wil still years away, and from or for what?

Sadly the next President will have to address this question, why are we in Iraq now? It's not a war. It's not a fight against terrorists. So is it a military occupation of another country? If Bush likens Iraq to Japan and Europe after WWII, why isn't it working like that? Or do you like the analogy you'll overlook the reality?

How low can you lower the standards to call it a victory? This is what we're doing, or rather Bush is doing as he switches the blame to Iran and other factors than our inability to understand the situation to find a real solution. Even the active and retired generals keep saying it's not a military victory that works there, so what will?

And why are we still bombing the daylights out of areas of the country (40,000 lbs of bombs from B2 bombers recently)? None of the candidates are saying what they expect if we leave, they keep putting the face of staying until we win face, which we know is endless. Will we hear in the Presidential campaign that the next President will get us out of Iraq in four years or not run again?

Remember Nixon in 1968 to promise getting out of Vietnam by 1972? We didn't leave then so why should be believe we can leave a country we totally devasted? Any bets the surge keeps geting extended until 2009 for the next President to explain? And how many more Iraqis will die? Throughout all the talk about the Iraq war we keep forgetting the dead and injured Iraqis. Who speaks for them?

Ok, I've beaten on Bush too much now, I'll pummel men's rights, or men's right they don't deserve. Abortion. Men's groups are now pushing for legal rights over women's bodies when they get them pregnant, using the "we're having a baby" logic. This really is a WTF moment. Who's has the baby?

The men are saying they're equal partners in the baby's life in the woman and she does not have the right by herself to decide for herself. I've already written my view, about women's right and life itself. I won't add anything more except to men, "Sit down and shut up!"

Parting jesture this coming week? Well, Giants at Green Bay? Hmmm, I'll take a good game. Chargers at New England? Ok, I'll take San Diego. Yup, the Patriots need to go home.

And a smile to leave you with, here. Have a good week.