It’s interesting, I’m starting hear the term “cult” used when referring to the organized support for the Obama campaign. Ironically from the GOP side; yes the group of people who are best known for their methodical collective of ignorance. I truly believe that we the Obama supporters have come to terms with the fact that we need a collective force, a hard hitting and yes, almost cult-like force. I am in no delusion about the reality of what could happen if Obama were to get into the White House. He could be another Jimmy Carter. However unlike Carter; Obama has a great instinct about the world and the understanding of what it takes to mobilize people and resources which then can translate into votes for policy changes. Let it be known, our so-called “cult” does not follow a leader, but is built from the collective force of the masses; this is the future, where people interconnected can set the tone and bring the force and focus to a message and a campaign. This is true social politics.
Its worth watching the whole thing...
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4336145
I find it a bit odd that a man like Mayor Giuliani who used to be in such lockstep with law enforcement has taken an international approach when America’s crimes rates have been rising drastically in the last several years. Guess what kind of jobs our troops have? A good number of them proportionally are in law enforcement. So when we take more troops and put them on the streets of Iraq to police that country and protect their borders we are weakening the force in our own country.
This should not come as a surprise to some people. However the tough talking imperialistic types who cry so often about protecting the borders and crime in their cities (which seems a bit ironic) need to realize that we have in fact increased the security threat of this country not by creating more terrorists (which is hard to measure) but we have increased the security threat because we have to pull police off the streets to fight and police Iraq and protect their borders. We haven’t been able to do it properly here so there is no reason to expect that we will in Iraq. So the concept of cutting our losses and reinforcing the United States while leaving some non-law enforcement employed troops around Iraq to surgically strike terror cells seems to be that best option. Local law enforcement should be priority number one when it comes to the security of the United States.
Often I hear people comparing past American civil wars to argue for and against continued American urban combat in Iraq so here are two recent interesting analogies people should ponder (the smartest one is first):
From CNN: This Week AT War 5/20/2007:Link. GEN. WILLIAM ODOM, (RET): Let me point out something that I think is assumed in this discussion that should not be assumed. We're not dealing with Iraqis. We're sitting on top of several sides in multiple civil wars in Iraq. So asking the Iraqis to step up is sort of like asking will the confederates and union leaders step up to a convention that the British have called that we ought to stop fighting after Gettysburg.
_______________________________
From NBC: Meet the Press 5/20/2007:Link.
GINGRICH: Prime Minister Maliki is doing the best he can in a chaotic environment, and he’s not a very strong person, but if—imagine we were the French in the 1700s, debating the American Continental Congress and saying, “Well, should we really send aid to these guys? I mean, they can’t even hold—you know, they’ve retreated to Lancaster. They’re not even in Philadelphia. They’ve lost New York. George Washington’s lost all these campaigns. This guy Washington has no major victories. I mean, why are we sending money over there? This is just bad money after good.”
SEN. DODD: But, but, but equating, equating the American Revolution with a civil war in Iraq today, please, with all due respect.MR.
GINGRICH: No, it’s exactly the same point.
SEN. DODD: This is—no, no. It’s very different circumstances entirely here. And, again, I’ll come back to the point earlier, this is, this is where Iraqis have got to make a decision. They have to decide whether they want to be a country or not. And it’s a legitimate issue about whether or not they want to. They’re talking about separating off of the three different federal zones: the Kurdish, a Shia, Sunni zone. They—they’re uncertain themselves as to whether or not they want to be a nation.
MR. GINGRICH: We went...
SEN. DODD: Here they’re asking us to decide that for them, Newt, in a sense.They have to make that decision.
MR. GINGRICH: We went—wait a second, we went from 1775 with the first Continental Congress to 1789 when we adopted the Constitution. We had 14 years of confusion. Now, if you were advising the French how—in late 1776, Washington has been defeated in New York, he’s been defeated in Brooklyn Heights, he’s been defeated crossing—all, all the way across New Jersey, what would you have said then? Why would you have said, magically, the Americans are better?
SEN. DODD: Well, the fundamental issue, I’ve got George Washington, not Prime Minister Maliki, and I’ll go with Washington every day of the week. Now, we’ve got a lot of other people sitting around, people in Massachusetts, Connecticut and elsewhere, in Georgia, who are sitting there who knew what they wanted in the end. The Iraqis don’t apparently at this point.
Well I ask these pro-nation building types how much time and money are YOU willing to place on the table for a stable Iraqi? 15 years and 6.8 Trillion Dollars? 8000 US deaths? You talk about how Iraq's localized cultural problems will find their way to New York and other American cities. But I don't understand why you don't have nearly the same kind of so called resolve when it comes to lower income people in America. Or using the trillions of dollars we will have to give Iraq to rebuild much of their country, instead of rebuilding our own power structures and industries that could create so many jobs and help out the many farmers in America.
Just like how pro-life people tend to do little to stop pregnancies in this country and don't do enough to help with adoption. Instead they pray and hope that things will work out for the best. If YOU are for rebuilding Iraq and are in it for the long haul then I say put your money where your mouth is. Tell the tax payers how much this is going to cost them over the next 15 years. And how many of their sons and daughters will be killed and wounded.
There are ways to keep tabs on Iraq without having to be in direct urban combat but doing more of the same really isn’t a solution. If you wanna buy Iraq, then you will have to pay for it. Big time.
