In 2002 the United States military invaded Iraq because of suspected weapons of mass destruction, or WMDs, and the threat in which Saddam Hussein posed with access to those weapons. By the end of that war in 2011 more than 4,500 US military members lost their life. Conservative estimates show at least 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, caused by US forces. Thousands of other Iraqis, even 12 years after the initial attack, are without access to electricity, running water, or a stable environment to live. Iraq did not have any WMDs, at least that the US was able to confiscate and verify. The US was successful in capturing Hussein and he was charged for his crimes and sentenced to death.
The question remains, is the US any safer because of Hussein’s departure?
The reason the answer to this question is important is because the US is in the same situation now, with Iran, as it was with Iraq in 2001 and 2002. A country is developing, or has WMDs, and the US/most of world doesn’t want Iran to have that capacity.
What would a US invasion of Iran look like, 4,000 more US casualties, 100,000 plus Iranian civilian casualties? Another failed state ripe for violence and terrorist activity?
It can be expected that if the same decision is made, a US invasion of Iran, the same results will occur that did when the US invaded Iraq.
“Violence is a cleansing force,” said Frantz Fanon. “It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.”
The number of civilian casualties should be enough to make the US rethink an invasion of Iran. Remember, there are survivors left. Brothers, sons, fathers, maybe even someone who never expected to oppose the US, but to some, the hatred, resentment, or even a feeling of protection, cause many to take up arms, giving that individual a sense of fearlessness and self respect and act as a negative force towards the US.
How can you demand someone to be peaceful, when they are the victim’s of your violence?
Alternative to war:
Reach out to Iranian allies, China, and Russia most importantly. Try to gain some common ground and have the opportunity to put multilateral pressure on Iran. Economic sanctions from the UN, hurts, but does not isolate Iran.
This seems unreasonable. Now, it most likely is. There are steps the US can take to make their military presence less known worldwide. If their presence isn’t felt, the likely hood of feeling threatened decreases. If a country, or an allied group of countries feels less threatened, the more likely they are to decrease their growth in military strength.
President John Kennedy implemented a similar type program after the Cuban nuclear scare, that he called “a strategy of peace.” Kennedy also said, “our problems are man-made... and can be solved by man.” This was during a speech given at American University where he announced the first unilateral initiative: the US was stopping all nuclear tests in the atmosphere, and would not resume unless another country did.
Because of this, Russia not only stopped testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere but Premier Khrushchev ordered the production of Russian strategic bombers to be halted.
Charles Osgood wrote in an essay, Disarmament Demands Grit, “I do not think that anyone who lived through that period will deny that there was a definite warming of American attitudes towards Russians, and the same is reported fro Russian attitudes towards American’s. The Russians even coined their own name for the new strategy, ‘the policy of mutual example.’”
Soon after both sides showed progress, a reduction in trade barriers between the US and Russia happened, allowing President Kennedy to approve the sale of $250 million worth of wheat to the Soviet Union.
Why couldn’t the US adopt the same program now? Instead of responding to threats with other threats, why not show a sense of logic and reason? All too often, when two oppositions disagree, the communication is no longer free, it is limited to threats and often times, broken promises.
Albert Einstein wrote, “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.”
This process, this alternative to war, is not an event. It is not something that is immediately stimulating. This isn’t Spongebob. It is a process. Total disarmament will not be achieved in one fatal swoop. It will not be covered by CNN and it won’t be on a bumper sticker. But even small attempts, by both sides can considerably lessen the chance of war, save lives, save economies, and save the planet from nuclear destruction.
There are four clear benefits for a properly designed arms control agreement, even if they only act as a stepping-stone to a more peaceful relationship.
The first benefit of arms control is it reduces the chances of war breaking out. If each side becomes less worried about it’s opponent is accumulation in weapons, it makes that country less likely to initiate an attack. The second benefit reduces the destruction of war. If each side disarms their biggest (nuclear) weapons, it does less collateral damage. Third, it costs less. It puts less of a burden on a country’s people, also lessens the amount of generalized or exaggerated information the government disseminates to try and gain extra support to fund military actions. Fourth, if agreements are lived up to, a sense of confidence and cooperation can start building. Improving not only aggressive or war like sentiments but could also improve trade agreements, and pave the way to make a future ally.
The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. said, “God didn't call America to do what she's doing in the world now. God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war as the war in Vietnam. And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation.”
We listened to most of what he said; I’m listening to this too. Iran isn’t Vietnam neither was Iraq but the sentiment remains true.

What's the point?

Reasonable and attainable goals in war haven’t been the United States strong point in the last 50 years. President Obama’s address about the escalation of the war in Afghanistan is where he laid out his goal and it was, disrupting, dismantling, and destroying al-Qaeda and all their terrorist allies.

Lyndon Johnson’s goal in Vietnam was to isolate and stop the spread of communism. This was also the goal in Korea. These goals are very vague and seemingly unattainable.

I keep hearing that I do not understand history correctly when I say Afghanistan is a duplicate of Vietnam. Other than the specific location, nations involved, and actual time in history, they seem very, very similar.

The United States begins by sending trainers and consultants to aid and train the local military. Then they conduct Special Forces missions to try and pick off key opponent officials. When that isn’t successful they send as few troops as possible, so to keep the public naive to the fact the country is actually at war. When that fails, the public is still kept in the dark to things like bombings of cities with innocent civilians in them, or more current, drone attacks on villages. Side note: a ranking military official said in a conference after a Joint Chief’s meeting, it doesn’t matter if there are zero civilians or 40 civilians, if they are in the same place as a military target, they are always going to get their target. Implying one al-Qaeda militant is worth the lives of innocent civilians.

And we’re back. Once those attacks fail, troop escalation takes place. In the example of Vietnam, even when the war was escalated during Johnson’s and again in Nixon’s administration the objective of isolating and stopping the spread of communism wasn’t accomplished. There are my similarities. Afghanistan, in my opinion is no different than Vietnam except we don’t have an ending for the Afghan story yet.

I guess now is where we can see first hand how this troop escalation will turn out, and I pray, for the sake of the world, this is the right decision.

Not only is the United States sending 30,000 more military troops, they are matching that number with private contractors (Blackwater). To accomplish what? To defeat al-Qaeda and all their allies? In an area of the world which has never been conquered? Ask Russia; I bet they tell the U.S. to get the hell out of Dodge.

It’s not just the fact that the goal is unreasonable; we are creating more hate by killing more innocent people. U.S. forces have killed over 4,000 innocent civilians, which are almost 1,000 more than were killed on September 11, 2001. The Afghani civilian deaths are called collateral damage. When the twin towers came down it was called murder. If you ask an Afghani civilian if what is happening in their country is murder or collateral damage, I’ll bet they say murder too.

Aside from the simple fact killing innocent civilians is wrong, every time it happens al-Qaeda has more ammunition to recruit more militants. If you’re father, grandfather, brother, sister, mother, child, wife, or friend was killed by an American drone you are going to be much more likely to despise the United States and join a militant group like al-Qaeda.

Terrorist groups don’t have consciences, they pray on victim’s family and friends. They get a handful of new recruits every time an innocent civilian dies.

The U.S. borrowed every single cent to pay for the Iraq and Afghan war. This is an example of a political tactic to keep the public in the dark. Unless you are in the military, or have a family member in the military, you probably haven’t noticed much difference in your every day life.

One trillion dollars, that is the total to this point the U.S. has borrowed from China to fund these two wars. I have a feeling the public would think a bit differently about these wars if when it came time for buying Christmas gifts board games were bought instead of video games because we are being taxed to sustain two wars.

Filming, or taking pictures of flag draped caskets and casualties in war zones were prohibited during the Bush administration. This is another political tactic to lessen the weight of the war on the American/tax paying public.

Ten billion dollars a month are being spent on these two wars. Imagine if instead of building tanks, helicopters, guns, and bullets if that money was spent on building infrastructure like roads, schools, hospitals, and communication centers? I think that would be a better allocation of eventual taxpayer money.

If the United States does achieve it’s goal in Afghanistan the money will be spent to rebuild those things anyway. Why must the killing persist? Two very influential people in the 20^th century agree, any good achieved through violence is temporary, good achieved non-violently is a much more sustainable and healthy (Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi).

No solution, yet.

I believe there is an unnatural rift in the people of this Country we call great. Our politics are the same, we are arguing over semantics. Republican’s and Democrat’s don’t have to hate each other. Republican’s don’t have to hate everything Democrat and Democrat’s don’t have to hate everything Republican.

Our politics aren’t what divide us, our ideology isn’t what divides us, it’s our unwillingness to agree with something other than ourselves. The two major political parties in this country are separated by very minor issues, especially when comparing our politics to other countries, like any country in the European Union, or Australia, or New Zealand. All countries that have a higher standard of living, better democracy, you know, all the good stuff.

But we are too concerned with being right, being big, being tough. We aren’t even the tops of the world now. We are claiming to be spreading democracy but that’s like me saying I’m spreading the knowledge of quantum physics. I don’t know how to do quantum physics, just like this country has no idea about Democracy.

Big FREAKING business. Enron, Halliburton, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, all corrupt institutions, all of which have had major impact on policy and decision making in the past 20 years. At the height of Enron’s success, President Bush appointed a top ranking Enron official to the business regulation board. De-regulating business is what made it possible for Enron to commit fraud at such a scale.

Lies and corruption is what our country is surviving on now. For the people and by the people, gone. Who in government is looking out for their constituents? For the last 8 years we have been waging in two wars that got us where? Why did we invade/liberate/occupy/destroy Iraq? WMD’s? Who were those WMD’s pointed at? Wait, we didn’t find any, so either when the UN was there, they disarmed, or they didn’t have them to begin with, right? Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States, right? WRONG. The world is a safer place without Sadam Hussein, right? RIGHT. But why was it up to us to take him out? Is one man worth the 4,000 plus American lives that were lost in Iraq?

I’m going to take a stance here, I know people are going to disagree, but you can call me Glen or Keith (Beck, Olberman). That’s fine. The United States invaded Iraq to preserve the access to oil. I understand the United States isn’t getting any of its oil from Iraq. The majority of oil the U.S. imports are from Canada, then Venezuela, then Saudi Arabia, and on down the list you won’t see Iraq. But if we could see past our nose, we may actually see why the United States went into Iraq.

Those three countries mentioned earlier have an expected 10-20 year supply of oil reserves left. Then what? When Saudi Arabia, who exports 45 percent of the worlds oil, runs out, then what? Then the U.S. gets access to Iraqi oil. It’s too obvious to use Iraqi oil now, and we still have an OK relationship with Saudi Arabia and Canada. So why waste Iraqi oil now, when we can save it, deplete other countries reserves while still having access when most of the world’s reserves have been depleted. Oil equals money, money equals power. Power equals an answer for China.

Afghanistan. The Pentagon released the number of Afghani civilian casualties. 4,000. Civilian casualties, not insurgent casualties, civilian. Didn’t we invade Afghanistan because of the 3,000 American civilian deaths when the World Trade Centers were attacked? How can we spread democracy when we are killing innocent people?

As a Country, we don’t make any sense. We can’t agree on regulating business as a means to stop taking advantage of the people. We can’t agree on a health care plan that will raise the standard of living in this country. We can’t agree on anything. We argue because we know we have to yell to sound strong. We are no longer strong, we are scared. Not as civilians, our Government is scared. Our government is not a reflection of the people.

Imagination

The United States of America was built with imagination and innovation. Something I see the American Government is really lacking right now. We are stuck in an old fashioned capitalistic society where big business is running the government instead of the people (remember For the People By the People?). Because of that, the Republic we live in is no longer such a republic.

I don’t fault any one person or group but I blame complacency. We became lackadaisical because we were the leading nation in the world after WWII. We’ve become complacent and abandoned the imagination that made this country great.

The group that is in power now, no matter if Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, is resisting change. They along with big business are benefitting from this old, outdated system.

Many people could compare the United States to other Democratic countries and show all the flaws. There are many flaws in the U.S. system but we have to remember, we, (as American’s) were the first country to put in place a system ran by the people. The U.S. was a trial country, most democratic nations took the good things from the U.S. and integrated it into their own while omitting the aspects that weren’t functioning properly.

It’s time for a change in this nation. Not just a personnel change, a system change. Instead of legislation in favor of big business we need to be legislating in favor of the people.

The form of capitalism we are following has taken the people out of this nation built on people. It has taken the individual from an influential standpoint to an outsider. Oil companies, car manufacturers, Wal Mart, the entire financial sector, and many other corporations have taken the individual's spot from the people in the; For the People By the People Republic.

Because the powerful few are still benefitting from this outdated system, they are not only resisting change but holding down the liberal (changing) ideas of those who are sick of the system that is now in place.

Now there are arguments of other systems around the world that may be better suited for a nation such as the United States. This is irrelevant. If the U.S. was the first to implement a successful Democratic and capitalistic system why should we look to another nation and use their system? Shouldn’t we be depending on the imagination of great people to bring us to a better time and place? We depended on people like George Washington, John Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and many more to lay the foundation for a nation with the potential to lead the world from a dictatorial, uncompromising, and unequal state to an equal and compassionate place to live.

Where has the imagination gone? We as a people can’t just complain, for change to occur there has to be imagination, innovation and action. Talk to your friends, talk to your family, talk to your representative. I don’t know about you but I want to live in a country fit for a king or fit for a peasant. I want to live in a place fit for everyone. All men are created equal, a theory first explored by philosopher John Locke then imbedded into the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson. That’s where I want to live.

Red v. Blue

Ignorance is bliss, right? A true statement until those ignorant or uninformed make accusations about current issues. Now more than ever we are hearing and seeing a bombardment of arguing. Obama is a socialist, he is going to try and take over the country. All pledge Obama!

Simple things, like the President’s speech to students has been scrutinized to the point where students needed to have a parent or guardian sign a waiver for them to view it. There was no policy; there was no politics, no bailout, and no health care. Only putting responsibility on the students. The President said something to effect of, if you (meaning students) do poorly in school not only are you letting down yourself and your family you are letting down your country.

Which is a very true statement. The United States of America, the most powerful nation and leader of the free world isn’t as true as it once was. Many can and will argue with that notion. And I hope they would. But how do we as Americans expect to keep leading the free world if our future leaders are failing in school? So why is the thought of the President encouraging the students such a hotly contested idea? The first Bush President gave a speech to the students, Ronald Regan did also, which was much more controversial than the current President’s speech.

Although the disparity in the politics of the U.S. is extremely minimal compared to most other countries in the world, the respect and tolerance for people with differing views is almost non-existent. Democrats and Republicans alike are arguing, just for the sake of arguing, just so the other ideology is wrong. Although compared to most other countries the difference between Democrat and Republican is very small, we are arguing every dilemma we face as if it’s the fault of the other party.

We, as American’s are perpetuating our own polarization. Instead of being tolerant because one might agree or disagree with a certain issue, we care making detrimental accusations. If you support Obama, you’re a socialist. If you agree with Glen Beck you are a closed minded Fascist. Why the polarization? Can’t I see your logic without losing mine? Why do you have to think exactly the same way I do for us to be civil, or even worse, friends?

When the founding fathers constructed the Constitution of the United States of America it wasn’t a simple accomplishment. It was a compilation of differing views, all compromising to make the world’s first modern Democratic Republic. During the early stages of this Republic the vice president wasn’t chosen, it was the candidate who received the second most votes for president. Abraham Lincoln appointed members of his cabinet with people whose ideology didn’t match his. It was a cabinet of rivals. If one of our country’s greatest leaders surrounded himself with people that have differing ideas of how the country would best be ran why are we so intolerant of that now?

Issues in the world aren’t always clear-cut or black and white, so why is the country so red and blue?

Iran

Iran is located in the heart of the Middle East. Neighboring Iraq and Turkey on one side, Afghanistan and Pakistan on the other. Iran is also a major player in Middle Eastern politics. Since many American’s don’t know much about Iran I think it gets placed on the back burner. Well until these last elections. The Islamic Republic of Iran, I assume, liked not having publicity. They were able to grow economically because of their oil reserves and keep their hand in many other Middle Eastern States policies without getting attention from the West.

Now things have changed, the elections held in Iran some two weeks ago have brought an enormous amount of attention to the country. Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan have been the major places of contention, at least in U.S. news until now. The news channels are dominated by Iran.

Many people are criticizing the Obama administration for not making more of an effort to help those who are revolting in Iran or for not condemning the current President or system of power. President Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have criticized the United States for meddling in Iranian affairs. Sound contradicting? American’s are mad because Obama hasn’t done anything and the leaders of Iran are saying they’re mad because he’s doing too much.

There is a revolution going on in Iran. Not like the Revolutionary War when the United States revolted against the British. This is a revolution, evolving from years and years of oppression. We as American’s want everything now, now, now. We have evidence of what happens when we try to make a country be a democracy now, now, now. Iraq. Case and point. Forcing a country to make changes they aren’t ready for, whether those changes are positive or not, doesn’t work. Iraq is in shambles right now. The United States condemning Iran for the violence is a good thing, anything more than that could be very detrimental.

Now many will say we still need to do something, like support the people who are trying to revolt. Maybe in theory this is a good thing but we (meaning the U.S. Government) have done this before. After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and the United States pushed the Iraqi forces out, President Bush (the first George H. W. Bush) told the Kurds to rise up against Saddam, revolt, and you have our support. The Kurds revolted, got punched in the face, where was their big brother who promised support?

So now we can say we will support the younger generations, we just have to back up what we say. If we do support this revolution and we intervene, how is Iran going to be any different than Iraq? There is a natural evolution to many revolutions. England didn’t go from a Monarchy to a Democracy over night, why do we expect Iran to?

An overthrow of Ahmadinejad now would result in what? Mussavi as President? How different is Mussavi than Ahmadinejad? Not much, how much of a difference is there between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama? A little but not much. The United States could intervene, overthrow the current President and place Mussavi in. What would change?

If we, as American’s condemn the violence, but other than that keep out of it, the evolution will happen. It will happen from within the country, giving it the best chance for success. They will not be undermined because of U.S. involvement. The country will stay more stable than it’s neighbor to the West. Half of Iran’s population is under the age of 30. These are the people who are rising up against the current administration and system of power. These are the people who still want to be Muslim but don’t think it needs to be such a radical way of living.

In the weeks since the protests have begun there has been progress made. They aren’t going to hold a new election and they aren’t getting rid of how things are done, yet. Ahmadinejad has lost credibility and the Ayatollah has lost credibility all because they have offended half of their population. Iran knows this, the international community knows this and for Iran to compete they will have to evolve.

Maybe the evolution to a functioning democracy in Iran could take a very long time, 20 years, 25 years, nobody knows but the United States have been in Iraq for 8 or so years now. Is Iraq closer to a functioning democracy than Iran is? Where would you rather live, Iran or Iraq?

In my opinion, Iran is much closer to a functioning democracy, functioning international contributor, and a stabilizing force in an unstable region than is Iraq. Maybe for the world to succeed, the U.S. needs to be patients, aid when aid is needed but for the most part stay out of the way. Let Iran be Iran, the people of Iran like the United States, they have already started to move towards a better country, let them do it.

25 Things

1. I am drawn to old people. Family reunions, family dinners, (Andrea's grandpa is pretty sweet to talk to, Brian would love his stories).
2. My goal is a 4.0 this semester
3. I want to get a masters degree either in public administration or business.
4. I work best with only my expectations. (I fold under pressure)
5. The best motivation I ever received was in a form someone regretted giving. 
6. I pretend to be informed and educated, I'm just opinionated. 
7. Being outside is where I want to be. 
8. I crave attention.
9. I love working with little boys even though I thought I'd hate it. Rewards from adults are nothing compared to the rewards of working with kids. 
10. I'm in the best relationship of my life and she has me wrapped around her little finger and I know it and can't do anything about it. She loves it, I love her. 
11. I look up to my brother's a sister even if they think I don't.
12. I like many of the things I like because of them (maps)
13. I love to remember my dad and laugh. 
14. I love to remember my dad and cry.
15. The best friends I've ever had have been and in no particular order, Dad, (especially post 19) Grandpa Austin (forever) Seyi (post 4th grade) Andrea (seems like forever, in a good way).
16. I don't like to read but I love to learn, so I force myself to read.
17. I like to try and be funny.
18. Making people laugh makes me happy.
19. Making people happy also makes me happy.
20. Ice cream, oreos, and peanut mnms are enough of an incentive to get me to do about anything.
21. I want to be healthy but the previous post makes health very difficult. 
22. I love science, outdoors, geology, meteorology but I struggle so much with Biology I'm sure by the end of the semester I'll have a heart attack.
23. Philosophy doesn't make sense to me, I need answers. 
24. I may be the most competitive person on the planet. I have a good attitude always so it doesn't seem like it but losing even if it is to a nephew or niece or girlfriend is very very difficult to swallow. 
25. I'm very critical to those who think they are better than me but am willing to help anyone who seems to be in need.