I used to walk frequently, and for long periods of time, in the desert. Never gave it much thought, really. I used to pack a sandwich, some chips, and a cooler full of beer, and drive out to my "thought spot," which was really an area that was a few square miles of dry, cactus, mesquite, and creosote bush covered area. It could be 100+ degrees in temperature, but I used to walk for up to 2 hours or more without even thinking about carrying water with me. The beer always tasted good, of course, when I did get back to the car!
But I used to talk to the brush, the cactus, the birds and lizards, and, of course to God while I was out there. In fact, talking to God was one of the reasons that I started going out on those long walks. Those conversations didn't always sound all that nice at times. I have been known to be pretty strong when it comes to speaking my mind, and it doesn't matter to who. If I think they've done wrong, I don't mind telling them, and that includes God.
And you are saying, I suppose, "what kind of a sane mind believes that they have the right and responsibility of telling God that he screwed up," right? He's got to be addled. And maybe you are right, and maybe I have a different sense of God than you do, and He and I share a mutual respect - or at least I think we do, or is that, really, I hope we do.
We covered some pretty serious subjects out there on those walks. I probably took a dozen of those "venting" walks before I finally realized that this really was a two way conversation. I would go out and at times scream at Him for things that was happening. And like most people, I would ask a question directed at Him, and wait to listen to what I would hear if anything, just as if He was going to materialize and start talking. But one day it was different.
I said all the ugly things I normally say, and then started to say more things. And it was when I actually thought about what I was saying that I realized that something had happened, as I wasn't saying things or seeing them in the same way. I realized that although I had not heard a sound with my "ears," God had obviously spoken "through" me to me, as what I was saying was looking at the same thing from a different point of view! Yes, I actually DID have my questions answered, I just wasn't paying attention to what He was saying, as I was listening with my ears, not with my mind and heart.
So before you say you never heard God say a thing to you, stop and ask yourself, was I listening with just my ears or was I really open minded for an answer? My biggest regret at this time is that I didn't realize "how" to listen for God's replies when I was much younger and was trying to find a way out of the mess I had made of my life. If I had known then what I believe I know now, my world would be so much different. And this entry is going to start a group of I don't know how many that will reveal some of the things that we discussed. I hope you read them with an open mind, as in many ways, He is talking through my fingers.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Thoughts on Veteran's Day
Isn't it amazing how far things have gone in 20 years of presidencies that never served the flag in active duty service? How cavalierly they launched war after war, dragging our country, her people, and the flag through the muck of wars that did not have to be? And we now suffer through another term of presidential service offered up by yet another non veteran, willing to wage even more war, to shift the military from Iraq to the "good war" in Afghanistan, a nation that in it's 3000 year history has proved to be a hell hole for every would be conqueror, and has never been conquered by any, including Alexander the Great.
I wonder how many more body bags will come home before we finally come to realize that war isn't worth the blood spent in it, and certainly if not for a just cause. And even if Bin Laden had still existed, any more lives sacrificed would not be worth the price of removing him. If he was on dialysis before the war started in 2001, he surely was dead years ago in spite of the fake tapes trotted out by "intelligence" to prod us on to war.
God blessed America with an abundance of resources enough to last her forever - unless we develop a throw away society for the greater profit of the few. He gave us leaders that believed in his teachings, who sat up a country based on a Constitution that would allow prosperity for all. We throw him out into the gutter, allowing his name to be mentioned in earnest only in the sanctity of the home, the prison, and the church - you can curse it any time you like. We go to war in spite of the fact that his teachings and his son's teaching all speak of the sanctity of human life, and we do it in "their" names. No wonder this country has spiraled into the gutter over the past 20 years. I wonder if we will ever find ourselves again.
Yes, God bless the veteran for he gave much, received little, and is being replaced not by citizen-soldiers, but by mercenaries, who will have no respect for human life by the time they leave "service." They are an entirely different breed from those that served nobly in the wars to end all wars. I don't condemn them since they are a product of their times, their training, and the philosophy of their leaders. I only pity them and fear them.
Friday, September 28, 2012
What is the role of government
There are those that say the framework of the Constitution is not a living document, but I don't really agree. I think the Constitution is far more flexible than some think. It is obvious that the Supreme Court constantly changes the meaning of the document each time it writes an interpretation of what it says. Since THEY have that power, self given, not given by the Constitution, than the document lives and changes with time. Words hold no unchanging meaning, no matter how hard we pretend otherwise. All you have to do is talk to the next generation of Americans to realize that words take on different meanings on a regular basis.
But the real test of what is the role of government comes down to the statement that all powers not given to the central government are held for the states and the people. That does not say, nor can you truly interpret that it DOES say, that the states and the people can not give powers to the central government that they chose not to exercise. And in this manner, the central government CAN and DOES take on powers that were once reserved for the states and people.
I think it would be a very difficult "sell" under any circumstances, however, to say that the Constitution can give the central government the right to jeopardize the lives of all Americans, alive or yet to be born, by adventurous wars overseas, or by actively instigating unrest in foreign countries. It never gave the government the authority to wage war against Spain in the early 1900s, as an example, nor did it give the government the authority to wage wars on the European continent, in the middle east, in Asia, or in the Pacific. Although the government may declare war, it can truly only be legitimate if the people have accepted it as the right thing to do at the time. I don't even believe it should be declared by Congress without first giving the people the honest facts, and allowing them to demonstrate their desire. Of course, that won't happen since Congress, as does the President, believes that they know better than the people and can better make decisions for the people.
Although I very much like the liberty and freedom that the Constitution gives us, I do recognize the fact that the government does have to take steps that we might not want. However, those steps should never truly jeopardize the liberty and freedom we are given by God - by whatever name you chose to worship - and should impinge on those freedoms as little as possible. I do not consider, as an example, Homeland Security, a farcical name at best, should exist as it is anything but a department whose intent is to secure the homeland, whatever that word signifies. Its obvious intent from the beginning was to secure the central government from the people, and certainly, through the agency of some of its departments, it goes far in that direction - at a grievous cost to liberty and freedom.
Functionally, the concept of the Department of Education makes sense to me. I truly believe that a nation comprised of multiple jurisdictions, such as the 50 states, needs a central government component to develop a guideline for the various states so that those educated in, say, Montana, are able to move to Georgia, as an example, and have the necessary educational background to be successful there. True, they might not have the same knowledge of state history, but they should expect to have an equivalent education in the normal curricula to be able to blend in. I think that this might well be a "power" that the people and states might well give back to the central government for just that purpose. However, there is no doubt that what we call the Department of Education has gone far beyond establishing a minimum curriculum to guarantee interchangeability, and has started dictating things that fall outside of what should reasonably be the extent of their power.
This topic will be continued at a later time and will cover more areas of control that the central government exercises that are probably outside of the Constitutional limits as well as those limits of what the people and states may have given back to it.
There are those that say the framework of the Constitution is not a living document, but I don't really agree. I think the Constitution is far more flexible than some think. It is obvious that the Supreme Court constantly changes the meaning of the document each time it writes an interpretation of what it says. Since THEY have that power, self given, not given by the Constitution, than the document lives and changes with time. Words hold no unchanging meaning, no matter how hard we pretend otherwise. All you have to do is talk to the next generation of Americans to realize that words take on different meanings on a regular basis.
But the real test of what is the role of government comes down to the statement that all powers not given to the central government are held for the states and the people. That does not say, nor can you truly interpret that it DOES say, that the states and the people can not give powers to the central government that they chose not to exercise. And in this manner, the central government CAN and DOES take on powers that were once reserved for the states and people.
I think it would be a very difficult "sell" under any circumstances, however, to say that the Constitution can give the central government the right to jeopardize the lives of all Americans, alive or yet to be born, by adventurous wars overseas, or by actively instigating unrest in foreign countries. It never gave the government the authority to wage war against Spain in the early 1900s, as an example, nor did it give the government the authority to wage wars on the European continent, in the middle east, in Asia, or in the Pacific. Although the government may declare war, it can truly only be legitimate if the people have accepted it as the right thing to do at the time. I don't even believe it should be declared by Congress without first giving the people the honest facts, and allowing them to demonstrate their desire. Of course, that won't happen since Congress, as does the President, believes that they know better than the people and can better make decisions for the people.
Although I very much like the liberty and freedom that the Constitution gives us, I do recognize the fact that the government does have to take steps that we might not want. However, those steps should never truly jeopardize the liberty and freedom we are given by God - by whatever name you chose to worship - and should impinge on those freedoms as little as possible. I do not consider, as an example, Homeland Security, a farcical name at best, should exist as it is anything but a department whose intent is to secure the homeland, whatever that word signifies. Its obvious intent from the beginning was to secure the central government from the people, and certainly, through the agency of some of its departments, it goes far in that direction - at a grievous cost to liberty and freedom.
Functionally, the concept of the Department of Education makes sense to me. I truly believe that a nation comprised of multiple jurisdictions, such as the 50 states, needs a central government component to develop a guideline for the various states so that those educated in, say, Montana, are able to move to Georgia, as an example, and have the necessary educational background to be successful there. True, they might not have the same knowledge of state history, but they should expect to have an equivalent education in the normal curricula to be able to blend in. I think that this might well be a "power" that the people and states might well give back to the central government for just that purpose. However, there is no doubt that what we call the Department of Education has gone far beyond establishing a minimum curriculum to guarantee interchangeability, and has started dictating things that fall outside of what should reasonably be the extent of their power.
This topic will be continued at a later time and will cover more areas of control that the central government exercises that are probably outside of the Constitutional limits as well as those limits of what the people and states may have given back to it.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Who can judge?
One of the worst things that happens these days is how information is presented to us at any given time. Is it just my imagination, or does it seem that we never actually get real information about anything any more? That is, something happens - say a new tropical storm forms - and all you hear is opinions and judgments of what it is, where it is going, how strong it is, etc. Now there are those that would say that is what forecasting is all about, but the problem is, typically, the information that you should be getting is salted in amongst things like comparison to some other storm that started at this time, or followed this track. You don't get what you need to make your own decisions - judgments, if you will - because you are passed on the judgments of every person that reports the information, not just the facts.
When we look at religions, it is the same thing. Climate? Same thing. World events? ditto. We don't get facts and raw data, we get judgments. If you are looking at information about ice extent at the poles, you get judgments, not information half of the time. "The ice extent in the Arctic has shrunk to the lowest amount in modern history" screams the story. Is that information that you can judge by or is that a judgment with, actually, no information at all? If you said the first, I think you are in real trouble, but if you realized it was the second, that means you still can think for yourself.
The first thing that catches my eye in a statement like that is what does it mean by modern history? Are we talking about the the last 30 years of satellite data or are we talking about the last 200 years where people have visited the region, or exactly WHAT is modern history? Did it start yesterday? Last month? Last year? Last decade? Last century? Do I need to continue? And of course, relative to what data set has it shrunk? Against the total area, the thickness, total volume? These could easily yield confusing and conflicting data. Information needs to be defined, offered clearly without prejudice, and then WE can judge it for ourselves.
This process should apply to everything we see, really. Should we be passed "judgments" by those reporting, say, what is happening in Iran regards its nuclear program, or should we require real data to support the statements being made? The same for the consulate attack in Libya. Or the run up to war in Syria. Or anything else that you can think of. Perhaps we should have been passed facts in the so called presidential debates instead of "judgments" by the media as to who should be running. Too often, we are passed judgments, not information, and because of that, we are a poorer informed nation than we should be. And that probably applies to every other nation as well. All I ever ask of the media is to give me unprejudiced information so that I can conclude for myself - God DID give me a brain, too, you know - and should you wish to write a conclusion to your report, that is fine, but say "in my opinion this means" instead of presenting that opinion as if it was a fact.
When we look at religions, it is the same thing. Climate? Same thing. World events? ditto. We don't get facts and raw data, we get judgments. If you are looking at information about ice extent at the poles, you get judgments, not information half of the time. "The ice extent in the Arctic has shrunk to the lowest amount in modern history" screams the story. Is that information that you can judge by or is that a judgment with, actually, no information at all? If you said the first, I think you are in real trouble, but if you realized it was the second, that means you still can think for yourself.
The first thing that catches my eye in a statement like that is what does it mean by modern history? Are we talking about the the last 30 years of satellite data or are we talking about the last 200 years where people have visited the region, or exactly WHAT is modern history? Did it start yesterday? Last month? Last year? Last decade? Last century? Do I need to continue? And of course, relative to what data set has it shrunk? Against the total area, the thickness, total volume? These could easily yield confusing and conflicting data. Information needs to be defined, offered clearly without prejudice, and then WE can judge it for ourselves.
This process should apply to everything we see, really. Should we be passed "judgments" by those reporting, say, what is happening in Iran regards its nuclear program, or should we require real data to support the statements being made? The same for the consulate attack in Libya. Or the run up to war in Syria. Or anything else that you can think of. Perhaps we should have been passed facts in the so called presidential debates instead of "judgments" by the media as to who should be running. Too often, we are passed judgments, not information, and because of that, we are a poorer informed nation than we should be. And that probably applies to every other nation as well. All I ever ask of the media is to give me unprejudiced information so that I can conclude for myself - God DID give me a brain, too, you know - and should you wish to write a conclusion to your report, that is fine, but say "in my opinion this means" instead of presenting that opinion as if it was a fact.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Government Priorities
Yes, we have to remember that all governments set priorities. Consider the US government as an example. Here is a government that has set as its highest priority foreign adventurism. How else can you explain the ongoing outpouring of funding for such worthwhile projects as the further destruction of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Libya? And they have obviously decided that putting Syria in the cross-hairs is far more important then "taking care of the United States," or demonstrating fiscal responsibility.
Must be true!! How else can a group of questionably intelligent leaders possibly feel it realistic and reasonable to allow citizens to lose their jobs, their homes, their hopes, and their children's futures to be lost in natural disasters as well as man-made disasters here in America, while pouring billions of dollars into the destruction of people's jobs, homes, hopes, and their children's futures in foreign lands? If this is the case, then it is a clear cut choice. A clear cut setting of priorities. But for who's benefit? How could that same group choose to destroy entire industries, some of which other industries are built on, to satisfy a theoretical belief that carbon dioxide, the molecule that all plant life relies upon for existence, is pollution, but the radiation from a billion cell phones does no harm what so ever?
And then there is GMOs - genetically modified organisms. We all know that radiation causes mutation. We all know that mutations, when they take hold, are not necessarily in the best interests of Earth or man, but we go out and modify plants and animals with our great intelligence, and haven't a clue what will happen should that organism mutate due to exposure to radiation or possibly even high frequency radio waves mixing in the cell as they pass through. We play God, but lack His controls. And these, too, are government priorities as well.
Oh well, who knows, maybe comet Elenin will turn out to be the savior some hope for, or the destroyer others fear or maybe it will be just another harmless bit of space debris passing through the Solar System. Maybe it won't matter, especially if the icecaps melt and flood the coastal cities and creates new agricultural tracts in the far north, or if a new ice age dawns, the seas shrink and re-creates the land bridge between Alaska and Russia and raises Atlantis above the waves in the South China Sea. One thing is certain, whatever happens will happen, and I doubt that my existence will make one damn bit of difference.
Must be true!! How else can a group of questionably intelligent leaders possibly feel it realistic and reasonable to allow citizens to lose their jobs, their homes, their hopes, and their children's futures to be lost in natural disasters as well as man-made disasters here in America, while pouring billions of dollars into the destruction of people's jobs, homes, hopes, and their children's futures in foreign lands? If this is the case, then it is a clear cut choice. A clear cut setting of priorities. But for who's benefit? How could that same group choose to destroy entire industries, some of which other industries are built on, to satisfy a theoretical belief that carbon dioxide, the molecule that all plant life relies upon for existence, is pollution, but the radiation from a billion cell phones does no harm what so ever?
And then there is GMOs - genetically modified organisms. We all know that radiation causes mutation. We all know that mutations, when they take hold, are not necessarily in the best interests of Earth or man, but we go out and modify plants and animals with our great intelligence, and haven't a clue what will happen should that organism mutate due to exposure to radiation or possibly even high frequency radio waves mixing in the cell as they pass through. We play God, but lack His controls. And these, too, are government priorities as well.
Oh well, who knows, maybe comet Elenin will turn out to be the savior some hope for, or the destroyer others fear or maybe it will be just another harmless bit of space debris passing through the Solar System. Maybe it won't matter, especially if the icecaps melt and flood the coastal cities and creates new agricultural tracts in the far north, or if a new ice age dawns, the seas shrink and re-creates the land bridge between Alaska and Russia and raises Atlantis above the waves in the South China Sea. One thing is certain, whatever happens will happen, and I doubt that my existence will make one damn bit of difference.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
The debt Ceiling and the brain dead
Well, those terms DO seem to go together, really. After all, isn't it two of the three branches of government that have to solve this problem, and aren't they the same two branches that got us into this problem in the first place? But the thing that gets me the most is idiots like Lieberman carrying on about having to give up Social Security funding so as to insure a "strong defense." When I heard that, I knew instinctively that I was truly listening to a brain dead politician.
First, before we really start tearing into things, shouldn't we at least understand some of the terms used in this debate? Really? Consider the brain dead statement just listed. Consider the term "defense." Now, really, how does, say, a new multi billion dollar long range bomber actually fit that term? What has bombing targets that are 10,000 miles away got to do with defending the United States of America? Really! It is purely offensive from the start. It has nothing to do with defending the nation. And no, better war making capability is not defense, it is offense. But that IS over-simplifying, I suppose. So let's consider the other half of that brain dead statement.
Of course, the brain dead politician really was talking about entitlement programs, not merely Social Security, but that is trying to put better tasting words in his mouth for him. But, really, what IS an entitlement program? The most frequent definition I have seen is an entitlement program is an unfunded obligation. Sort of what the Federal government does to the states, for instance, when it makes new and more sweeping changes in education. But we are talking on the Federal level here, and the two most frequently "fingered" entitlement programs are Social Security and Medicare.
Now by the very definition of an entitlement program, then, neither of these two programs can even be considered entitlements. Why? Check your pay check. You will see that you are paying a dedicated tax to Social Security, and another to Medicare. If they are both funded, at least in part, by a dedicated tax, then they are not truly entitlement programs. Now there may have been unfunded obligations laid upon these funds that are supported by these dedicated taxes, but the programs themselves are not entitlement programs as they are not paid for by funds that are in the general fund but outside of the budget. And during this most recent crisis over the debt ceiling, the Chief Actuary at Social Security was quoted as saying that Social Security's current receipts are more then enough to pay its outlays. Let that soak in for a minute. Even though the Obama Administration and this Congress passed a budget that reduced the Social Security tax rate by 2% for this year, and that the unemployment rate is at 10% and possibly as high as 20%, depending on how you figure what is a job, the Social Security was in the black. Another thought to consider is the fact that the Social Security "fund" owns $3.7 trillion of the government's debt. Now how can a program that is unfunded to start with, possibly he a holder of government debt? Not just a holder, but the biggest holder? So if Social Security is a factor in the yearly deficit, it is because the government has to pay interest to the program on that accumulated debt that the fund holds. Does that paint a different picture for you?
So WHO is spending all that "entitlement" money that we hear so much about? Consider, if you will the Defense Department. If you go on the various web pages and look at employment possibilities, you will invariably see base positions that are referred to as NAF jobs. NAF stands for "non-appropriated funds." So if you are looking for an entitlement program, a program that is an unfunded obligation, you just found one. See, the Budget is APPROPRIATED funds. If I give you $10 million to use as your budget, and you plan all your expenses out of that, all those obligations will be funded. Now, say you looked at your program and suddenly realized that you leased the property and equipment, set up accounts for the utilities to be paid, put together the payroll for the front office, but somehow forgot to hire people to to do the rest of the jobs, why you could always turn back to your source of funding and submit a request for a contract, as an example, that would bring on board the people to do the job. Of course, this contract isn't part of your budget, so it represents an unfunded obligation. A NAF program or even, if you choose to use the phrase, an entitlement.
I can clearly recall during the Clinton years, when there was this big push for a balanced budget, that while working for the Commissary in Tucson, the whole operation was contracted out. When I worked for Luke AFB at the gunnery range a few years later, it, too, was contracted out. In both cases, the cost of the contract exceeded the cost of the civilian workers that were currently doing the job, but it was done as a "budget cutting action," thus reducing the appropriated funds supported budget, even though it drove up the costs of the operations. But it didn't come out of their budget, it came from non-appropriated funds - an entitlement.
Now fast forward to all those BIG contracts that were awarded for support of the war efforts in the middle east and realize that those contracts are not part of the defense department budget, but are part of the non-appropriated funds that are requiring all that borrowing. Beyond a doubt, the Defense Department, the owner of the lion's share of appropriated funds, is by far the biggest entitlement program as well. So, Joe, leave Social Security alone and go find out why the Defense Department can't live on half of the appropriated funds. I can't "defend" a department that is so "offensive" when it comes to spending money that doesn't belong to it. How can you?
First, before we really start tearing into things, shouldn't we at least understand some of the terms used in this debate? Really? Consider the brain dead statement just listed. Consider the term "defense." Now, really, how does, say, a new multi billion dollar long range bomber actually fit that term? What has bombing targets that are 10,000 miles away got to do with defending the United States of America? Really! It is purely offensive from the start. It has nothing to do with defending the nation. And no, better war making capability is not defense, it is offense. But that IS over-simplifying, I suppose. So let's consider the other half of that brain dead statement.
Of course, the brain dead politician really was talking about entitlement programs, not merely Social Security, but that is trying to put better tasting words in his mouth for him. But, really, what IS an entitlement program? The most frequent definition I have seen is an entitlement program is an unfunded obligation. Sort of what the Federal government does to the states, for instance, when it makes new and more sweeping changes in education. But we are talking on the Federal level here, and the two most frequently "fingered" entitlement programs are Social Security and Medicare.
Now by the very definition of an entitlement program, then, neither of these two programs can even be considered entitlements. Why? Check your pay check. You will see that you are paying a dedicated tax to Social Security, and another to Medicare. If they are both funded, at least in part, by a dedicated tax, then they are not truly entitlement programs. Now there may have been unfunded obligations laid upon these funds that are supported by these dedicated taxes, but the programs themselves are not entitlement programs as they are not paid for by funds that are in the general fund but outside of the budget. And during this most recent crisis over the debt ceiling, the Chief Actuary at Social Security was quoted as saying that Social Security's current receipts are more then enough to pay its outlays. Let that soak in for a minute. Even though the Obama Administration and this Congress passed a budget that reduced the Social Security tax rate by 2% for this year, and that the unemployment rate is at 10% and possibly as high as 20%, depending on how you figure what is a job, the Social Security was in the black. Another thought to consider is the fact that the Social Security "fund" owns $3.7 trillion of the government's debt. Now how can a program that is unfunded to start with, possibly he a holder of government debt? Not just a holder, but the biggest holder? So if Social Security is a factor in the yearly deficit, it is because the government has to pay interest to the program on that accumulated debt that the fund holds. Does that paint a different picture for you?
So WHO is spending all that "entitlement" money that we hear so much about? Consider, if you will the Defense Department. If you go on the various web pages and look at employment possibilities, you will invariably see base positions that are referred to as NAF jobs. NAF stands for "non-appropriated funds." So if you are looking for an entitlement program, a program that is an unfunded obligation, you just found one. See, the Budget is APPROPRIATED funds. If I give you $10 million to use as your budget, and you plan all your expenses out of that, all those obligations will be funded. Now, say you looked at your program and suddenly realized that you leased the property and equipment, set up accounts for the utilities to be paid, put together the payroll for the front office, but somehow forgot to hire people to to do the rest of the jobs, why you could always turn back to your source of funding and submit a request for a contract, as an example, that would bring on board the people to do the job. Of course, this contract isn't part of your budget, so it represents an unfunded obligation. A NAF program or even, if you choose to use the phrase, an entitlement.
I can clearly recall during the Clinton years, when there was this big push for a balanced budget, that while working for the Commissary in Tucson, the whole operation was contracted out. When I worked for Luke AFB at the gunnery range a few years later, it, too, was contracted out. In both cases, the cost of the contract exceeded the cost of the civilian workers that were currently doing the job, but it was done as a "budget cutting action," thus reducing the appropriated funds supported budget, even though it drove up the costs of the operations. But it didn't come out of their budget, it came from non-appropriated funds - an entitlement.
Now fast forward to all those BIG contracts that were awarded for support of the war efforts in the middle east and realize that those contracts are not part of the defense department budget, but are part of the non-appropriated funds that are requiring all that borrowing. Beyond a doubt, the Defense Department, the owner of the lion's share of appropriated funds, is by far the biggest entitlement program as well. So, Joe, leave Social Security alone and go find out why the Defense Department can't live on half of the appropriated funds. I can't "defend" a department that is so "offensive" when it comes to spending money that doesn't belong to it. How can you?
Saturday, June 11, 2011
NATO and Libya
First, I must admit up front that I do NOT watch TV. Because of that, I miss out a lot on the hype that goes around about things like what is happening in North Africa. Doesn't mean I don't have an opinion about it nor that I don't read about it, and it is getting clearer to me that there is something very strange about this "war of liberation."
First off, the population of the nation isn't all that large, so if Gadhafi was the "evil dictator" that he is made out to be, it seems to me that the government would have collapsed very quickly. Since it hasn't, I have to question how "unpopular" Gadhafi is compared to the so called "rebels." What I read on the internet tends to give me reason to question the validity of the tag "rebels."
And here again, I also have to wonder what the "stake" in this "civil war" is for NATO and the US. I can not find any justification for the United States forces being used in what should be a simple internal struggle between a group of people that are upset with their government and the government that is upset with that group. I have to admit that I didn't see any interdiction from NATO or the US in Egypt, so why Libya? Could it REALLY truly be all about oil after all?
But in the end, when the combined might, if you will, of Europe and the US haven't brought down the Leader, I would have to say, it tells ME that there are far more Gadhafi supporters then there are rebels. So NATO and Obama, leave Libya to the Libyans, and get to hell out of their personal affairs!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)