Iran Should Support The Insurgents
The Bush administration has been saying for quite a while now that Iran has been arming the insurgents in Iraq. The Pentagon went so far as to invite reporters for a little show and tell session during which the military displayed all the Iranian weapons they had confiscated. Last week it was reported that NATO officials caught Iranians shipping explosives to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The coalition analysis says munitions recovered in two Iranian convoys, on April 11 and May 3, had "clear indications that they originated in Iran. Some were identical to Iranian supplied goods previously discovered in Iraq."
"It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it," said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.
For a long time Iran and the Taliban were bitter enemies. Now they are working together in a policy shift that the US should know all too well: My enemys enemy is my friend. It is an alliance that does not bode well for the US.
The Taliban receives larger supplies of weapons through profits from opium dealing, officials say, but the Iranian presence could be significant.
"It means the insurgency in Afghanistan is likely to be prolonged," said Jones. "It would be a much more potent force."
Bush and company are demanding Iran mind its business. This is what his lapdog, Joe Lieberman, said this weekend:
"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."
"If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."
The rules? Did you submit the rules of the invasion to your enemy before you went in? I am amused at the arrogance of the Bush administration and its lapdgs that Iran should stay out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Really? Let me give you a scenario and tell me if the US should stay out of it.
Years from now, China has become the worlds super power. The US economy collapsed after being over-stretched militarily and due to massive dept. China has its eyes on Mexicos oil fields, which have been dormant for years due to a lack of funding for its oil infrastructure. China invades Mexico due to some trumped up accusations about Mexico being involved in terrorism. China is also forced to invade Canada due to their massive coal deposits, oh, and also they had something to do with terrorism. So, now, our enemy China has occupying forces in the countries on our north and south border. Do we allow our enemy to do what ever the fuck they want? Do we not do anything while their army completely surrounds us, all the while talking about how we are not following their rules that they set up and that they could bomb us? No, we fuck with them as much as we can. We try to hurt them militarily while avoiding a direct conflict, just as Iran is and should be doing. It is an obvious defensive move.
Iran is apparently our enemy and they have every right to be involved in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would be stupid of them not to be involved. They should be shipping every explosive and weapon they can get their hands on to insurgents in Iraq, as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan. A threatening army now stands on their east and west borders and Iran should defend itself just as America has done by invading the two countries. You cant illegally invade another country, threaten their neighbor, then get all pissy when they get involved in your occupation. Well, you can, but you'd be the Bush administration.
What comes around goes around.
"Richest" Country in World Actually Full of Poor People
Politicians love bandying around phrases like "America is the richest country in the world" (though other superlatives are often mixed in their for variety) in attempts to make people feel good about themselves and their country. Voters like to be happy, no politicians wants people to associate their campaign with the doom and gloom of daily existence that characterizes most people's daily lives. That's why you'll rarely hear politicians actually talk about poverty (unless it's one of those endlessly irritating, scripted anecdotes "I met with Jim, the carpenter from Seymour, Indiana, who told me he's worried about the health care costs of taking care of his mother-in-law"
with any sort of focus on policy changes that could help the lives of people in the lowest income brackets. And maybe that's part of the reason why an increasing number of people are ending up there, because they're invisible to politicians, and therefore to policy as well.
"Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries," the study found.
"That helps explain why the median household income for working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.
"These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty -- the highest rate since at least 1975. The share of poor Americans in deep poverty has climbed slowly but steadily over the last three decades," the report said.
It quoted an American Journal of Preventive Medicine study as having found that since 2000, the number of severely poor -- far below basic poverty terms -- in the United States has grown "more than any other segment of the population."
"That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," said Dr. Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, a study co-author.
"We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty."
Ad campaigns from the 1950s showed housewives free to lounge around and enjoy themselves because their new vacuum cleaner saved so much time that they could complete their daily routine in a fraction of what it used to take them. Did that really happen? Of course not. Decreasing the amount of time it took to complete a task just meant an increase in the volume of work that was expected to be done at the end of the day. Likewise for employees; technological increases have made workers progressively more productive, and yet free time has steadily decreased as people spend more time at their jobs and are expected to use that time more productively. Increased productivity means that the fewer people are required to get the same amount of work done, so people are working less?
Actually not, unemployment rates continue to be extremely low throughout the country, just barely topping 7% in the worst states. So while increased productivity may be contributing to the misery of workers in their daily lives, it doesn't appear to be at least directly responsible for the number of people descending into severe poverty levels. Maybe the problem is one at the upper end of the income bracket? A change in relative poverty can result from an increase in the cost of goods and services as those at the wealthier end of the economic spectrum become richer while everyone else stays in the same place. An increase in the income disparity between rich and poor in the US could be a contributing cause to this effect. However, it's doubtful that a single "magic bullet" solution exists to solve this problem, like many social issues it is an indication of a variety of failures including those educational, governmental, economic and social in origin, and thus will require a comprehensive approach to reverse the trend.
Finally A Moderate Muslim Speaks, Let's Kill Him
Jamal Miftah is a Muslim immigrant to the United States who was upset about his "peaceful religion" being used as an excuse to brutally and barbarously murder innocent people literally every day across the World.
Jamal thinks Islam is peaceful, and true Islam doesn't condone the sort of primitive butchery and savagery that people like Ayman al-Zawahri and Osama Bin Laden believe Islam is based around. So he wrote a letter to his local paper about how these violent extremists don't speak for the majority of Islam:
I am obliged to respond to Ayman al-Zawahri's recent video message, portraying himself as champion of Islam and others as liars.
My message to Ayman al-Zawahri and Muslims of the world: "Islam" means submission and is derived from a word meaning "peace." Islam, Christianity and Judaism have the same origin, the Prophet Abraham. The prophet of Islam has said that God has no mercy on someone who does not have mercy for others.
I ask that al-Zawahri look at his deeds and those of his master, Osama bin Laden, and other so-called Islamic jihadists.
Because of lack of knowledge of Islam, Muslim youth are misguided into believing by the so-called champions of the cause of Islam that the current spate of killings and barbarism, which has no equal in the recent civilized history, is jihad in the name of Islam. They are incited, in the name of Islam, to commit heinous crimes not pardonable by any religion and strictly forbidden in Islam.
Cowards like al-Zawahri and bin Laden are inciting the ignorant and innocent youths to commit suicide bombings to kill innocent civilians including children, women and the elderly, while they hide in spider holes and caves. They never send their own sons and daughters, born out of half a dozen of their wives, to get killed in the name of Islam.
Since it is only a tiny fraction of Muslims who support Osama Bin Laden and al-Zawahri, and most Muslims are looking for peaceful co-existence with their non-believer neighbors, Jamal has been celebrated as an eloquent spokesperson for true Islam by his local mosque and the Tusla Islamic community. Watch this video of him being celebrated by his communtiy:
European Union Hates Freedom
The European Union is doing everything it can to allow terrorists to blow up our beautiful airplanes. The US wants the EU to share confidential airline passenger information because US leaders do not want American citizens to die. The EU does not want to give up the information because it wants US citizens to die horrible fiery deaths. Today talks broke down between the US and the wanna-be US.
The US demanded the personal data after insane Muslims hijacked airplanes on 9/11 and flew them into the WTC. But the highest European court ruled the information sharing illegal in May. The deadline for a new deal was Saturday, but no such deal was made. Now terrorists will probably be flying planes into our buildings once a week.
Now airlines that refuse to turn over a passenger list might lose landing rights in the US, which means they will have to land in Canada where many will inevitably die or be bored. Airlines that do turn over the data could face legal action under EU law.
The head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, believes the airlines will still continue to provide the information and that the EU will not punish anyone. Airlines have been providing personal data to American security since 2003 and no one has died because of it. Now the EU is threatening the security of America. The EU has chosen to be our enemy today, a mistake they will pay for dearly.
US Hopes Iran Doesnt Return Gift
Way back in the 1960s the US had a good buddy who was called the Shah of Iran. The Cold War was in full swing, so we decided the best thing to do was give Iran a kick ass nuclear reactor. And what is the point of giving a buddy a nuclear reactor if your not going to toss in some weapons grade fuel? So, we gifted our friends 10 pounds of highly enriched uranium, the most valuable material to bomb makers. I mean, what could go wrong? Oops.
Today in the middle of Tehran is a dome-shaped building, known as the Tehran Research Center that was built by the United States. Inside the building scientists conduct secret experiments, possibly building atomic bombs. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, some secret and well-concealed experiments have taken place in the reactor supplied by the United States.
US officials are keen to point out Irans attempts to build nuclear weapons but seem to not want to mention that the US supplied the facility where the experiments take place. And the fuel from the US that remains could still be used to help make nuclear arms.
This uranium has already been burned in the reactor, but the "spent fuel" is still highly enriched and could be used in a bomb. Normally, spent fuel is so radioactive that terrorists could not handle it without causing themselves great harm. But the spent fuel in Iran been stored for so long that it is probably no longer highly radioactive and could be handled easily, U.S. scientists say. The fuel is about one-fifth the amount needed to make a nuclear weapon, but experts said it could be combined with other material to construct a bomb.
And now were giving Pakistan a shitload of weapons. Seems like a stable country, what could go wrong?
Israel Has Too Many Bombs, Forced To Give Them Away
Israel is bursting at the seams with bombs and has been forced to unload many on the country of Lebanon. For over 30 years, the United States has been cramming bombs and weapons into Israel. In the last decade alone America has transferred $17 billion in military aid to the Mediterranean paradise. The US money accounts for 20% of the Israeli defense budget. Then news came this week that the Bush administration is rushing a delivery of laser-guided bombs to Israel. Where are they supposed to put them? Israel has had no choice but to drop more bombs on Lebanon to make room for the new shipment. It is a vicious cycle.
There seems to be no other solution to the over-surplus of bombs. The US has to make bombs and sell them to someone. Israel seems to have many places to drop bombs. Its a win-win. Many Arabs may come to the misguided conclusion that America is somehow aiding the Israeli attacks, because of the billions of dollars of military aid it provides every year. The anger against the United States is building. Much pressure has been put on the President Bush to stop the conflict, but he clearly has no leverage in this war.
Syria is the only country that can stop the conflict, by ceasing its support of Hezbollah. Syria gives Hezbollah weapons and aid. How wrong it that? Hezbollah kills people on purpose. Israel kills people on accident. This ridiculous support of Hezbollah must stop. It is the only solution.