Deja Vu-More Troops are the Answer

Deja Vu- Flashback to 1972- More troops are the answer! Deja Vu- More caualties of a WAR no one wanted to be involved in anymore because the handling of the war from all aspects was a disaster: The Generals at the Pentagon; The President of the United States; The Secretary of Defense; The Ineffectual State Department;
Flash Forward to THE PRESENT- More troops are the answer! More casualties of war are to be expected; Generals are being relieved of duty after they were told they were doing a superb job; Who gets fired for doing a superb job? The President vacillates between the politically correct thing to do and the correct thing to do; The Secretary of Defense is being replaced; The State Department won't even talk about, or consider the facts pertaining to the Islamic undercurrents present in the countries the U.S. has invaded because it would be politically incorrect to do so; Some of the top people at the State Department don't even know the difference between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims; How can the State Department expect to effectively change a broken society in Iraq if they won't, or can't talk about how Islam is effecting what is going on in the countries of the world that support Islamic fundamentalism?
The Bush Administration has now decided on a (new) course of action to take in Iraq. They are going to add more American troops to the city streets of Baghdad and go neighborhood to neighborhood cleaning out the bad guys (now whether that is armed insurgents or sectarian fighters, either of the Shiite or Sunni way of thinking, is left to the imagination) and then because there will now be enough "boots on the ground", they will be able to remain in the cleaned out neighborhoods, instead of moving on to new locations, as was the policy in the past. The troops left behind will have the job of maintaining the peace and winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people over to the American way of thinking. Isn't that what the State Department is supposed to do? Will the new troops be allowed to enter Sadr City and have the right to go after the major Shiite bad guy, Sadr himself? Or, will they be hamstrung, as before by the Prime Minister? He is a Shiite and he doesn't want American troops going and killing the man who gave him 30 seats of Parliament in order to get him elected. After all, Saddam was a Sunni and did all that killing of Shiites, now that the Shiites are in power, why shouldn't they get a chance to kill some Sunnis here and there?
The problem is going to come in a few months when everyone finally realizes what is blatantly obvious right now, that this debacle has become a civil war with strife between two religious factions, Shiite and Sunni, not to mention the Kurds, and until they get it worked out between them. there will be no way of legitimizing any form of democratic government, much less operating a fully functioning government. And, how many American lives will be lost and how many young men and women will lose body parts and become statistics of this war before the people who are responsible for placing our armed services in harm's way understand that this has become an Iraqi internal problem? No outside influence is going to change the way things go, except for the Islamic factions who legitimize the killing and torture of innocent people and they will continue on their paths of hatred as long as they have strength to do so, Allah willing!

A TRUE DEMOCRACY?

Why do we here in the U.S call our system a true democracy, especially one that other countries around the world would be better off imitating, when we have only two parties which represent the plethora of citizens living in this country? Israel has what is called a democracy, although the power that is wielded sometimes borders on the extreme, nevertheless, they have twenty mainstream parties representing the citizens that have all kinds of different interests, not just two mainstream ideas. Which brings up another question- are the Demacrats and the Republicans truly that different in ideology from one another? True, the Democrats may be looked upon as more liberal and the Republicans as more conservative, unless you look at the middle of both parties-there the ideologies are almost exactly the same. If you move to the left in the Demacratic Party, surely the ideas become more liberal, but the same is true for the Republican Party. If you move to the right in either party, the conservative elements and ideas are more prominent.
Why is it so hard for a country as large as the U.S. to contemplate the idea of more than two parties? Even the so called Independent Party is looked down on by mainstream politics as being outside the bastion of true political ideals. Isn't it time for there to be at least the possiblity of more than two parties, which when looked at closely resemble each other almost identically in thought and action?
What if there were a party which represented each of the following: the ultra-religious, the working man, the rich and elitist, the poor on welfare, or does one size fit all, as the two parties that exist would like us to believe? Is there enough difference between the Republicans and the Democrats and the different levels of each party to cover all the multitude of people who hold the right to vote in this country? Maybe, just maybe, it is time for more of a choice than what we have at present before us in the form of politics in this great country.

What is really happening?

The North American Union, The United States of North America, The Union of Corporations and Elitists in North America- Pick your own name for this new world order that the President of the United States along with his counterparts in Mexico and Canada have decided to create. Supposedly, it's all about SECURITY! Yeah- BE SCARED! BE VERY, VERY SCARED! Or maybe you would rather follow the line of reasoning that goes like this- "This collaboration will provide a corridor for goods and services that will enable blah, blah blah..."
The truth is that whenever you listen to anyone talk, if you really listen to what they are saying, they are telling you what is on their mind and what they are planning to do. The husband who has been cheating on his wife talks about adultery, etc. The Bush family has been talking about a new world order for over 15 years and most of us have just let it slip past our ears.
A drug smuggler gets complete protection from being charged with any crime, while the Border Patrol agents who shot him in the ass, while he was trying to escape custody go to jail.
There was a lot of hoopla right before Congress went home in the Fall about the President signing the Fence Bill along the border between Mexico and the U.S. Now we hear that even though the bill was signed there probably won't be any/enough money provided by Congress to build the fence and maybe they will try to get by with a virtual fence. What is the point? We won't need a fence if we are all part of the same country, or Union.
Several years ago, a man tried to come into the U.S. through Canada with enough explosive material to tear apart his target, the airport in LAS ANGELES. Now why would any clear thinking terrorist try to come through a checkpoint, when all he has to do is walk through the woods, or ride on a four wheeler. Today, armed men approached a checkpoint on the Mexican border manned by our National Guard. There orders- retreat! What is really happening?