Believe it or not I do not disagree with everything Rick has to say. But incase you were wondering if I would ever re-open those spirited debates, fear not I have once again taken issue with some of Rick's views.
In his recent article, 'Putin the USA down' Rick talks about the Russians still being a threat to the USA. I can't disagree with that. However, I never really trusted them even after communism fell to begin with. One of the items Rick mentioned in his article was the "shock" that the Russians felt when their new weapons didn't work against us and we toppled Saddam so quickly.
Mr. Hawkins writes that, "they (the Russians) were quite certain we would still be over there fighting that war and crawling our way to Baghdad."
Well from I've read and saw on the cable news channels, our government was in contact with many Iraqi officers. Reports told of how our government had gained access to their cell phone numbers and email addresses. No doubt our government provided much incentive for these Iraqi officers to disband their men and order them not to fight. Whether it was through financial means or pure threats, they got the message. And it is a good thing these Iraqi's cooperated because if they had not we would still be "crawling our way to Baghdad". The Iraqi militia groups who could not be bought were responsible for bogging our military down as they tried to take Baghdad quickly. No doubt they are responsible for the attacks on our military that continue on a daily basis in Iraq.
If you're wondering if I'm some raging liberal, rest assured I'm not. But these days anyone who disagrees with the Bush administration is labeled either liberal or unpatriotic by the Neo-con talk show hosts and authors out there. What gives our nation the right to conduct "regime change" whenever we want? Certainly not the Constitution of the United States.
We went to war with Iraq on the word of our government that they posed weapons of mass destruction threat. After the war, none were found. Our government then said that WMD's were not the main reason for the regime change that has been conducted there. We now also know that the information about Iraq buying nuclear components from Africa was a lie. We were told that liberating the Iraqi people was the main mission. Our armed forces were then quickly ordered to disarm the Iraqi citizens. Citizens that needed those weapons to protect themselves from the Saddam loyalists. How do we liberate a people by disarming them and imposing martial law on them while we are occupying their country? By the way, anyone heard when the new Iraqi government would step in and take over? Just wondering. And one question, would you welcome a country that has invaded your country and has taken your only means to protect yourself and your family?
Talk show hosts such as Sean Hannity repeatedly site the mass graves found in Iraq and claim that was the reason we are there. Well if that is the case how come we have not conducted regime change in North Korea? A country that is ran by a dictator that really DOES have a nuclear program. A country that is ran by a dictator that is willing to starve his people to pay for that program. A country that is run by a dictator that turns his head while human meat is being sold in North Korean markets.
Can we really afford to go to every nation in the world that condones and conducts human rights violations? I ask this question at a time when we have troops in over 100 countries around the world and at a time when the President is pondering committing troops to the African nation of Liberia.
While Mr. Hawkins is worried about Russia, and is right to be worried, he should remember that our government is not innocent when it comes to Russia's latest military strategies. Our nation committed troops to Bosnia and Kosovo during the Clinton administration. The Bush administration has committed troops to Afghanistan, and Iraq and former Soviet block countries in central Asia. All of these deployments have been in Russia's back yard. Would our nation allow Russia to commit troops in Canada or Mexico? I think not.
Texas Representative Ron Paul, in his article Neo-Conned recently wrote: "In spite of the floundering economy, the Congress and the administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we're entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked.
How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven't the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?"
Yes Ron, there are those of us who care. But I wouldn't worry about anymore regime changes taking place until after the 2004 elections. I listened to one Neo-con author who was being interviewed on a radio talk show respond to tough question by the host like, "If you're for limited government why is government bigger now than it ever has been? Why isn't something being done about immigration? Why are our civil rights being trampled on in the name of "safety"?
The author first dodged the question of civil rights stating that the Patriot Act posed no threat to them. Then the author stated that there is only so much the President can do because he has to think about getting re-elected. Maybe that's a good thing. |
