We all know about Iraq already, but there have been some interesting rumors I've read floating around the 'net. Remember [http://thepete.com/burning-brit-pic-reminds-uk-of-iraquagmire/|that story about the UKGIs trying to get two of their guys out of an Iraqi jail?] This story recently sent a wave of anti-Iraq-war sentiment across the British populace because the break-out attempt resulted in a [http://thepete.com/uploads/burningbrit.jpg|breath taking picture of a UKGI on fire]. Well, the original articles I had read regarding that story failed to mention why those two UKGIs were in that Iraqi jail in the first place. What I've heard is that they were captured by local authorities because they were caught red handed trying to commit terrorist acts against the Iraqi people.
Now, this is interesting because according to [http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-10-16T213514Z_01_KWA651780_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN.xml&archived=False|an article] from Reuters.com, Iran is accusing the UK of being behind bombings in Iran over the weekend. Is the UK trying to help inspire terror in Iran and Iraq? Now, don't think a western government trying to foment local terror against an existing government is something new. The CIA did this in Vietnam and Cuba decades ago. The idea is to encourage locals to rise up to make an invasion more reasonable. We can look like we're just helping freedom fighters get their freedom. It should be interesting to see if violence erupts in Venezuela and who is blamed for it. Oh yeah, I haven't mentioned Venezuela yet.
Lest you think Iran is the only new country the war drums are newly beating for check out [http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051016-112537-4689r.htm|an article] from conservative rag WashingtonTimes.com that reports Venezuela is now looking for nukes. If this is true, it could mean that Bush will have a real easy excuse to invade Venezuela--a country rich in oil and criticism for the USG.
In case you happen to be one of those people who thinks these wars are a good idea because they protect American interests abroad (or even at home), I have to ask you how much you think those interests are worth. A great many American soldiers risk and even lose their lives to fight for American interests. What do they get for it? According to [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051014/14wounded.htm|an article] from USNews.com, many get dicked around by the very government they wanted to fight for. Apparently, payroll issues are common and men who should be getting paid are not getting as much as they should or any money at all. Take this example from the article:
Having nearly lost his life in Iraq, the 1st Infantry Division soldier became lost to the Army payroll system because of a paperwork snafu as he lay comatose in a veterans hospital near Chicago. As a result, an Army bureaucrat classified him as absent without leave and cut off his pay, as is sometimes done when the system loses track of a soldier. The theory is that a GI wrongly listed as AWOL will start shouting and then the issue can be resolved. "That may work for an able-bodied soldier," says Michael Hurst, a former Army finance officer, "but it doesn't work so well for a guy in a coma in Chicago."
Now, don't you think that someone wounded should be afforded extra money instead of less? Don't you think it would be a good and reasonable idea to expect the USG to go above and beyond to treat men and women who serve as heroes and make sure they get what they need if not more than what they need? Well, the USG treats these men and women like cattle. They sign their lives over to the United States Government and the USG takes full advantage of that.
So, while you or the nearest "conservative" may be rabidly excited for another invasion to protect the security of the
In fact, that reminds me of how former FBI head Louis Freeh [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/politics/16cnd-freeh.html?ei=5090&en=24894037bc551f90&ex=1287115200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print|continues to blame Clinton] for falling down on the fighting-terrorists-job. I love this--the dude is whining on and on about a guy WHO WAS ALREADY IMPEACHED. If he had a problem with Clinton, which many had, he should have mentioned it during Clinton's impeachment trial. I could have gotten behind impeachment if it was about leaving America opened to terror attacks. Which brings me to Bush.
If Freeh is so rabid about nailing Clinton on his failings, why doesn't Freeh yell and scream about Bush? Who has more power over TWAT now? FORMER President Clinton or current White House occupant George W? COME ON, Freeh, STOP selling your book and do WHAT'S RIGHT. Step up and call this guy a failure in The War Against Terror. After all, that's what he is. Before the Iraq Attack, we couldn't prove that Iraq had contacts with terrorists. Now, it's a breeding ground for them. Before the Iraq Attack, we wanted to see Osama caught. Now he's nowhere to be found.
So, while all of this stuff only gets worse, Freeh is whining about a guy who is no longer in office. On that thought, I'd like Bush to no longer be in office. He has broken several laws both [http://thepete.com/bush-43-admin-lies-breaks-fed-law-again|domestically] and [http://thepete.com/uns-annan-iraq-attack-illegal/|internationally] yet he's not impeached. Local6.com reports [http://www.local6.com/money/5093711/detail.html|in article] that an Ohio woman who owes the IRS $1 has been arrested for tax evasion. Here's a clip from that article:
Loveland City Manager Fred Enderle said the amount Combs owes isn't the real issue.
"Whether it's $1 they owe us or $1,000, it's not fair to the rest of the public to not pursue that person," he said. "There is some expense involved, but it goes back to the principle. We have laws. The laws have to be complied with. At what cost do you stop enforcing the law?"
I love open hypocrisy like this. I bet this guy voted for Bush in 2004.
Did I say "love"? I meant to type "fucking hate."
No comments:
Post a Comment