What about Russia ?

Iran is eager for friends, and America should be too.
With the crisis of Iraq still in the horizon, President George "Cowboy W." Bush is now looking towards another Middle Eastern threat in Iran, and with the way his first war is going, if he decides to take on this one in the same manner, we could probably expect more missiles flying over New York City.
What America needs is an ally (and no the British won't count on this one. As far as I'm concerned, they paid off their World War 2 debt by jumping into Iraq) And who better an ally than Russia.

Russia and the US have had some kind of history together. Opposing ideas that lead to the longest war in history, but that should be behind everybody by now. Barring Ann Coulter's constant reference to Communism whenever she refers to a Democrat, the Russians are now part of the twenty-first century, and while not totally embracing the idea, are more democratic than they were eighteen years ago. And in terms of pure strategy, Russia would be the best bet to deter Iran. The nation doesn't have to accept their way of thinking, hell, they don't even have to like them ! But mutual destruction can make anybody side with each other.
Deterrence by position is a very good way of looking at it.
If both the US and Russia stood together in Iran's nuclear position, this would lead China to reconsider its own. We all know that Iran wants to further relations with Russia because of its proximity and its own nuclear power. This would ensure that the US would not be able to use the area around the former Soviet Union as a jump point in getting to Iran should a missile be fired.

So if that's Iran's strategy, then why not try and beat them to the punch ? Why not try and get a partnership going before all of that happens ? Answers : Cold War and Communism.
President Bush and the nation still can't seem to get over the idea that the Soviet Union fell and that there is no more Iron Curtain to prevent relations. The more I see it, the more I begin to realize that Bush like most Americans just want to fight for an ideology and once that comes to pass, they couldn't give a shit about what happens next. Clinton did it when the Commie barrier was finally broken through (after all of the efforts by the far superior Reagan administration), and the sudden culture and economic shock brought Russia plummeting down a toilet. And where was the mighty US to help out ? They were in the same place they were when Bush Sr. told the Kurdish people they needed to stand up to Saddam.
And now Bush is asking everybody why nobody wants to follow his lead - Does he really have to wonder ?

Octavian

Round 2 - Iran

"...Fool me once, shame on you...." - you know the rest...
The Senate is now taking actions to prevent President Bush from starting another fiasco in Iran, a very smart move (even though it cost thousands of lives in Iraq for it to finally seep in) for the Senate. This is in response to the President's push in that direction by linking the Iraq Fundamentalists with Iranian supporters. Good for George ! He's finally taking this strategy thing a little bit more serious than last time ! Sadly though he still has to master the art of timing and foresight....

President Bush has been too late in calling Iran on this one, and now every bi-partisan member in the Senate is pushing for a bill that will put his Texas drawl in its place, and prevent him from waging another campaign in Iran. If people out there aren't certain he could pull it off even with an election coming up in a year, think about the 21,500 troops he wants to send out to die and that he's been quoted as saying : "The war on terror will be a problem for the next president. Presidents after me will be confronting ... an enemy that would like to strike the United States again...."(Associated Press). So Georgie, doesn't care about who follows him and what shit hole he leaves them in. This is a game with toy soldiers, tanks, and airplanes for him.

Iran will definitely be the next country to be looking at (if the next president will leave Iraq to solve it's own problems and destroy itself), especially with the threat of nuclear power in a country practically sitting on black (IE. Oil) money. And despite what the Senate thinks it should do to prevent the current President from acting on it, this problem won't solve itself and will have to be acknowledged eventually. But even great generals have to focus on the now, especially when it's a huge trash pile named "Iraqi Freedom".

I, and the American public, shouldn't be outraged at this action by the Senate, especially since this is a countermeasure against the possibility of another bloody and costly war. A strategy is finally taking place in government, and I for one am happy that somebody has at least learned from their mistakes.

"...you fool me, you can't get fooled again..."

Amen, Mr.President....

Octavian

Hillary VS. Barack

Presidential nominees are stepping up and throwing their hats into the upcoming election in 2008, and America is getting itself set to elect a new leader - and who wouldn't want that ? Everybody (for now) is really only looking at two - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The Democrats have a definite advantage in both Mrs.Clinton and Mr.Obama, in that they have one major factor in their favour - and if you say they really have two, race and women, then you aren't looking hard enough - it's curiosity.
This nature of curiosity has people now wondering if a change in tradition is something that could carry the nation somewhere different and new. And though John Edwards looks to be the favour in the running for the Democrats, lets face it - compared to the star power of both Hillary and Barack, Edwards might as well run around wearing clown makeup, only dressed in the American flag (Senator McCain might as well join him too at that point). The nation is an American Idol junkie; an Apprentice-snorting, Paris Hilton/Britney Spears/Brangelina-watching group of people, who love to Dance With the Stars, and to call in to cast their votes for everything that they can watch on TV. Everything in the American public is based on star power, something which both Clinton and Obama have in spades.

Where does this leave John Edwards ? (lets include John McCain, shall we ?)
It leaves them virtually invisible. Until both Edwards and McCain really step up their game, then seeing them as much as we are seeing Mrs.Clinton and Mr.Obama, is like thinking that Lindsay Lohan really matters in the grand scheme of the planet. But these are preliminary guesses and estimates that will be a year old by the time re-election comes along, and if you study politics, then you know that the game is chess. The public should not think that Edwards and McCain are out of the race yet, remember that experience does count. Barak Obama's inexperience with office holds him at a large disadvantage, as does Hillary Clinton - though maybe not as large as Obama's; she is still a relative new comer to the scene and gets her wisdom as the First Lady. Edwards and McCain have been at this game for a long time, holding posts at different parts of the government, and to count them out entirely at this stage would be definitely underestimating them.

But for now the whole world is admiring what potentially could be the first lady President, and/or the first minority Commander in Chief. Curiosity might push the people to once again see what might become of electing one of the two, and might get others to realize that taking a risk before had paid off in big ways. It seems like the Presidents who had the least amount of experience holding a political office, or didn't even desire to be a politician, are the ones who resonate the most in the minds of the people. After all, who could forget Jack Kennedy and Ronald Reagan ?
...but then again, "Double-ya" was exactly a veteran either....



Technorati Profile

The Stupidity of Luck

I don't believe in luck - not entirely. This is why I could hardly believe the story the Associated Press printed about Powerball winner Jack Whittaker. How is it that stupidity and luck always seem to go hand in hand ? How is it that the fairness of luck can't be evenly distributed among the people ? (I mean, the homeless and the poor need a break too sometimes....) I guess that's why Whittaker won the $315 million dollars.

After taxes, Whittaker pocketed $113 million of his total earnings and lost it all completely. And to what did he spend this large amount of money ? SHIT !
He's said that "a team of crooks cashed checks at 12 City National Branches and 'got all of my money'..." Yes, Mr. Whittaker, an entire team of professional crooks timed the entire withdrawal scheme in order to rob you of your money, just like freedom in America depends on the deaths of soldiers, and the freedom of Iraq, and their oil.
....the morons just keep on coming.....
Did he even stop to think about how these so called thieves got the checks in the first place ? Whittaker must've been really drunk to sign off huge amounts from his checkbook to people he considers as "thieves". But that shouldn't surprise anybody since he's proven that he is a gambling alcoholic, who writes bad checks and could be a violent man capable of murderer. But yet he still insists that a skilled team of professional thieves withdrew all his money.

Wake up, Mr. Whittaker ! Checks don't write themselves ! There wasn't a highly trained force who had someone brainwash you into writing checks for large amounts, and then collaborating to destroy you in one felled swoop ! Chalk this up to a theory I call "One-Worldism"(and I will explain and use this theory in further articles) - Whittaker believes that the whole world is out to get him due to the problems and hardships he's had to deal with since he won the jackpot - the death of his granddaughter, the theft and destruction of his private property, and business. So Whittaker believes that the whole world is out to get him; him and nobody else.
That's why he lost all of his money, that's why he's a binge drinker, and that's why he may face murder and assault charges. God forbid that he would use some of the money to remember his granddaughter by donating to a charity or setting up a scholarship fund, or something to that effect....
....But I feel you, Mr.Whittaker...I really do. I know of a guy who's daddy was almost killed by a gas-wielding maniac thousands of miles away, and he reacted the same way you did....and look how good it all turned out to be !

Still, idiots like Mr. Whittaker get a large amount of money for doing nothing, while the rest of the world suffers from poverty, lack of education, and healthcare, and housing. Mr.Whittaker is nothing more than a wasted medium for a resource that so many others could've used in a fitting manner, but thems is the breaks - nothing is ever fair in this life. I think the Bible had the right intentions when it said the meek would inherit the earth, but the reality is that the morons have all the power, and don't know when to use it, right Georgie ?
The bottom line boils down to this question when pondering the mystery that is Mr.Whittaker : Why is it that we don't hear that many stories like this about previous lottery winners ?

Simple, they aren't morons.



Octavian

Profiling According to Coulter

Note : Written in response to articles found in "How to Talk to a Liberal - The World According to Ann Coulter" (Three Rivers Press, New York)

Ann Coulter is the S-Word.
Not the R-word, not entirely in that sense, but the S-Word.

Ann Coulter is a Segregationist.

Segregationists like to put things in categories to make life easier for them. For Miss Coulter, it probably looks like this :

Liberal - Conservative
Republican - Democrat
Christian - Muslim
Male - Female
White - .....everything else

Miss Coulter talked about making airports safer by using the racial profiling option that was brought to the head officials in both Washington and the FAA shortly after 9/11, and there couldn't be a more valid proving ground that her view of separation is nothing more than hypocrisy at work.
But before all you Democrats out there begin to say you have my back, I have to tell you that it's not the reason that's hypocritical, it's the content and method she presents.

If Miss Coulter were to have her way, then everybody that looks like s/he was a native of a hot, arid, desert-like country, would be held up at checkpoints, searched, and escorted off planes before take off. Being a realist/paranoid-strategist, I would have to incline in agreement....to a certain degree. If terrorists are responsible for attacks on cities and people (and they are) then there should be no change in treatment for these terrorists based on skin tone, religion, or beliefs...correct ? It so happens that today's terrorists are of Muslim belief and religion, and many of them are from the Middle East, so they will definitely be looked at closer no matter what. And they, and all of you out there, will have to accept it (sorry folks, but it was 19 lads from the Middle East who drove a bunch of 300,000 ton vehicles into buildings) You cannot argue with Miss Coulter's idea - if someone came into your home and attacked your family, there would be very little of us who would say that you wouldn't want to get even and to make sure it doesn't happen again. She's merely stating that the mistakes of a few, will sometimes impact the larger group as a whole.
So if that idea is sound, and it's been definitely proven, then lets look at it on a detailed level...

...Keeping in mind that many Aero-Terrorists seem to be from the Middle East, then most Structural-Terrorists must come from the farmland of America.
If every person of Middle Eastern descent (or Indian descent, since many of them are mis-profiled) must be scrutinized at the airport, then every white person with a southern drawl, driving a pickup truck, should be examined by heavy security when walking into a large building. After all, who could forget about Tim McVeigh and his group of Good Ol'Boys ?
Yes, I know that the first bombing of the WTC was done by Islamic terrorists, but the damage they did in that incident is a firecracker compared to Oklahoma City. Before 9/11, Oklahoma City was considered the worst terrorist act to date, done proudly by citizens born and bred in America. But Miss Coulter's satiric viewpoint does not acknowledge it whenever she talked about profiling because she knows if this was the case, then everybody (including her) would have to go through the same humiliation as honest immigrants do whenever they step foot into an airport. Imagine having to be strip searched every time you entered a new building ? Everybody (including Miss Coulter) would find it exhausting, invasive, and humiliating.
...welcome to being a terrorist.....
That isn't to say that nobody else has gone through some humiliating things in the airport regardless of racial differences (Re : The woman who had to drink her own breast milk), but the realism is that Arabic people have it much worse than us all, and if the United States stands for "Liberty, Freedom, and Justice for All", then in Miss Coulter's world maybe it reads more like : "Liberty, Freedom, and Justice for All.....except if you are Arabic, Muslim, Islamic, or All of The Above....better yet, anybody who isn't remotely close to a white person....."

Miss Coulter will argue that it was because of these Muslim extremists that all three ways of the American Way must now change; they must pay the price for their actions, and that the American public has suffered enough. Isolation is the best policy. But what about the citizens of Oklahoma city ? Or the families who had to suffer with the aftermath ? We got out revenge on McVeigh just like we got it on Osama, so why don't we continue to hunt down more militia's that exist like Al Quaida ? Who's to say that another Oklahoma City won't happen again ? Shouldn't we then be searching everybody who comes into a building who drives a Dodge pick up ?
Miss Coulter will say that Muslims are encouraged by their beliefs, and that the misinterpretations of these actions in the Koran helps to fuel these extremists....and she's absolutely right. But the largest religious following in the world was responsible for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Burnings, and the Irish "Troubles" between Roman Catholics and Protestants to name a few...and they were all inspired by one little book.

Miss Coulter is just like everybody else in the country - scared of how much everybody else hates America and what they will do. And because of that fear, there is no other way to deal with it other than to get the people who were responsible for causing it...
....and if you can't get them, then get the people who most resemble them.
It's hypocrisy at it's best. I'm sure everybody, including Miss Coulter and President Bush, is happy that the troops are fighting for, and guarding, a hypocritical "freedom".


Octavian

Now is Not the Time to Break the Rules....

President Bush has lost too much in Iraq's war. As a strategist, I had already predicted this outcome of sending 20,000 more brave soldiers to their death-march this past week. If President Bush had taken the time to use the White House's resources and maybe check out a few books to study (I know, studying is not his forte...), maybe the handling of Iraq's war would've been different.

War is nothing but a campaign to carry out political motives that would push towards a goal, and allow one side to advance over the other. And so I ask, what is President Bush's goal now ? Saddam Hussein was a good goal, a perfect one, really...one that would've given a somewhat salvageable ending of the war. But after he was captured, Bush did not even realize that a perfect opportunity was on hand for him to justify his actions. He could've walked away, telling the public: "Look ! I've captured a terrorist/mass murderer who had the capabilities to hurt US citizens and others around the world..." But instead opted to "continue the struggle in Iraq for freedom." (The President did not really say these words, but he's been repeating the same spiel for a long time...) And thus, he had decided to leave out the first rule of war - have a clear goal in mind for your campaign.

The second rule, is to have an exit. President Bush had the perfect opportunity to step out with enough to keep the people somewhat pleased that they're sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers did not die for nothing - they died to get a dictator out of power. It may have not had the same affect on all of the populous, but it's a hell of a lot better than trying to justify that they died for "enduring the freedom of Americans". The worst that could happen is that the population will argue amongst themselves whether it should've been Osama they were really hunting, or Saddam - one evil murderer captured is better than nothing....

Honesty with the people would have to be the third. Any good general should give his or her people a stirring speech about how victory will be theirs, but should also tell the truth about the motives in going to battle. President Bush has caused doubt in the people because of his shady and secret objectives in the war in Iraq. When you lose the support of the people, your campaign will fail. The population is responsible for giving you soldiers, money, and support for the war - the least they are owed is whether or not your motives are for oil, plausible WMD's, ridding dictatorships, terrorism, strategic position and allies (that would've been my personal reason for waging war in Iraq...it's definitely one step closer to Iran and semi-developed nuclear weapons...President Bush probably realized it only after capturing Saddam - a very poor effort as we shall see in the last rule....)

The President losing the support of people in his own camp is number four. The people who are supposed to stand by his every decision have seemed to back out, and that is not good for a Commander in Chief. A general's advisors and captains are main keys to winning a campaign, and dissention in a general's camp means disorganization among the soldiers. This also shows that a general is only out for his own personal gain since advisors have turned their back on him collectively, despite warnings and pleads from them. President Bush should listen to his advisors, his generals and captains, since they have had the experience and knowledge that he hasn't (If Georgie would've studied, Georgie might have something credible to contribute during his meetings with his war machine....) But Bush has left his people in the dust, and more of them are coming out to the public in outrage. This just shows the people even more that this campaign was never about them, but more about his own ego and agenda.

And the final fifth rule that President Bush has already broken is that a good leader should forsee all. Not some - All ! A general who forsees what will happen with every actions s/he takes, and ever reaction s/he faces, will know when to implement the previous four rules. President Bush had tunnel vision since he only saw...um... whatever it is he saw in Iraq. If he had forseen every outcome and looked ahead, he wouldn't have continued the war past Saddam. He also would've laid the ground work ahead of time, to plan out his intentions to the people in a manner such that the people would have time to accept the motives (He has very talented speech writers, advisors, and strategists...as shown by the stunning performance he gave me on C-Span when he debated with then opponent Senator John Kerry...)

But despite all of this, President Bush has decided to be a rebel without a cause (literally) and break the rules he needed to follow, and go ahead with the ones he needed to discard. The only consolation that the people have is that Bush cannot be re-elected again....and that is a sad state to be in.....

Note : There is a sixth rule that everyone should be aware of, and has been for the past four years of war - the soldiers are the most important pieces in a campaign. Without them, there is no war. How many more can the people spare before it's too late ?

Octavian