I don’t have much to say on this issue, but I felt it was still necessary to comment on. The article that has unveiled this information is by Martin Crutsinger, an AP economics writer, that has been sponsored on yahoo.com. According to Crutsinger, this will expand the national budget deficet to a “record 1.56 trillion dollars.”
This is insane! Why does the U.S. Government insist on spending so much money? I understand we are still fighting two wars and some spending will take place for our soldiers’ equipment, and that is fine with me. Again the article cites that the deficit could grow by about 8 trillion more dollars over the next decade. It is my belief that we should not go further into debt to fix our countries monetary problems. Then again, I am a history major, not a econ major, but doesn’t common sense say we should save money by spending less to get out of this deficit?
I do not have much time to post, as of right now. I am working on my final papers for the semester, but this has been on my mind for quite some time. I want to make sure I go “on record” with my views and analysis.
I think this is a positive endeavor which Obama is undertaking. I have spoken with veterans of the current wars, as well as military historians about the Afghanistan and Iraq issue. The beauty of being a history major, is that I am surrounded by these types of individuals almost consistently while on campus. One of the main consensus that the military historian gave me, is that to win a war you need strong numbers. That is something that has been lacking in the Afghan war. The U.S. media made a mistake of making the Iraq war the primary war, when it clearly should have been our secondary war. Afghanistan became an afterthought. To help contain, and improve the situation in Afghanistan, there needs to be a troop increase. Many of Obama’s supporters have become unhappy with this decision. This has worked through the history of the U.S. military, just as it did in Iraq. But Obama is right when he has called Afghanistan the “war of necessity.” Furthermore, it is a war we must win.
The only criticism I have of Obama is that it took him a while to figure out that a troop increase was a necessity, and workable option. Yes, there is the problem of how we will pay for the increase, and maybe that is what he was mulling over. Just as this war was a necessity, the increase is a necessity. Especially since it has been released that the U.S. could have had Bin Laden but failed to obtain him in December of 2001.
If I have time, I will respond to Obama’s speech tonight about this very situation where is is going to lay out the plan. ABC is going to air it, tonight at 5pm PT. Again its the last few weeks of the semester, and I really need to concentrate.
Recently it was announced that the terrorists responsible for the horrific events of September 11, 2001 would be tried in a public court in New York. Many notable GOP members, and conservative bloggers have come to a point of outrage over Eric Holder’s decision. I admit I haven’t read too much into the situation. But why is everyone in such an uproar? Do the conservative elite, not think that the citizens of New York would convict the men responsible for the bloodshed that day? Holder even stated that he was going to pursue the death penalty (and rightfully so). Are they worried that the New York citizens wouldn’t grant that action? I have lost faith in Americans for their lack of understanding in modern times, that I admit, but I have not lost my faith entirely. Sure the majority of the people in the United States no longer care for their country on the level that they should. I find their lack of faith, to the American cause disturbing. Everyone seems to have a world wide focus, rather than having that hint of nationalism that should be required by every patriotic person of the United States. That is a blog for another day though.
I just find it difficult to believe that the citizens of New York would allow Khalid Sheik Mohammad, and his co-conspirators to walk, or live. After all, they attacked the United States, and are now going to be tried in the very city which their design took place. If anything, to me it seems Holder is making this a show trial. If you go against the United States not only will you receive military retaliation, but if you surrender, you will still face proper criminal and legal action for your deeds.
Maybe the GOP is afraid that it will offer a platform to militant Islam? I say, let them! I bet most will be disgusted with their views of the religion and the world. Maybe people will be turned away from militant Islam? The media is not going to let every detail slip out of the courtroom. National security would still be at stake, and they would not let certain details get out. (At least I hope!).
I feel the GOP and conservatives are not seeing the big picture, and are trying to stick to their Bush-ist beliefs. Although that is not always a bad thing, to hold onto a belief when it is not always the right thing can be an error. In reality this is not that big of a deal. Let them go to New York, and let the post-Zengi jihadists of militant Islam expose their stupidity in their beliefs. Finally it could bring closure to those who lost friends and loved ones on September 11, 2001. We have yet to catch Osama Bin Laden, or bring justice to any one of his organization (other than through a bomb or bullet). Let legal action take its course along with that of the death penalty.
I am not sure if you are following the story that has emerged today, November 5, 2009 out of Fort Hood, Texas. In case you don’t know, a 39 year old Muslim Army Major named Nidal Malik Hasan. He is a man who is of Jordanian descent. The Major was a psychiatrist and broke down over the imminent deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan, who today shot and wounded 31 soldiers and killed an additional 12. He was shot during the incident multiple times, and he somehow survived. This story has rattled me. It is bad enough that soldiers have to die overseas fighting militant Islam, much less having to face the horrors of being shot at home, on a base. I am no soldier, but I don’t understand how he was able to do this. He was on a base with a bunch of soldiers with guns. How was he able to accomplish his goal of targeting certain people and shooting them? Secondly, anyone who joins the military should know that they could be deployed. If you disagree with the miliatry then don’t join up. This man was a psychiatrist though, so he is a doctor. I would assume he would be helping the people over in Afghanistan, whether they would be soldiers or natives. This man is a traitor anyway you cut it. His punishment will be death, especially in war time. In case you want to read the entire story you can click here.
Man, oh man, where to start? Barack Obama, the President of the United States was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday October 9, 2009. Yes, you read that correctly, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, I know you are curious as well as baffled. So someone explain to me what President Barack Obama has done to be worthy of such a prize? This man is the President of the United States, and is the head of the U.S. Military. A military often is not in existence for duties of peace. At least they are not known for that. They might ensure peace, but their actions are most famous for killing. But does war and peace have the same ideals? I do not think so. Not in the way people like to think anyway. According to the Los Angeles Times the award was given as for a few reasons. Janet Hook and Mark Silva of the LA Times writes:
The award committee cited Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” and said that he had given the world “hope for a better future.”
The committee commended Obama’s push for nuclear disarmament, his outreach to the Muslim world and his turn from the unilateralism that guided George W. Bush, although the former president was not named.
How has he done any of this? I don’t see Iran backing down from their nuclear ambitions. I don’t see Russia doing it either. Least of all, do I see a better tomorrow on the horizon. I see one that is economically unclear, and terrifying to think about. The Washington Post is quick to point out that the award is often given with criticism from others. People such as Theodore Roosevelt and Yasser Arifat have also won the award.
If that isn’t a knee slapper, then the following should be. As I eluded to earlier, you do know that the President is in charge of the US military, so is it fitting that President Obama had a meeting with his war council after he accepted the award!? They were discussing the troop levels in Afghanistan and whether the US should give more soldiers to the cause. Don’t believe it? Check out this Kansas City Star article on it!
I think this is really a shame. I mean there are people who are quite peaceful individuals, and they deserve such a title. There are people who roam this Earth looking at the bigger picture and how they can help humanity. They do not dwell upon how the military has to fight to ensure peace, or how people sometimes have to do violent things to survive. They are the ones who deserve it. In fact, I’ve got an idea! How about giving one postmoderumly to Mahatma Ghandi? Seriously, he never won one. I don’t care if the award was only supposed to go to a living person or not, he would have been a better choice that Obama.
Then again, it is interesting to note that Alfred Nobel, the man which the award is named after did invent dynamite, which isn’t a very peaceful thing in itself. I just think the whole idea of awarding this title to our President is a bit insane. He is not deserving of it. He hasn’t done anything to acquire it, other than fascinating media beings around the world. They treat him as some sort of messiah, and personally, I just don’t get it.
