Troops Reductions, et al.

Troop Reduction Story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/world/22cnd-military.html?ref=middleeast

I think it’s interesting how many times we’ve “reduced” troop levels in Iraq. I can’t even count how many drawdowns there have been. And yet, the number of Soldiers in Iraq is virtually unchanged from 2002. Now, I think that the war was necessary at the time it was begun – based on the assumptions and facts on hand at the time. I DO think that Saddam was a threat to the United States and would have done something against us if we had not acted to remove him.

Ideally, the United Nations would have stepped up to the plate and enforced its own sanctions and ultimatums, but by not acting, it showed itself to be all bark and no bite. Saddam wasn’t stupid, he knew the UN wouldn’t do anything else to him. All the sanctions were worthless because many of the nations that agreed with the punishments against Iraq not only didn’t enforce the sanctions, but actively undermined them by continuing to trade with Iraq behind the curtains.

When the UN didn’t act, the duty fell on the United States and Great Britain to neutralize the threat.

Congress failed the country by not acting decisively in regards to the war. Congress should either have agreed to go to war and acted accordingly by declaring the war and moving forward, or it should have stood against the President and refused to declare the war. The United States is set up in a series of balancing powers meant to ensure nothing is done in haste. By taking the middle-road (a road which has no basis in the Constitution), Congress gave away its authority over the war. Bad Congress. Congress’ failure to be decisive resulted in a half-assed plan for what to do with Iraq AFTER it was secured.

Now, we need to take the situation we have and find the best way to resolve it. Iraq’s government needs to step up and take control which it won’t do. Just like when I was teaching my daughter to ride a bike earlier this week. I held onto the seat a few times to get her going and then I stopped helping her that way. She asked for it, but she needed to get going on her own. Did I know she would fall? Absolutely, it was expected. Would she get hurt? Yes. But, sometimes we have to get hurt in order to learn. Would she learn how to ride if I took her bike and rode it around for her? Nope. It’s time for the US to get off the Iraqi bike and start holding the seat. Once we hold it for awhile, then we can let go. Give ‘em encouragement and be there to bandage their owies, but Iraq needs to get on its own bike and ride down the street.

So, now that I’ve digressed, back to my original intent – who to vote for. First, if you really think you should vote for one of the candidates because of something I said about them, you probably shouldn’t vote. You should vote because you did the research on the candidates and figured out which one best represented your values.

Without further ado:

Hillary – You’re kidding right? No one in their right mind would vote for her. She’s crazy, egotistical, and way over her depth. If she is elected, it’s gonna be a rough four years. She’ll bring us closer to a socialist country and If you know what’s good for you – you don’t want that. She’ll screw it all up.

Obama – The best democrat running. He’s charismatic, convincing and sounds honest. None of those if a reason to vote for him – except maybe sounding honest. Even being honest may not be good because if he actually does what he says he will, the country will again be worse off. The democrats aren’t good for the country. They want to take from the richer people and give it to others – more than they already do. The riches of the country are available to all who are willing to work for them. In a communist society, the government takes from the rich and gives to the poor in order to make everyone equal. And it works, sort of. Even ends up being equally poor because no one wants to work for nothing – so no one works and no one gets anything. In a nutshell.

McCain – He seems ok, but he allows his religious and ultra-conservative side to dominate his decision making. I think he’s a little bit too conservative for my taste. He wants to use the government to right wrongs. That’s not the purpose of the government. The United States needs smaller government that costs less, does less, and by doing so, is better. When it comes to the federal government, less is always more.

Ron Paul – By far the best choice, but probably unable to win. He wants to bring the country back to the country as it was founded – one that follows and respects the Constitution and what it says – not what someone thinks it means. By returning to a Constitution based government, we could begin to recover from the problems we are having and return to an economically, politically and socially strong country. Some will say that a vote for Paul is “wasted” because he can’t win. Even if that were true, which it could be, the more people that vote for him the better the next non-Republican, non-Democrat candidate has to get into office. If we agree to only vote for the Democrats or the Republicans, we agree to be ruled in tyranny. Maintaining a non-two-party system is the only thing that will keep hope alive for the country. Even if Paul loses, the fact that he gets a decent percentage of the vote will encourage future “underdog” candidates to continue their campaigns and not quit just because they can’t win.

If you are undecided and don’t know who to vote for – take it from me – vote for Ron Paul. Don’t bother thinking about the election, the candidates, or what will be best for the country – just listen to the crazy guy who put some words on a computer screen – vote for Paul!