By Tim Gibbons: Published by High Plains View, September 26, 2008.
“And he saith unto them, 'Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, 'Caesar's'. Then saith he unto them, 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” - Matthew 22:20-21
“All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.” - Language proposed by Thomas Jefferson for the Virginia Constitution, 1776.
Freedom of religion, an interesting concept and one that has not been explored enough or with nearly the required amount of rational argument and debate.
We have long been taught, especially in religious circles that every man, woman and child has the right to worship and practice their religion as they see fit. But what happens when one man's beliefs cause hardship to another?
If one is looking for an example of this look no further than tax exemption for churches. Churches have long been exempt from taxes, however, it was the income tax laws and the exemptions for churches from these taxes in 1913 that have led to where we are now.
It was estimated in 2006 Congressional budget records that the exemptions for churches cost the government as much as $500 million in tax revenue a year, shifting much of that burden onto other tax payers. [Should Churches be Tax-Exempt? - written by Kathy Gill, About.com Guide to US Politics, March 25, 2008]
But this doesn't even take into account the taxes lost on donations to the church. Say an individual gives an amount of $500 to his or her church over the course of the year. If that individual is in the 30 percent tax bracket and writes off the contribution then that is $150 that the government doesn't get.
In other words, it could be argued that the individual gave the church $350 and the U.S. Government gave $150. Magnify this by the supposedly 159 million Christians who are estimated to live in America [American Religious Identification Survey 2001 – conducted by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York] and it doesn't take an Einstein to see that there is a lot of money floating around the steps of God's temple.
“And they came to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves. And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught, saying unto them, 'Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? But ye have made it a den of thieves'.”. - Gospel of Mark 11:15-17
Under IRS tax code, churches are automatically considered tax exempt and unlike other 501(c)3 organizations, they are not required to provide documentation to this effect, nor are they required to reveal their finances. Want a perfect place to launder money and support terrorists, build a church.
Now, the government is not keen on losing money so who gets stuck with the bill? That's right, everyone dumb enough not to start their own church.
“If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be to start his own religion.” - attributed to Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology.
The next question to be asked is what does the Holy Bible make of this, 'tax exemption'. Everyone who has grown up in Sunday School knows that we are to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. There are those who would claim that this statement is ambigious at best and that it could mean that believers are to render themselves and possessions to God and no one else, let the unsaved heathen support Caesar.
However, this doesn't take into consideration the first part of the passage in Matthew: “'Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?' But Jesus knowing their evil intent, said, 'You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax..' They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, 'Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?' 'Caesar's' they replied. Then he said to them 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.'” - Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 20, verses 17-21
Now, who's portrait is it on the one dollar bill? How about the five? The ten? Twenty? Fifty? Hell, let's go for broke, on who's face is on the hundred dollar bill. Is it Jesus? Nope, Benjamin Franklin.
“How many observe Christ's birthday! How few, his precepts! O, tis easier to keep Holidays than Commandments.” - Benjamin Franklin.
If Jesus did not consider his disciples above taxation, indeed one of his miracles involved providing the Apostle Peter with enough money to pay his taxes, then why does the Church feel that they can use the money of Uncle Sam to please Almighty God?
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves...This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are Gods' servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes, if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” - Book of Romans 13:1-2, 6-7 (NIV)
The Bible is very clear on this subject, the church should render to the government what is the government's, a.k.a., money. And as long as the servants of God continue to use the currency of an earthly kingdom they need to abide by that kingdom's laws.
The churches in this country use American roads, American schools, American utilities, American services and American tax breaks and exemptions. If God were willing to chip in with a grant now and then, I wouldn't argue the point as much. However, until He takes a break from killing Muslims in the Middle East and starts handling domestic issues, then should not His children show appreciation for the nation that provides for their needs and protects their sons and daughters from invasion?
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” - 1 Peter 2:13-14 (KJV)
American currency belongs to Uncle Sam. Humanity, created in the image and after the likeness of God, belongs to the creator or creative force, whatever your beliefs.
If one where truly zealous about promoting their faith, then they should journey into the deserts like John the Baptist, there to eat lotus flowers, honey and locust (yes, that's right, grasshoppers) and in their shelters constructed of God's earth and clothed in the skins of animals that God has provided they can be those pure voices in the wilderness, proclaiming, “prepare ye the way of the Lord!”.
Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is dedication to one's faith. If all the religious leaders in America gave up their tax free, government supported castles and retired to the wilderness where they taught those who came to seek them, “be perfect as I [Jesus] am perfect”, I might actually have respect for the them. Until then, they are just another group of petty tyrant carving their livings out of the backs of hard working men and women who have been duped into believing that paying taxes to Uncle Sam is evil, but using Uncle Sam's money to pay God is okay. Isn't this what is meant by, “robbing Peter to pay Paul”?
And what about those of us who practice our beliefs in private? Are we to be penalized because we don't give our hard earned American money to a religious aristocracy who exists aloof and separate from humanity?
Just like the dark ages of Europe, it is the hard working peasants who support the religious institutions.
I'm sorry, but didn't our Founding Fathers’ fight and die to overthrow a tyrant? It wasn't God who liberated America, ii was the dream of men. And our Founding Fathers were from a wide variety of religious beliefs: Protestants, Catholics and Presbyterians fought and died alongside Deists and Freemasons. All were united in the common goal of Freedom for all men regardless of faith.
“We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in.” - Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 4, September 11, 1777.
“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” - Benjamin Franklin (Poor Richard's Almanac, 1754)
Caesar is calling God: maybe it's time to give back what you owe.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
In Defense of Life and Choice: A look at the issues behind abortion
By Tim Gibbons: Published by High Plains View, September 19, 2008
“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” - Thomas Paine
“I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand.” -Susan B. Anthony
Sanctity of life and the rights of the unborn, once again abortion has come to the forefront of this year's presidential election. There are those who say that abortion is wrong, those that say it is a protected right and those who's opinion falls somewhere in between.
I must admit I have mixed views on the subject; growing up in a devout and legalistic Christian home I was all for the banning of all forms of abortion. Since I was a man this was, actually, quite easy for me to say as I would never be under the burden of carrying a child. And so for my teenage years and early adult life I proudly flew the banner of pro-life in defense of the sanctity of the unborn.
Sanctity...an interesting word that is often used in the halls of theology and religion. A rallying cry for those who stand against the evils of the world in Western Society. A passioned and feverish appeal to all righteous men and women to stand firm in their beliefs and convictions!
But, what does it mean to sanctify something? According to the dictionary, sanctification is the act of setting apart and making something holy. To entitle to reverence or respect.
According to the religious right, the Holy Bible does make reference to predestination of unborn children and God forming a child in the womb. And while these references are in the Bible there is no warning on ending a pregnancy, however, this same Bible, offers a strong argument on the rights of children from the mouth of Jesus himself, in the Gospels.
“And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” - Matthew 18:5-6
So answer me this...why do we have more than 100,000 people in Southern Colorado willing to sign a petition to make a fetus a person, but we have barely a handful of people who will go to bat for their children's 4-H program in El Paso County? We condemn women for “killing” the unborn, but we barely do a thing to those men who view pornography of women and children. We listened to impassioned pleas to stop violating the rights of the unborn as clergy sexually violate children behind closed doors and husbands cast lusting looks at other women. Since when did the rights of the unborn become more sacred than the rights of the living?
“Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” - Matthew 19:13 & 14
Jesus, himself, makes no mention of the unborn, but he is adamant in his condemnation of those who would harm a living, breathing child. Likewise, he was harsh in his rebuke of those who let their eyes and hearts wander...
“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” - Matthew 5:28.
How can we have a respect, a reverence for the “unborn”, when we don't even come close to applying that same reverence for life to the rest of humanity? Fathers who abandon their children to chase a new set of legs. Parents who pursue their dreams and aspirations while leaving their children behind at home to raise themselves and find their way through the confusing world without a guiding hand to help them. Is it any wonder then, when a child rejects the fatherly influence of God? Who wants a father who is never there?
To deny a woman the right to end a pregnancy due to rape, incest or danger to her health is no different from the patriarchal and religious tyranny exercised in medieval Europe. We might “save” the child's life, but what life will that child have? It will forever stand as a reminder to the woman of a time when her life was destroyed. And what of the man who did the act? As our laws stand now, he need not worry about paying child support. All he has to do is serve his time before he is back on the streets destroying the next set of lives.
I find it hard to reconcile a belief that no woman has the right to end an unwanted pregnancy when men are not held accountable for their promiscuity and sexual addictions. Abortion is not the problem, ladies and gentlemen, rather an unwillingness among men to take responsibility for their actions and a willingness from those same men to condemn women for acting like the chattel religion has told them to be, is the real problem.
If the religious right and the pro-life movement is serious in their attempts to stop the alleged problem of abortion, then it is up to them to take a good hard look at themselves, stop judging others and remove the plank from their eye.
We need to stop condemning women, or at the very least, condemn women and men equally, after all, it takes two to tango and it takes two people, not one, to create life.
Women have long faced the wrath of the religious community for daring to end a pregnancy, why is that same condemnation not shown to the men who got them that way? Why are men patted on the back for a sexual conquest and women condemned for the same act?
Is abortion right or wrong? I don't know, and as a man I am hesitant to take one side or the other as I will not be faced with the decision of whether or not to end a pregnancy. But, as a man, I can take the stand and make the decision that will ensure no woman has to have an abortion on my account.
“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” - Thomas Paine
“I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand.” -Susan B. Anthony
Sanctity of life and the rights of the unborn, once again abortion has come to the forefront of this year's presidential election. There are those who say that abortion is wrong, those that say it is a protected right and those who's opinion falls somewhere in between.
I must admit I have mixed views on the subject; growing up in a devout and legalistic Christian home I was all for the banning of all forms of abortion. Since I was a man this was, actually, quite easy for me to say as I would never be under the burden of carrying a child. And so for my teenage years and early adult life I proudly flew the banner of pro-life in defense of the sanctity of the unborn.
Sanctity...an interesting word that is often used in the halls of theology and religion. A rallying cry for those who stand against the evils of the world in Western Society. A passioned and feverish appeal to all righteous men and women to stand firm in their beliefs and convictions!
But, what does it mean to sanctify something? According to the dictionary, sanctification is the act of setting apart and making something holy. To entitle to reverence or respect.
According to the religious right, the Holy Bible does make reference to predestination of unborn children and God forming a child in the womb. And while these references are in the Bible there is no warning on ending a pregnancy, however, this same Bible, offers a strong argument on the rights of children from the mouth of Jesus himself, in the Gospels.
“And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” - Matthew 18:5-6
So answer me this...why do we have more than 100,000 people in Southern Colorado willing to sign a petition to make a fetus a person, but we have barely a handful of people who will go to bat for their children's 4-H program in El Paso County? We condemn women for “killing” the unborn, but we barely do a thing to those men who view pornography of women and children. We listened to impassioned pleas to stop violating the rights of the unborn as clergy sexually violate children behind closed doors and husbands cast lusting looks at other women. Since when did the rights of the unborn become more sacred than the rights of the living?
“Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” - Matthew 19:13 & 14
Jesus, himself, makes no mention of the unborn, but he is adamant in his condemnation of those who would harm a living, breathing child. Likewise, he was harsh in his rebuke of those who let their eyes and hearts wander...
“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” - Matthew 5:28.
How can we have a respect, a reverence for the “unborn”, when we don't even come close to applying that same reverence for life to the rest of humanity? Fathers who abandon their children to chase a new set of legs. Parents who pursue their dreams and aspirations while leaving their children behind at home to raise themselves and find their way through the confusing world without a guiding hand to help them. Is it any wonder then, when a child rejects the fatherly influence of God? Who wants a father who is never there?
To deny a woman the right to end a pregnancy due to rape, incest or danger to her health is no different from the patriarchal and religious tyranny exercised in medieval Europe. We might “save” the child's life, but what life will that child have? It will forever stand as a reminder to the woman of a time when her life was destroyed. And what of the man who did the act? As our laws stand now, he need not worry about paying child support. All he has to do is serve his time before he is back on the streets destroying the next set of lives.
I find it hard to reconcile a belief that no woman has the right to end an unwanted pregnancy when men are not held accountable for their promiscuity and sexual addictions. Abortion is not the problem, ladies and gentlemen, rather an unwillingness among men to take responsibility for their actions and a willingness from those same men to condemn women for acting like the chattel religion has told them to be, is the real problem.
If the religious right and the pro-life movement is serious in their attempts to stop the alleged problem of abortion, then it is up to them to take a good hard look at themselves, stop judging others and remove the plank from their eye.
We need to stop condemning women, or at the very least, condemn women and men equally, after all, it takes two to tango and it takes two people, not one, to create life.
Women have long faced the wrath of the religious community for daring to end a pregnancy, why is that same condemnation not shown to the men who got them that way? Why are men patted on the back for a sexual conquest and women condemned for the same act?
Is abortion right or wrong? I don't know, and as a man I am hesitant to take one side or the other as I will not be faced with the decision of whether or not to end a pregnancy. But, as a man, I can take the stand and make the decision that will ensure no woman has to have an abortion on my account.
What happened to the First Amendment?
By Tim Gibbons: Published by High Plains View, September 12, 2008.
Excluding those who are dead or have been living off-world for the last few weeks, pretty much all of us in the United States have seen the media circus surrounding the new Vice President nomination for the Republican Party, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
The swirl of questions and inquires around the newly minted Palin is only natural, after all we've already seen Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama make history this year and it seems that the Republicans are doing their part to keep the historians busy in the coming years with the first ever nomination of a woman to the Vice President position.
What isn't quite in keeping with tradition is the firm rebuke from the political camp of John McCain telling reporters and the media to, “back off” VP nominee Palin and stop attacking her lack of experience, family and politics...this coming from the party that has long condemned Obama for his lack of experience, use of family and political orientation.
“It used to be that a lot of those smears and the crap on the Internet stayed out of the newsrooms of serious journalists,” said Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager in response to reports on questionable aspects of Palin's character.
Speaking of smears, here's a good one written by Palin shortly after accepting the VP nomination: “I cannot tell you how special last night was for me and how enthused I am to be John McCain's running mate,” Palin wrote in a campaign e-mail, “Unfortunately, as you've seen this week, the Obama/Biden Democrats have been vicious in their attacks directed toward me, my family and John McCain. The misinformation and flat-out lies must be corrected.”
In point of fact, Barack Obama's campaign did not issue any such attacks and Palin's statement was later found to be false. When asked about Palin's pregnant daughter during an interview, Obama was quite adamant that, “Let me be as clear as possible: I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits and people's children are especially off limits.”
He went on later and stated that, “Our people were not involved in any way [with the alleged smear campaign against Palin] in this and they will not be. And if I ever thought that it was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired.” (Here's an interesting question, why didn't McCain issue a similar statement when Obama's family was being scrutinized?)
Now, let's look at the flip side: Despite the McCain camps denouncing of the media for probing into Palin's personal life, they themselves have taken virtually every opportunity to show Palin's family off, be it through photo ops, a heart warming scene with Palin's pregnant daughter and the boy who got her that way shaking hands with McCain or Palin's seven-year-old daughter telling people to vote, “for my mommy and John McCain,” on the web.
So it would seem that it's wrong to ask questions about Palin's family, politics and experience, but it's okay to bash Obama for everything, including an innocent fist bump with his wife on television.
All of this begs the question, since when did a Vice President nominee become immune to questioning?
We human beings are curious creatures and want to know about those in authority over us. Considering the relative newness of Palin to the national stage we, as the American people, want to know more. Not just about who she is as a political figure, but what is she like as a person. Is her political persona different from her private one? Does she follow one code in the day and another at night? These are questions we want answers to. And why shouldn't we have those answers?
If McCain and Palin are elected into office, the current Alaskan governor will be the president's right handwoman and the one to take over if he kicks the bucket or is otherwise unable to discharge his duties. Don't the American people have the right to know who they might be trusting to sit at the helm of the most powerful nation on the earth?
If Palin is truly able to handle the strains and requirements of the job than I say, “you go girl.” However, we won't be able to make that determination until we know Palin. And now, we have the McCain camp saying that the press can't ask questions about Palin and that they need to stop with their negative coverage.
Excuse me...I know we press types can be obnoxious, hence my preference for referring to myself as, “the local First Amendment pain in the a**”. But, think about this for a minute, what would happen if the press wasn't allowed to question? How strong would America be if the people were told that they could only believe one thing and not another? That is not liberty, that is tyranny.
“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” -Thomas Jefferson
My ancestors came over on the Mayflower, my great grandfathers fought in the American Revolution and in virtually every major conflict our Nation has had. One of my grandfather's served aboard the USS Mississippi during World War II, the other one served with the Reserve Army Corp of Engineers during Korea, my father was a sonar tech aboard an escort destroyer during Vietnam and had it not been for a life-threatening reaction to vaccinations, I, too, would have joined the Armed forces and proudly carried my flag into the midst of battle. So please do not tell me that it is, “unpatriotic” or “inappropriate”, to question those running for office.
Our predecessors, founding fathers and family have earned each of us the right and the grave responsibility to question those in authority over us. If this were not true, we would still be a British colony.
America needs a president who will unite us together in a common cause, who will bring our men and women in uniform safely home and stop sending them into costly conflicts with questionable goals and who will help our economy to get back on it's feet.
The media frenzy surrounding the election of our Commander-in- Chief serves a dual purpose: One, it explores and reveals every aspect of the candidates lives and two, shows us how they handle the pressure of negative press and attention. And quite frankly, if McCain and Palin can't handle the same type of scrutiny that Obama has had to endure, than maybe they need to get out of the kitchen.
“A nation under a well regulated government, should permit none to remain uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.” -Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment, United States Constitution, ratified 1791
Excluding those who are dead or have been living off-world for the last few weeks, pretty much all of us in the United States have seen the media circus surrounding the new Vice President nomination for the Republican Party, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
The swirl of questions and inquires around the newly minted Palin is only natural, after all we've already seen Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama make history this year and it seems that the Republicans are doing their part to keep the historians busy in the coming years with the first ever nomination of a woman to the Vice President position.
What isn't quite in keeping with tradition is the firm rebuke from the political camp of John McCain telling reporters and the media to, “back off” VP nominee Palin and stop attacking her lack of experience, family and politics...this coming from the party that has long condemned Obama for his lack of experience, use of family and political orientation.
“It used to be that a lot of those smears and the crap on the Internet stayed out of the newsrooms of serious journalists,” said Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager in response to reports on questionable aspects of Palin's character.
Speaking of smears, here's a good one written by Palin shortly after accepting the VP nomination: “I cannot tell you how special last night was for me and how enthused I am to be John McCain's running mate,” Palin wrote in a campaign e-mail, “Unfortunately, as you've seen this week, the Obama/Biden Democrats have been vicious in their attacks directed toward me, my family and John McCain. The misinformation and flat-out lies must be corrected.”
In point of fact, Barack Obama's campaign did not issue any such attacks and Palin's statement was later found to be false. When asked about Palin's pregnant daughter during an interview, Obama was quite adamant that, “Let me be as clear as possible: I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits and people's children are especially off limits.”
He went on later and stated that, “Our people were not involved in any way [with the alleged smear campaign against Palin] in this and they will not be. And if I ever thought that it was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired.” (Here's an interesting question, why didn't McCain issue a similar statement when Obama's family was being scrutinized?)
Now, let's look at the flip side: Despite the McCain camps denouncing of the media for probing into Palin's personal life, they themselves have taken virtually every opportunity to show Palin's family off, be it through photo ops, a heart warming scene with Palin's pregnant daughter and the boy who got her that way shaking hands with McCain or Palin's seven-year-old daughter telling people to vote, “for my mommy and John McCain,” on the web.
So it would seem that it's wrong to ask questions about Palin's family, politics and experience, but it's okay to bash Obama for everything, including an innocent fist bump with his wife on television.
All of this begs the question, since when did a Vice President nominee become immune to questioning?
We human beings are curious creatures and want to know about those in authority over us. Considering the relative newness of Palin to the national stage we, as the American people, want to know more. Not just about who she is as a political figure, but what is she like as a person. Is her political persona different from her private one? Does she follow one code in the day and another at night? These are questions we want answers to. And why shouldn't we have those answers?
If McCain and Palin are elected into office, the current Alaskan governor will be the president's right handwoman and the one to take over if he kicks the bucket or is otherwise unable to discharge his duties. Don't the American people have the right to know who they might be trusting to sit at the helm of the most powerful nation on the earth?
If Palin is truly able to handle the strains and requirements of the job than I say, “you go girl.” However, we won't be able to make that determination until we know Palin. And now, we have the McCain camp saying that the press can't ask questions about Palin and that they need to stop with their negative coverage.
Excuse me...I know we press types can be obnoxious, hence my preference for referring to myself as, “the local First Amendment pain in the a**”. But, think about this for a minute, what would happen if the press wasn't allowed to question? How strong would America be if the people were told that they could only believe one thing and not another? That is not liberty, that is tyranny.
“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” -Thomas Jefferson
My ancestors came over on the Mayflower, my great grandfathers fought in the American Revolution and in virtually every major conflict our Nation has had. One of my grandfather's served aboard the USS Mississippi during World War II, the other one served with the Reserve Army Corp of Engineers during Korea, my father was a sonar tech aboard an escort destroyer during Vietnam and had it not been for a life-threatening reaction to vaccinations, I, too, would have joined the Armed forces and proudly carried my flag into the midst of battle. So please do not tell me that it is, “unpatriotic” or “inappropriate”, to question those running for office.
Our predecessors, founding fathers and family have earned each of us the right and the grave responsibility to question those in authority over us. If this were not true, we would still be a British colony.
America needs a president who will unite us together in a common cause, who will bring our men and women in uniform safely home and stop sending them into costly conflicts with questionable goals and who will help our economy to get back on it's feet.
The media frenzy surrounding the election of our Commander-in- Chief serves a dual purpose: One, it explores and reveals every aspect of the candidates lives and two, shows us how they handle the pressure of negative press and attention. And quite frankly, if McCain and Palin can't handle the same type of scrutiny that Obama has had to endure, than maybe they need to get out of the kitchen.
“A nation under a well regulated government, should permit none to remain uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.” -Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment, United States Constitution, ratified 1791
On the War
By Tim Gibbons: Published by High Plains View, September 5, 2008.
Two weeks ago, I compared the success of the First Persian Gulf War with the failings of the current war in Iraq. Last week, we discussed the validity of “preventive warfare”. And now, with the Presidental elections drawing near, let's look at what our two hopefuls, Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama have to say on the war in Iraq.
John McCain
“It is obvious that a president's first priority is to take whatever steps necessary to ensure the security of our nation, but hand in hand with that has to be a restoration of trust and confidence in government.”
“I've heard him (Ron Paul) now in many debates talking about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq, and how it's failed. And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II.”
“I think that clearly my fortunes [in the election] have a lot to do with what's happening in Iraq, and I'm proud of that,” he told CNN.
Senator John McCain has been a strong supporter for the conflict in Iraq calling it, “the central front of the war on terror.” He has even stated that he would not be opposed to seeing American forces in Iraq for the next 100 years, provided, “Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
When asked if he, as president, would reject the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, McCain responded, "I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-emptive war, because obviously, it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces.”
A question posed to McCain on the Today show asked if he knew when American troops could start to return home, McCain responded: “No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq.”
At 71-years-old, McCain will be the oldest person to take the office of President if he wins. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1958 and became a naval aviator. In 1967 he was shot down, badly injured and held as a prisoner of war by the Vietnamese until 1973. He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981 and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives by the State of Arizona, in 1982. He served two terms and was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986 and has continued to serve in this capacity.
Barack Obama
“We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again. This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.”
“Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.”
Senator Barack Obama has been a strong advocate for ending American presence in Iraq, “I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden – as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security,”.
Reasons for the withdrawal include the huge burden to the taxpayers and the government which is spending $9- $10 billion a month on the war. Obama also is concerned that the build up in Iraq has compromised America's ability to respond to other crisis', such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and rising concerns in South America.
When asked if the president could disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops, Obama replied, “No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of U.S. troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.”
During the Chicago Foreign Affairs Council, April 23, 2007, Obama stated that, “Our country's greatest military asset is the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. When we do send our men and women into harm's way, we must also clearly define the mission, prescribe concrete political and military objectives, seek out advice of our military commanders, evaluate the intelligence, plan accordingly, and ensure that our troops have the resources, support and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission.”
Obama was born on August 4, 1961 and is the junior United States Senator from Illinois. He graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School where he served as the president of the Harvard Law Review.
He has practiced as a civil rights attorney from 1997 to 2004 and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. He is the first African American to receive a major party's presumptive nominee for President of the United States.
The War
To date the current Iraqi War has cost the American people the lives of 4,143 brave soldiers and thousands more wounded. The bill for the war totals $845 billion in taxpayer dollars and an additional loss of approximately $3 trillion to our American economy.
Of the two major goals the Bush Administration had in going to war with Iraq, (Destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction and Establish a Democratic Government in Iraq), both have been answered.
As of May 2006, Iraq had a constitution and a democratic government in place. On April 9, 2008, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told President Bush that Iraqi security forces were capable of maintaining and protecting Iraqi infrastructure and American troops should be pulled out as the situation allows.
Despite claims to the contrary, no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have been discovered, neither was there any evidence before the war that they existed. Most of the reports on the presence of WMD's, were later proven to be falsified by the Bush administration.
The question before Americans this election is simple: Keep the war going or end it? What's the right decision? You be the judge.
Two weeks ago, I compared the success of the First Persian Gulf War with the failings of the current war in Iraq. Last week, we discussed the validity of “preventive warfare”. And now, with the Presidental elections drawing near, let's look at what our two hopefuls, Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama have to say on the war in Iraq.
John McCain
“It is obvious that a president's first priority is to take whatever steps necessary to ensure the security of our nation, but hand in hand with that has to be a restoration of trust and confidence in government.”
“I've heard him (Ron Paul) now in many debates talking about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq, and how it's failed. And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II.”
“I think that clearly my fortunes [in the election] have a lot to do with what's happening in Iraq, and I'm proud of that,” he told CNN.
Senator John McCain has been a strong supporter for the conflict in Iraq calling it, “the central front of the war on terror.” He has even stated that he would not be opposed to seeing American forces in Iraq for the next 100 years, provided, “Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
When asked if he, as president, would reject the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, McCain responded, "I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-emptive war, because obviously, it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces.”
A question posed to McCain on the Today show asked if he knew when American troops could start to return home, McCain responded: “No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq.”
At 71-years-old, McCain will be the oldest person to take the office of President if he wins. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1958 and became a naval aviator. In 1967 he was shot down, badly injured and held as a prisoner of war by the Vietnamese until 1973. He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981 and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives by the State of Arizona, in 1982. He served two terms and was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986 and has continued to serve in this capacity.
Barack Obama
“We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again. This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.”
“Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.”
Senator Barack Obama has been a strong advocate for ending American presence in Iraq, “I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden – as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security,”.
Reasons for the withdrawal include the huge burden to the taxpayers and the government which is spending $9- $10 billion a month on the war. Obama also is concerned that the build up in Iraq has compromised America's ability to respond to other crisis', such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and rising concerns in South America.
When asked if the president could disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops, Obama replied, “No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of U.S. troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.”
During the Chicago Foreign Affairs Council, April 23, 2007, Obama stated that, “Our country's greatest military asset is the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. When we do send our men and women into harm's way, we must also clearly define the mission, prescribe concrete political and military objectives, seek out advice of our military commanders, evaluate the intelligence, plan accordingly, and ensure that our troops have the resources, support and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission.”
Obama was born on August 4, 1961 and is the junior United States Senator from Illinois. He graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School where he served as the president of the Harvard Law Review.
He has practiced as a civil rights attorney from 1997 to 2004 and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. He is the first African American to receive a major party's presumptive nominee for President of the United States.
The War
To date the current Iraqi War has cost the American people the lives of 4,143 brave soldiers and thousands more wounded. The bill for the war totals $845 billion in taxpayer dollars and an additional loss of approximately $3 trillion to our American economy.
Of the two major goals the Bush Administration had in going to war with Iraq, (Destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction and Establish a Democratic Government in Iraq), both have been answered.
As of May 2006, Iraq had a constitution and a democratic government in place. On April 9, 2008, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told President Bush that Iraqi security forces were capable of maintaining and protecting Iraqi infrastructure and American troops should be pulled out as the situation allows.
Despite claims to the contrary, no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have been discovered, neither was there any evidence before the war that they existed. Most of the reports on the presence of WMD's, were later proven to be falsified by the Bush administration.
The question before Americans this election is simple: Keep the war going or end it? What's the right decision? You be the judge.
“Heil, Bush??”
By Tim Gibbons: Published by High Plains View, August 29, 2008.
“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator,” -Adolf Hitler
“Those who fight in God's cause will be victorious.” - Saddam Hussein
“If any foreign minister begins to defend to the death a ‘peace conference’, you can be sure his government has already placed its orders for new battleships and airplanes.” -Joseph Stalin
“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” -George W. Bush.
Peaceful war? Preventive war? Holy war? Government Intelligence?! Can we stop contradicting ourselves!?!
Despite the questionable aspects and characteristics of a peaceful, preventive (preemptive) war, President Bush and his administration maintain that American's have been waging such wars since our beginning as a nation. The Indian wars and massacres are a perfect example of American led preemptive strikes. So was the questionable Mexican War in 1848 which led to a, what would be considered today, 'unpatriotic' statement by a United States Representative by the name of Abraham Lincoln:
“Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.”
Preemptive strikes have long been the unquestioned domain of the ruthless, the desperate and the tyrants.
“A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.
I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.... It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further.
There are all sorts of reasons, moral and political and everything else, against this theory, but it is so completely unthinkable in today's conditions that I thought it is no use to go any further.” -Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Both President Eisenhower and President Harry S. Truman ruled out preventive war against Stalin in the years following World War II. Even more spectacular was the refusal of President John F. Kennedy to launch a preemptive strike on Soviet forces in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Despite strong recommendations by his Joint Chiefs of Staff, President Kennedy preferred to rely upon diplomacy to resolve the issue. It was later discovered that Russian forces in Cuba had tactical nuclear weapons and the authorization to use them on invading Americans. Kennedy's refusal to resort to warfare probably averted a nuclear disaster.
There have, however, been those individuals in history who have had no qualms about preventive warfare.
“When Barbarossa commences, the world will hold its breath and make no comment.” - Adolf Hitler
Operation Barbarossa was the code name given to the German invasion of the Soviet Union during the early part of World War II. German propaganda reported that the Russians were planning an attack on Hitler's Third Reich and the only way to stop it was a preemptive strike against the sub-human Russians.
The reports of Russian aggression were false, a pretext invented by the Germans to justify their violation of their Non-Aggression Pact with Russia. Along that same vein, consider the 935 false statements issued by the Bush administration between 2001 and 2003 regarding the build up of arms and terrorist activities in Iraq (Center for Public Integrity). Then as now, false reports and propaganda are still the best way to start a war.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” -Adolph Hitler
“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror,” -George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006.
Legal scholars generally agree that preventive war and aggression are virtually the same. And aggression is considered, “the supreme crime” in international law. Even commentators as diverse as Dwight Eisenhower and Noam Chomsky have argued that accepting one preventive war would open the floodgates to all preventive wars, thereby reducing the world to “the law of the jungle”, where the strongest wins. Critics argue this 'war-at-will' society creates an environment where war can be easily justified.
Already we can see the effects, most notably among power hungry tyrants, such as Saddam Hussein, and religious fanatical groups like Al Qaeda. Hussein had no problems invading Kuwait in 1990, Al Qaeda rejoiced when their attack against the Trade Centers and Pentagon succeeded. Now the question comes, has our American government stooped to their level?
Our American soldiers have a long and proud history of defending our freedoms since that historic day in 1775 when the American Minutemen fired “the shot heard round the world”. While our soldiers might not have always been the best trained and/or armed, especially during the first part of our nation's history, the argument could easily be made that they were by far more tenacious than their foes.
The immortal cries of, “I have not yet begun to fight!” “Remember the Alamo!” “Retreat! Hell we just got here!” “Come on you sons-of-bitches, you want to live forever?!”, still echo through the halls and barracks of our American fighting men and women.
“But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.” - Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address.
Our American soldiers have never failed to give their all for their country. Even in Vietnam, despite the incompetence and war mongering of the politicians, our American soldiers fought the communist threat to a standstill and it wasn't until three years after the last American left Vietnam that the communists attacked again.
Now we see the same thing happening in Iraq, the muddled goals of the politicians squandering the fighting talent of our soldiers. Take away the deserts and add the jungles and it's starting to look like Vietnam all over again.
The body count for our forces in Iraq is 4,143 and climbing, and for what purpose? Weapons of Mass Destruction have not been found and there is strong evidence that they never existed. An Iraqi democratic government and constitution have been in place since 2006. And in April of 2008, the Iraqi Prime Minister informed President Bush that the Iraq security forces were capable of handling the security of the nation and that American troops could begin withdrawing.
Our troops are still there and now there are moves by the Bush camp to extend our stay in Iraq past the 2008 deadline imposed by the United Nations.
Politicians started a war they had no business starting. Politicians have willingly sent American soldiers to their death without explaining why they are doing it, other than some vague references to the war on terror and our Christian duty. That our forces have made any progress is due entirely to the bravery and abilities of our American soldiers and not the desk driving politicians that sent them there.
“The welfare of the people, in particular, has always been the alibi of tyrants.” -Albert Camus
It's time to bring our soldiers home, Mr. President. Or, is there something else we should know about?
“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator,” -Adolf Hitler
“Those who fight in God's cause will be victorious.” - Saddam Hussein
“If any foreign minister begins to defend to the death a ‘peace conference’, you can be sure his government has already placed its orders for new battleships and airplanes.” -Joseph Stalin
“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” -George W. Bush.
Peaceful war? Preventive war? Holy war? Government Intelligence?! Can we stop contradicting ourselves!?!
Despite the questionable aspects and characteristics of a peaceful, preventive (preemptive) war, President Bush and his administration maintain that American's have been waging such wars since our beginning as a nation. The Indian wars and massacres are a perfect example of American led preemptive strikes. So was the questionable Mexican War in 1848 which led to a, what would be considered today, 'unpatriotic' statement by a United States Representative by the name of Abraham Lincoln:
“Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.”
Preemptive strikes have long been the unquestioned domain of the ruthless, the desperate and the tyrants.
“A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.
I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.... It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further.
There are all sorts of reasons, moral and political and everything else, against this theory, but it is so completely unthinkable in today's conditions that I thought it is no use to go any further.” -Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Both President Eisenhower and President Harry S. Truman ruled out preventive war against Stalin in the years following World War II. Even more spectacular was the refusal of President John F. Kennedy to launch a preemptive strike on Soviet forces in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Despite strong recommendations by his Joint Chiefs of Staff, President Kennedy preferred to rely upon diplomacy to resolve the issue. It was later discovered that Russian forces in Cuba had tactical nuclear weapons and the authorization to use them on invading Americans. Kennedy's refusal to resort to warfare probably averted a nuclear disaster.
There have, however, been those individuals in history who have had no qualms about preventive warfare.
“When Barbarossa commences, the world will hold its breath and make no comment.” - Adolf Hitler
Operation Barbarossa was the code name given to the German invasion of the Soviet Union during the early part of World War II. German propaganda reported that the Russians were planning an attack on Hitler's Third Reich and the only way to stop it was a preemptive strike against the sub-human Russians.
The reports of Russian aggression were false, a pretext invented by the Germans to justify their violation of their Non-Aggression Pact with Russia. Along that same vein, consider the 935 false statements issued by the Bush administration between 2001 and 2003 regarding the build up of arms and terrorist activities in Iraq (Center for Public Integrity). Then as now, false reports and propaganda are still the best way to start a war.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” -Adolph Hitler
“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror,” -George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006.
Legal scholars generally agree that preventive war and aggression are virtually the same. And aggression is considered, “the supreme crime” in international law. Even commentators as diverse as Dwight Eisenhower and Noam Chomsky have argued that accepting one preventive war would open the floodgates to all preventive wars, thereby reducing the world to “the law of the jungle”, where the strongest wins. Critics argue this 'war-at-will' society creates an environment where war can be easily justified.
Already we can see the effects, most notably among power hungry tyrants, such as Saddam Hussein, and religious fanatical groups like Al Qaeda. Hussein had no problems invading Kuwait in 1990, Al Qaeda rejoiced when their attack against the Trade Centers and Pentagon succeeded. Now the question comes, has our American government stooped to their level?
Our American soldiers have a long and proud history of defending our freedoms since that historic day in 1775 when the American Minutemen fired “the shot heard round the world”. While our soldiers might not have always been the best trained and/or armed, especially during the first part of our nation's history, the argument could easily be made that they were by far more tenacious than their foes.
The immortal cries of, “I have not yet begun to fight!” “Remember the Alamo!” “Retreat! Hell we just got here!” “Come on you sons-of-bitches, you want to live forever?!”, still echo through the halls and barracks of our American fighting men and women.
“But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.” - Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address.
Our American soldiers have never failed to give their all for their country. Even in Vietnam, despite the incompetence and war mongering of the politicians, our American soldiers fought the communist threat to a standstill and it wasn't until three years after the last American left Vietnam that the communists attacked again.
Now we see the same thing happening in Iraq, the muddled goals of the politicians squandering the fighting talent of our soldiers. Take away the deserts and add the jungles and it's starting to look like Vietnam all over again.
The body count for our forces in Iraq is 4,143 and climbing, and for what purpose? Weapons of Mass Destruction have not been found and there is strong evidence that they never existed. An Iraqi democratic government and constitution have been in place since 2006. And in April of 2008, the Iraqi Prime Minister informed President Bush that the Iraq security forces were capable of handling the security of the nation and that American troops could begin withdrawing.
Our troops are still there and now there are moves by the Bush camp to extend our stay in Iraq past the 2008 deadline imposed by the United Nations.
Politicians started a war they had no business starting. Politicians have willingly sent American soldiers to their death without explaining why they are doing it, other than some vague references to the war on terror and our Christian duty. That our forces have made any progress is due entirely to the bravery and abilities of our American soldiers and not the desk driving politicians that sent them there.
“The welfare of the people, in particular, has always been the alibi of tyrants.” -Albert Camus
It's time to bring our soldiers home, Mr. President. Or, is there something else we should know about?
A hundred hours versus a hundred years
By Tim Gibbons. Published by High Plains View on August 22, 2008.
“At this moment, our brave servicemen and women stand watch in that distant desert and on distant seas, side by side with the forces of more than 20 other nations. They are some of the finest men and women of the United States of America. And they're doing one terrific job. These valiant Americans were ready at a moment's notice to leave their spouses and their children, to serve on the front line halfway around the world. They remind us who keeps America strong: they do. In the trying circumstances of the Gulf, the morale of our service men and women is excellent. In the face of danger, they're brave, they're well trained and dedicated.
A soldier, Private First Class Wade Merritt of Knoxville, Tennessee, now stationed in Saudi Arabia, wrote his parents of his worries, his love of family, and his hope for peace. But Wade also wrote, 'I am proud of my country and its firm stance against inhumane aggression. I am proud of my army and its men. I am proud to serve my country.' Well, let me just say, Wade, America is proud of you and is grateful to every soldier, sailor, marine and airman serving the cause of peace in the Persian Gulf.” - President George H.W. Bush before a joint session of Congress, September 11, 1990
The Persian Gulf War began on August 2, 1990 with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Two hundred eleven days later, including 38 days of preparatory bombing and a 100 hour ground campaign, Kuwait was freed by a coalition of 34 nations, led by the United States.
The war was one of the most successful engagements fought by the United States and far from suffering the 30,000 to 40,000 causalities that had been estimated by the Pentagon, the United States and her allies suffered only 380 casualties, 293 of which were American (146 killed in combat, 148 killed in out-of-combat accidents).
It was truly one of our finest hours and while many criticized that Saddam Hussein was not captured, the reasoning for this was summed up in 1992 by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney,
“I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”
Now, 17 years later, we find ourselves in the exact situation that President George Bush, Senior, and his staff were trying to avoid: a long, bloody holding action known as the Operation Enduring Freedom.
Since its start in March 19, 2003, the United States has suffered 4,143 confirmed deaths as of August 19, 2008. To date the United States government and her citizens have spent approximately $845 billion and climbing with the total cost to the U.S. economy estimated at $3 trillion.
Compare this to the $61.1 billion that America spent in the first Persian Gulf War and that was with a build up of 540,000 troops, nearly twice the number of troops that invaded Iraq the second time.
Consider also, that despite the reports by President George W. Bush and his administration, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have never been found, neither was there a strong connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
In January, 2005, the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) reported that they had, “not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003.” David Kay, the head of ISG resigned his position in January 23, 2004, stating he didn't believe WMD would be found in Iraq, “I don't think they existed,” Kay commented. “What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties.”
The Center for Public Integrity reported that, between 2001 and 2003, the Bush Administration made a total of 935 false statements concerning the intelligence about WMD, terrorist links to Al Qaeda and the threat Iraq posed to America. Even for an American President that is a lot of mistakes.
One also must consider that at the end of the first Persian Gulf War, Iraq, which had been one of the most progressive and well-armed Arab nations, was decimated, suffering not only the loss of an estimated 22,000 soldiers (U.S. Air Force report), but the loss of 11 major power stations and 119 substations with six more major stations damaged. At the end of the war, electricity production was at four percent of its pre-war levels. Bombs destroyed the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations and many sewage treatment plants, turning Iraq from one of the most advanced Arab countries into one of the most backward. Telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges also were destroyed.
This situation had improved very little in Iraq by the second conflict, due to the trade sanctions imposed upon them by the United Nations and the continued patrolling and bombing by American planes in the no-fly zones that were established between the wars.
Based on the ISG and intelligence from the CIA and other intelligence agencies in other nations, Iraq had an interest in developing their WMD program but did not have the resources, nor the ability to develop it, thanks in a large part to the sanctions and monitoring of United Nation inspectors.
The question then remains, why the war on terrorism in Iraq? They were still shattered from the first Gulf War and the constant flyovers and bombings that proceeded between the wars. They had no WMD's as their program was a fatality of the first war and the sanctions that followed. Al Qaeda had only a slight influence, far less than they wielded in Afghanistan or Pakistan according to military and CIA reports. Even Saudi Arabia, our ally, had more connections to Bin Laden than Iraq. So why whip a dead dog?
The only other reason given for the war was the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq. As of October 15, 2005, the Iraqi Constitution was ratified. Elections were held in December of the same year and the Iraq National Assembly took office on May 20, 2006.
On April 9, 2008, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told President Bush that Iraqi security forces were capable of fulfilling their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation allows. Two days later, Bush responded that he was not ready to order further troop withdrawals from Iraq and his administration has pursued extending the UN authorization for the continued presence of the American- led coalition in Iraq. Currently, the UN authorization requires that all coalition forces be removed by the end of 2008.
It could be argued that the job is done, the battle won. So why aren't our troops coming home? Senator John McCain seemed to have the answer at a town hall meeting at Derry, New Hampshire in January of this year...
Question posed: “President Bush has talked about our troops staying in Iraq for 50 years...”
McCain (interrupting): “Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
Tell little Johnny not to wait up, it doesn't look like daddy's coming home this year.
“At this moment, our brave servicemen and women stand watch in that distant desert and on distant seas, side by side with the forces of more than 20 other nations. They are some of the finest men and women of the United States of America. And they're doing one terrific job. These valiant Americans were ready at a moment's notice to leave their spouses and their children, to serve on the front line halfway around the world. They remind us who keeps America strong: they do. In the trying circumstances of the Gulf, the morale of our service men and women is excellent. In the face of danger, they're brave, they're well trained and dedicated.
A soldier, Private First Class Wade Merritt of Knoxville, Tennessee, now stationed in Saudi Arabia, wrote his parents of his worries, his love of family, and his hope for peace. But Wade also wrote, 'I am proud of my country and its firm stance against inhumane aggression. I am proud of my army and its men. I am proud to serve my country.' Well, let me just say, Wade, America is proud of you and is grateful to every soldier, sailor, marine and airman serving the cause of peace in the Persian Gulf.” - President George H.W. Bush before a joint session of Congress, September 11, 1990
The Persian Gulf War began on August 2, 1990 with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Two hundred eleven days later, including 38 days of preparatory bombing and a 100 hour ground campaign, Kuwait was freed by a coalition of 34 nations, led by the United States.
The war was one of the most successful engagements fought by the United States and far from suffering the 30,000 to 40,000 causalities that had been estimated by the Pentagon, the United States and her allies suffered only 380 casualties, 293 of which were American (146 killed in combat, 148 killed in out-of-combat accidents).
It was truly one of our finest hours and while many criticized that Saddam Hussein was not captured, the reasoning for this was summed up in 1992 by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney,
“I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”
Now, 17 years later, we find ourselves in the exact situation that President George Bush, Senior, and his staff were trying to avoid: a long, bloody holding action known as the Operation Enduring Freedom.
Since its start in March 19, 2003, the United States has suffered 4,143 confirmed deaths as of August 19, 2008. To date the United States government and her citizens have spent approximately $845 billion and climbing with the total cost to the U.S. economy estimated at $3 trillion.
Compare this to the $61.1 billion that America spent in the first Persian Gulf War and that was with a build up of 540,000 troops, nearly twice the number of troops that invaded Iraq the second time.
Consider also, that despite the reports by President George W. Bush and his administration, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have never been found, neither was there a strong connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
In January, 2005, the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) reported that they had, “not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003.” David Kay, the head of ISG resigned his position in January 23, 2004, stating he didn't believe WMD would be found in Iraq, “I don't think they existed,” Kay commented. “What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties.”
The Center for Public Integrity reported that, between 2001 and 2003, the Bush Administration made a total of 935 false statements concerning the intelligence about WMD, terrorist links to Al Qaeda and the threat Iraq posed to America. Even for an American President that is a lot of mistakes.
One also must consider that at the end of the first Persian Gulf War, Iraq, which had been one of the most progressive and well-armed Arab nations, was decimated, suffering not only the loss of an estimated 22,000 soldiers (U.S. Air Force report), but the loss of 11 major power stations and 119 substations with six more major stations damaged. At the end of the war, electricity production was at four percent of its pre-war levels. Bombs destroyed the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations and many sewage treatment plants, turning Iraq from one of the most advanced Arab countries into one of the most backward. Telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges also were destroyed.
This situation had improved very little in Iraq by the second conflict, due to the trade sanctions imposed upon them by the United Nations and the continued patrolling and bombing by American planes in the no-fly zones that were established between the wars.
Based on the ISG and intelligence from the CIA and other intelligence agencies in other nations, Iraq had an interest in developing their WMD program but did not have the resources, nor the ability to develop it, thanks in a large part to the sanctions and monitoring of United Nation inspectors.
The question then remains, why the war on terrorism in Iraq? They were still shattered from the first Gulf War and the constant flyovers and bombings that proceeded between the wars. They had no WMD's as their program was a fatality of the first war and the sanctions that followed. Al Qaeda had only a slight influence, far less than they wielded in Afghanistan or Pakistan according to military and CIA reports. Even Saudi Arabia, our ally, had more connections to Bin Laden than Iraq. So why whip a dead dog?
The only other reason given for the war was the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq. As of October 15, 2005, the Iraqi Constitution was ratified. Elections were held in December of the same year and the Iraq National Assembly took office on May 20, 2006.
On April 9, 2008, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told President Bush that Iraqi security forces were capable of fulfilling their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation allows. Two days later, Bush responded that he was not ready to order further troop withdrawals from Iraq and his administration has pursued extending the UN authorization for the continued presence of the American- led coalition in Iraq. Currently, the UN authorization requires that all coalition forces be removed by the end of 2008.
It could be argued that the job is done, the battle won. So why aren't our troops coming home? Senator John McCain seemed to have the answer at a town hall meeting at Derry, New Hampshire in January of this year...
Question posed: “President Bush has talked about our troops staying in Iraq for 50 years...”
McCain (interrupting): “Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
Tell little Johnny not to wait up, it doesn't look like daddy's coming home this year.
A moment of reflection
By Tim Gibbons: Published by the High Plains View, August 15, 2008.
August 15 is a rather interesting day in history.
On this day in 1920, the Polish defeated the Red Army in the Battle of Warsaw. Twenty five years later, August 15, 1945, the Japanese surrendered, ending World War II. And, while not as spectacular, this year, August 15, witnessed the first anniversary of our paper, the High Plains View.
Coming to the realization that I had been writing and helping to design a weekly paper for fifty-two issues suddenly made me feel quite old, despite only being 24.
My involvement in the paper was actually not of my doing and when Toni, aka Mom, had first approached me about doing a paper, I said, “that's nice,” and made it clear that I was content to keep working as a fencer and barn builder for the time being.
Mom said she accepted this and then, not a week later, she asked me if I could help her with setting up the templates on the computer. With no thought given to ulterior motives, I said, “Yes.”
The next thing I knew, I was being assigned stories and eventually started working as a reporter full time. The curse of sneaky mothers.
Regardless of what people think, reporting isn't a piece of cake...well maybe fruit cake. From the long hours proofing and writing to the running to cover events and the inevitable hiccups such as power failures, flat tires and getting lost in Ramah (a story I regaled our readers with in a previous issue), the newspaper world rarely offers a dull moment.
But, at the same time, I wouldn't trade this last year for anything. I've had the chance to share in peoples’ lives and experience our prairie in a way few people could.
I have seen the worst that man has to offer and I've seen the best. It never ceases to amaze me that the people we place upon the pedestal are most often the most crooked and those who hide in the shadows are the most honorable.
A hero doesn't need a soap box, a person of valor doesn't need an audience and an honest individual doesn't need an image. The true heroes of our prairie are the people who get up everyday and work to make this world a better place, even if that work consists only of give a smile and warm welcome to the people they meet.
“Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius, and a lot of courage, to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein.
After a year of writing, I am more convinced than ever that mankind is not defined by the trappings in their lives but by their humanity, how they treat their fellow human beings. Religion, color, creed or nationality are nothing if they are held by a tyrant and it is often those that preach the loudest who are the ones trying to hide the most.
If we as a species are to become more than what we are, we must pursue peace, tolerance and understanding. How can we say we are divine creatures when we so willingly steal, cheat and kill our fellow man? Must we continue to judge our fellows because they are a different color, a different culture or pray to a different god?
This day, instead of judging your neighbor help them. Rather than spreading gossip, point out the good of your fellows. And take no offense at the questions of others, especially if they be children.
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” -Thomas Jefferson
Our nation was founded upon man's reason, his tolerance and his desire for equality. In the end it is not the politicians, the critics, or even the religious that matter. The credit for our great nation must go to those men and women who have put the responsibility of our Republic upon their shoulders, not out of blind zeal but deliberate purpose.
If our forefathers could make a conscious decision to fight for the right of every man, woman and child to be free, then should we not make that conscious decision to do good, rather than evil. The lazy fool and the tyrant have this in common, they care only for themselves and their image.
As a final note, always remember, that the race does not belong to the self-proclaimed heroes, the politicians, the swift of foot or the leaders of man, nor does it belong to the god- fearing. The race, ladies and gentlemen, belongs to those individuals who are too damn stubborn to quit.
This is our heritage as humans and our tradition as American citizens.
August 15 is a rather interesting day in history.
On this day in 1920, the Polish defeated the Red Army in the Battle of Warsaw. Twenty five years later, August 15, 1945, the Japanese surrendered, ending World War II. And, while not as spectacular, this year, August 15, witnessed the first anniversary of our paper, the High Plains View.
Coming to the realization that I had been writing and helping to design a weekly paper for fifty-two issues suddenly made me feel quite old, despite only being 24.
My involvement in the paper was actually not of my doing and when Toni, aka Mom, had first approached me about doing a paper, I said, “that's nice,” and made it clear that I was content to keep working as a fencer and barn builder for the time being.
Mom said she accepted this and then, not a week later, she asked me if I could help her with setting up the templates on the computer. With no thought given to ulterior motives, I said, “Yes.”
The next thing I knew, I was being assigned stories and eventually started working as a reporter full time. The curse of sneaky mothers.
Regardless of what people think, reporting isn't a piece of cake...well maybe fruit cake. From the long hours proofing and writing to the running to cover events and the inevitable hiccups such as power failures, flat tires and getting lost in Ramah (a story I regaled our readers with in a previous issue), the newspaper world rarely offers a dull moment.
But, at the same time, I wouldn't trade this last year for anything. I've had the chance to share in peoples’ lives and experience our prairie in a way few people could.
I have seen the worst that man has to offer and I've seen the best. It never ceases to amaze me that the people we place upon the pedestal are most often the most crooked and those who hide in the shadows are the most honorable.
A hero doesn't need a soap box, a person of valor doesn't need an audience and an honest individual doesn't need an image. The true heroes of our prairie are the people who get up everyday and work to make this world a better place, even if that work consists only of give a smile and warm welcome to the people they meet.
“Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius, and a lot of courage, to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein.
After a year of writing, I am more convinced than ever that mankind is not defined by the trappings in their lives but by their humanity, how they treat their fellow human beings. Religion, color, creed or nationality are nothing if they are held by a tyrant and it is often those that preach the loudest who are the ones trying to hide the most.
If we as a species are to become more than what we are, we must pursue peace, tolerance and understanding. How can we say we are divine creatures when we so willingly steal, cheat and kill our fellow man? Must we continue to judge our fellows because they are a different color, a different culture or pray to a different god?
This day, instead of judging your neighbor help them. Rather than spreading gossip, point out the good of your fellows. And take no offense at the questions of others, especially if they be children.
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” -Thomas Jefferson
Our nation was founded upon man's reason, his tolerance and his desire for equality. In the end it is not the politicians, the critics, or even the religious that matter. The credit for our great nation must go to those men and women who have put the responsibility of our Republic upon their shoulders, not out of blind zeal but deliberate purpose.
If our forefathers could make a conscious decision to fight for the right of every man, woman and child to be free, then should we not make that conscious decision to do good, rather than evil. The lazy fool and the tyrant have this in common, they care only for themselves and their image.
As a final note, always remember, that the race does not belong to the self-proclaimed heroes, the politicians, the swift of foot or the leaders of man, nor does it belong to the god- fearing. The race, ladies and gentlemen, belongs to those individuals who are too damn stubborn to quit.
This is our heritage as humans and our tradition as American citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
