Does Truth Have a Political Party?

Excellent article Jdubhub, +1 Though I do not agree with you on some of what you wrote. (I believe this war was needed to be waged. I would have liked to seen it sooner.) I do agree with you on a lot of what you wrote.

My question is if we elect those who represent us, how do we fix this broken government we have and restore confidence of the people in our Representatives?

My newest
http://www.xomba.com/the_heartbeat_of_xomba

My feeling is that had the United States government under Eisenhower in 1953 intervened in the internal affairs of Iran, ousting the popular Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, which allowed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, to increase his stranglehold on Iranian politics and her people. That reign of terror under his SAVAK led to general unrest that culminated in his fleeing Iran in 1979 and the start of the Hostage Crisis. The ascension of the Ayatollah Khomeni turned a relatively secular friend of the U.S. into a fundamentalist enemy of the U.S., politically speaking.

Saddam Hussein, a two-bit dictator and opportunist, invaded Iran to take advantage of the general unrest in Iran and soon realized that he was no match for people with a real stomach to defend their country. The United States, under Reagan, intervened with real-time intelligence and, perhaps most infamously, with the material means to wage chemical and biological war against Iran. What they also don't teach in school is the U.S. government gave Hussein those weapons even after he used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Halabja.

Even the precipitator of Gulf War I was the U.S. giving Saddam Hussein the green light to attack Kuwait. (See conversation with Ambassador April Gillespie just prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.)

So, we recognize and support Israel, who many Arabs believe stole the land from the rightful occupants in Palestine, and provide the logistical support for the Israelis to murder Muslim women and children. We intervene in Iran and move that country from a parliamentary system to a dictatorship to fundamentalist Islamic country. We prop up a megalomaniacal madman in Iraq, even after he gassed his own people and invaded another Islamic country, and we gave him the tools to develop his own WMD. Then, after we gave him assurances that he could defend his country's sovereignty from Kuwait oil theft, we turn the world against him, invade his country, and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children in the contrary-to-UN-guidelines "no fly zones" and other sanctions after he surrendered. In 2003, Bush invaded again--against international law--without a plan beyond "kill Saddam". In the years since he declared "Mission Accomplished", thousands of American troops have died in addition to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

If Bush truly had wanted to go after Islamic terrorists post-9/11 as he claims, we would have invaded Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (in addition to Afghanistan), instead of Iraq. If Bush were truly concerned about a country with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, we would have invaded North Korea and not Iraq.

The problem with Bush's rhetoric and posturing is that, while some of the American people may have been fooled by it, the world--and certainly the Islamic peoples--has not. Bush said that "God" told him to invade Iraq. Bush also gaffed at one point when he said that America was on a "Crusade" in the Middle East.

My opinion is we have no business being in the Middle East. Israel should learn to fight its own battles without our help. Considering the volatility of both our economy and the dollar, we should move away from doing things that will further cause us grief, including bombing Iran and Syria.

The Arabs were our friends before 1948. Ask yourself what changed that year and I will offer reversing that as the first step in restoring our Constitution.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

If they were our friends why did the Arabs countries support Hitler and Germany in WW2

I would have to research that more, but I don't believe that any Arab country was necessarily pro-German as much as they were anti-British.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Parts of the Arab world were controlled by Britain and other Allies (the British had mandates in the areas that now include Israel, Jordan, Iraq, etc.; France had Lebanon and Syria). So the Arabs might have not cared at all about the Nazis and their policies but were glad to support the side that it thought could get them free of the Brits and others.

The victors of WWI had basically split up the Arab (and other) lands the way they wanted, which many people consider the root of the problems that have been plaguing the Middle East since then: countries were created like Iraq, Trans-Jordan, etc. that many feel weren't really based on logical or historical or ethnic lines.

WWII was more than 50 years ago; things change.

There are photos much more recent that show Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

And speaking of God, I'm looking at a "KCM's "Believer's Voice of Victory"-article by David Barton entitled "Republic vs. Democracy," reminding readers that--from the beginning--"we were not and were never to become, a democracy" (as I first learned from you, JDub).

The thing that continues to fool people into thinking we ~are~ a democracy is the process of becoming a representative ... it was originally thought that the representatives--being "of the people"--would naturally want happiness for the people.

But with there being 'career' politicians nowadays, you have "seekers-of-power" instead of 'people of the people.' (And conditions put upon the latter position make it impossible to retain the former!)

... signed, Uncle MythMan---Big Fan of Friend-Networks like Hi-5 - About SuperBust, Watch Me