American lives and treasure have been spent on re-building Iraq. Other nations have joined in a supported this effort, yet America has taken the brunt of the criticism, therefore to those other nations do not take this as an affront to your efforts. They are very much appreciated. This being said, it was America that led the coalition and it is America that is now pulling out of Iraqi cities and leaving it to the Iraqis to defend and protect.

As noble as this sounds, what happens when the Islamists scare the good people of Iraq back into oppression? Ten years from now, what kind of nation will Iraq be? Will it be a freedom loving democracy or will it more or less resemble present day Iran? My bet is placed on the latter.

Though the present administration has stated that American troops will stay out of the cities unless specifically requested, I don't see the present administration leaving enough troops in Iraq to be effective. In the end, the Obama administration will say the Iraq needs to take responsibility and that we can't always be there to be their safety blanket. Anyone paying attention to American politics sees this as the polar opposite to what they are attempting internally.

Ten years from now, Iraq will be an islamist nation suppressing it's religion minorities and following some sort of shari'a law. Imam's will control Iraqi minds and will be dictating Iraq's future. The American administration and it's supporters will lay all of this at the feet of George W. Bush though he is already far removed from what is taking place. He will take the brunt because he took us into Iraq in the first place. The land of the free will be held accountable for developing a nation of oppression and fear.

Other nations in the region, just as vicious and oppressive, will take advantage of the situation while also pointing the finger. In the end it will be proven that the Americans no longer care about anyone or anything but themselves and they aren't really good at that either.

As America withdraws from Iraq how many Iraqis will be murdered? How many Iraqi children will be blown up going to school? How many Iraqi mothers and fathers will live in fear for their families lives because they may believe the wrong thing or actually want a decent future for their children? None of this matters to the immature and selfish western world. As long as we have our health care paid for by rich people and the bad guys stay where they are.

September 11th has already been forgotten in America. It is nothing more than just another day on the calendar. Twenty years from now, Iraq won't be more than a blip on a timeline in the American history books. Iraq will rejoin it's allies in the Axis of evil and America will have to take the blame. Lives were lost because we supposedly believed in freedom and democracy. We used to believe that every individual has value and a right to act on their own behalf and pursue that which makes the happy. How can we say that with a straight face as we watch Iraq turn into an islamc state which negates this very possibility?

I wish someone would explain to me what exactly makes one "pro western"? I have heard this title given to numerous people throughout the world who seem to have no link to western civilization other than the money they receive. Culturally they are often 180 degrees the opposite of western societies. Then again. may I am the one with the wrong definition of Western Civilization. Maybe my view of western societies being representative of liberty and freedom and willingness to fight for and defend their own freedoms and the freedoms of others is passe.

Lebanon's newly appointed Prime Minister, Sa'ad al-Hariri, is considered "pro-western". However, there is nothing in his statements or actions that would lead me to this assumption. His own father was killed by the Syrian government yet he is willing to work hand in had with a Syrian proxy, Hizbullah. If this isn't a spit in the face to his father I don't know what is.

Now that I have said that, it looks alot like western civilization and their politicians after all. Instead of killing the enemy, make deals with it. Instead of fighting evil, allow it to eat at your house. After all, we are all the same. No culture or set of values is better than another. All that matters is that we are alive. Living in fear is better than death. Living as slaves is better than dying free. Bowing down to a master is better than standing tall for yourself and risking life.

What a pathetic world we have developed.

It wasn' that long ago that enterntainers were considered the lowest form of human being. Actors and comedians (fools) were treated worse than second class citizens. They provided nothing of value to the world. Oh how times have changed. Now actors, comedians, and singers have been placed at the top of society. Everything they say and do must be tracked and paid attention too. If it weren't for them we would have no possible way of making decisions on our own.

These same people are usually people who are trying to escape some sort of reality they didn't lie. Maybe their mother was a nympho or an addict. Maybe there was a male in the family who was a molestor or a father who was abusive. When you hear the stories of these people and who the grew up with you realize right away how screwed up they are. Yet, they are still idolized. Why?

So Michael Jackson has died. What makes his death more important than the death of my neighbor or one of my family members? What did  Michael Jackson do that was so important? He went around the world singing and dancing. All of this was to avoid facing his own true demons. On top of this he, at the very least, had a fetish for young boys. We call this pedophilia. As a Father, this is a crime that deserves death. You touch my child, and I will spend the rest of my life in prison for murder. There would be one less pervert on the planet and children would be safer.

Michael Jackson is not a hero. I do have a sense of pity for the man because it wasn't all his fault. His family and upbringing leaves alot to be desired. However, in the end, his decisions and his actions were his own.

Actors, singers, and comedians are nothing but a temporary means of escapism. In the end they are nothing more than a cheap, shortlived high. Having lived their lives trying to escape reality, why should anyone pay any attention to them?

What's for dinner?

Barack Obama had stated that we needed to go back to the diplomacy of thirty years ago. To anyone who has actually lived through that period or has decided to research this period for themselves, they probably don't like this idea. That is, unless you find it acceptable to make deals with murderous tyrants.

The same group of people who are attempting to set up deals with the present set of assorted thieves and murderers were the ones screaming the loudest against this approach 30 years ago. I don't believe it should be considered a badge of honor that murderers have respect for your actions or words.

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal on Thursday praised what he described as US President Barack Obama's "new language" towards the group.

If Khaled Mashaal has something nice to say about you then you have done something very wrong. For a murderous thug living in luxury in exile to praise you means that you are seen as someone he can manipulate. He is probably right.

However, he said the US must respect the Palestinians' democratic choice.

Here's were words get parsed and redefined. We have respected the choice of the Gaza "palestinians" We did not enter Gaza and attempt to overthrow Hamas. Instead, we have allowed the Gaza "palestinians" to suffer under their own decision. Hamas is a terror group and we will not, at least until Obama changes the policy, deal with terrorists. This is the greatest amount of respect we can give. They wanted it, let them have it. It doesn't mean we have to negotiate with it. This would be hypocrisy and extremely disrespectful.

He said Netanyahu's "call for a so-called Jewish state is a racist demand that is no different from calls by Italian Fascists and Hitler's Nazism."

Yet an islamic state of "palestine" would be acceptable? Seeing as the islamists appreciated and supported both the Nazis and the Fascists, this hypocrisy is telling.

Instead of dealing with this man, whats wrong with just killing him and getting him out of the picture altogether?

The policies of thirty years ago failed and they will fail again. But who cares. Truth doesn't work in diplomatic circles.

People that view the world in Black and White are ridiculed in todays society. They are accused of being too rigid and simplistic. "The world is gray" we are told. I have always taken this as an insult and as a show of ignorance on these peoples part. The world is not gray. In every situation there is a right thing to do and then everything else. Everything else, no matter how close to right it is, is wrong.

The enemy we face today believes in Black and White. Not only do they believe it, they live by it. They believe that you either follow allah and believe his prophet or you should die. It is that simple to them. There are no if's or but's about it. You are either a muslim or you are an infidel and deserve death. There is their world and our world, there is no mixing of the two. In the end, they want to rule based on allah's laws.

In the West's race to pure secularism, we have blinded ourselves to the facts of life. In the end, there is only right and wrong. No matter how painful, right must always be done. Right must always be taught. Right must always be rewarded. Wrong must be punished. Living in a relativist society puts us in a severe disadvantage when confronting non-compromising people. We may have an advantage for a short period of time but this will wane and apathy will take over. This leads to our destruction.

There is no longer anything worth fighting or dying for. Thus, there is nothing worth living for. This is the tragic result of taking freedom for granted. It is the result of discarding responsibility yet clinging to rights. We cast off rights that were granted us inherently by a creator and place man at the head of these rights. This makes it impossible to have consistent moral values and strong ethics. Our rights are then left subject to the whims of other men. In the end this creates chaos and leads to suicide.

The islamic enemy is well aware of this and taking advantage of it. Sadly, our present path towards destruction was taken with smiles on our faces and false compassion in our hearts. If we don't get back on the proper path, the shock caused by the horror of our destination will prohibit us from righting our ship.

I guess rhetoric is in and truth is out. Western politicians have grasped onto the idea that words mean more than action. Whether you liked George Bush or not, he always attempted to back up his words with actions. The Taliban and Saddam Hussein found this out the hard way. So did the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, China, and anyone else who lives by the fraudulent perception of the "pen is mightier than the sword".

Barack Obama doesn't see things this way. He thinks that words and the perception of action is more vital than the actual following through on them. Though, he has pushed his socialist agenda as hard as possible through the US congress in regards to how Americans must pay for all the wrongs in the world.

"I strongly condemn these unjust actions," Obama said in a news conference at the White House that lasted slightly less than an hour.

First, what does his "strong condemnation" do for those being imprisoned, beaten, and killed? Second, what idea of justice is he approaching this from? The Ayatollah's version of justice is a lot different than ours in America. In fact, the Iranian government is living up to it's idea of justice. According to Mr. Obama, all cultures are equal therefore their version of justice cannot be judged by us on the outside.

"I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering in Iran's affairs," Obama said. "But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place."

Why must we "respect" the sovereignty of Iran when they don't respect the sovereignty of others? Also, did anyone notice the reference to Iran as the ISLAMIC Republic? Funny how they can be an ISLAMIC republic but Israel can't be JEWISH. Doesn't this qualify as a double standard at best and hypocrisy at worst? Once again, what does his deploring the violence going to do for these people? Empty words, and nothing more.

Asked if Iran will face consequences for how it has acted, Obama said the world is watching and Iran's handling of dissent "will help shape the tone not only for Iran's future but also its relationship to other countries."

What consequences will be faced? They have been under serious sanctions for years to no avail. Under the table there are always governments allowing business to be conducted "as usual" no matter what is stated publicly. Iran's future is already shaped. It is the same as it's past. Violence and oppression. Unless the ayatollah and his monkeys are overthrown, nothing will change. In the end, all of the moral relativists will end up making deals with them and forget all of this.

Just what are we, the leaders of the free world going to do? Continue spewing ignorance of course.

"We're not going to get involved in endorsing or not endorsing specific actions inside of Iran," (Robert) Gibbs said. "This is for Iranians to debate - their next leadership. I think the president wants to ensure that he doesn't become a political football that the regime uses against anybody that seeks justice in Iran."

What next leadership? The ayatollah is the leader. The President of Iran is nothing more than a puppet and a mouthpiece. The leadership isn't changing. In fact, the leadership wasn't up for election nor has it been for over 30 years.

"Obviously if a tremendous escalation happens - if tanks happen - we would respond to that immediately," Gibbs said.

Just what would be done? Will this President send Americans to die while the rest of the free world sits on the sidelines? Will this President do what is right no matter what others choose to do? Will this President stand against Russia and China and Islamic nations? Will this President attack Iran with Iranian allies located to the Western hemisphere threatening to assist Iran? No. He doesn't have the courage. It would be nothing more than a continuous verbal battle in the United Nations while people are murdered.

Iran doesn't care what America and the West think. They do not believe that the present Western leadership has the will to do what is necessary. They know they can continue to oppress as they please and spit in our direction. They have been daring us to do something for 30 years. This attempt at posturing only makes it more tragically humorous.

Originally posted at Gentile Warrior

As I have mentioned previously, I am not going to take the romanticized approach to the present happening in the streets of Iran. The reason for this is pretty simple to see. What is the actual difference between Ahamdinejad and Mousavi? Because, of the lack of a difference, I am not allowing any hopes to be heightened only to be quashed again. However, if the following report is true, their may be a glimmer of hope for Iran.

Underscoring how the protesters have become emboldened despite the regime's repeated and ominous warnings, witnesses said some shouted "Death to Khamenei!" at Saturday's demonstrations - another sign of once unthinkable challenges to the virtually limitless authority of the country's most powerful figure.

This could be a mere aberration. It could be a misquote or it could be a reporter making something up. However, if it is true and there are more people who believe this way, the overthrow of the ayatollah would be a valid first step to actual reform. Yes it would involve a true revolution. I don't believe the Iranian people are all on board with that. If this idea is in the minority it could lead to what the islamists seem to be good at, terror. If this belief is rumbling under the surface don't be surprised if there are more homicide bombings and car bombings at government locations and at mosques who support the ayatollah.

Don't pay much attention to the "human rights groups" complaining. They have proven themselves to be manipulators of the facts time and again. These same groups that are now castigating Iran did nothing about it prior to the election. In fact they were more concerned about American and Israeli "atrocities" than the were about the main atrocitizers in Iran or Syria, or throughout Africa.

If the Iranian people truly want liberty, as defined in the West, then I am all in support of their revolution. If all they want is an overthrow of the current despot only to be replaced by their despot, then I could care less what they do or what happens to them. I surely don't want American lives wasted or American treasure spent to support another murderer.

By the way, who is protecting the nuclear facilities?

Originally posted at Gentile Warrior

But the very margin of his victory - a two-thirds to one-third margin in Ahmadinejad's favor - has left many questioning the authenticity of the "democratic" elections, since the run-up to Friday's vote suggested a tight race between Ahmadinejad and the leading reformist candidate, former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi.

I am sure that Jimmy Carter would have proclaimed this a legitimate "free" and well run election. That aside, this is another one of those things that was to be expected. Prior to the election, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been told to prepare for another five years by the Grand Ayatollah. this put away any possibility of Momo losing. In the end, what the ayatollah says, happens within Iran.

The truth of the matter is that the only difference between Momo and Mir are their vocal approaches. Mir would have been more calm and deliberate in his delivery of anti-Israeli, anti-Western rhetoric. He was deemed a "moderate" by the west, not on his positions but on his tone. This is where the west continually failed when dealing with the Middle East.

Now there are clashes in the streets of Iran. Don't be misled. These people still hate us more than they hate their own despotic government. We have heard for years how there was an under swell in Iran that was going to topple the ayatollah and his regime. It hasn't happened yet and I don't see it in the near future. Tienanmen Square was supposed to be the turning point in China. Instead these people were hunted down and imprisoned or killed. Iran will do the same. People will go back to living in fear while there government keeps the boot on them.

Yes the election was rigged. What is the world prepared to do about it? NOTHING. It refuses to deal properly with other despots why should this one be any different.

I'm sure Barack Obama has already found a way to blame America for this.

Before I get started I have a question. Has anyone else noticed that Barack Obama seems to have a "new plan for something" every other day? Not only do we not get the facts or access to whatever he comes up with, even if you tried, he would have something else to go look up before you could get started. You can never catch up to what he is proposing. Either this stuff was preplanned by others and given to him after the election, or it is made up on the moment and definitely needs to be reviewed. As I have noticed in the media, most of the Democratic Congressmen and women never even read what they are ready to approve. The government is getting larger and the people in the government don't want to take the time to do their jobs.

I also don't like the title "whatever" Czar. To anyone who knows their history this is not a good title. A Czar is a Caesar which is an Emporer. The last Czar did whatever he wanted and was overthrown and replaced by a Politbureau. This doesn't bode well for the Land of the Free.

Now on to what Iwanted to talk about. Despite his denial, Barack Obama is a socialist. All of these plans and programs he is enacting all put the government in charge. The government will decide what is good and bad for us. The government will be the ones making the decision on health care, food, housing, cars, and anything else you can think of. Barack Obama tries to put a nice little spin on his ideas to quell the fears of those of us who want less government. It doesn;t work. Only those ignorant about History, Economics, and Politics are falling for his misleading diatribes. Just because you don't call a horse a horse doesn't mean it isn't a horse.

One payer health insurance. This sounds swell to the ignorant masses. However, who is this one payer? That's right, the government. Where does the government get it's money? The taxpayer. This means that 253 million people who pay for their own health care will be paying for the 47 million that supposedly don't have health insurance. In the background of all of this, the rumors are still flying that people are going to be taxed on their present health benefits. He can throw all kinds of misleading pretty words at this idea he wants to. In the end, IT IS SOCIALISM. He said he wanted to redistribute wealth and he has been doing oit since he took his oath of office.

Can anyone remember the government actually running something that made a profit? The government doesn't earn money, it takes it. Just about everyday of my adult life I have heard people complain about how inept and corrupt the Congress is. Yet, these same people want this same Congress to have more control over them. This is either hypocrisy or stupidity. It definitely doesn't make any sense.

Barack Obama is definitely a man of action. Tragically it is the wrong action. He is driving the United States 100 mph on the wrong highway. This highway being buily with stinulus funds hasn't been paved yet. Not only is the ride going to be bumpy. It will end in the middle of a desert.

A Muslim convert charged with fatally shooting an American soldier at a military recruiting center said Tuesday that he doesn't consider the killing a murder because U.S. military action in the Middle East made the killing justified.

Make sure you read the above paragraph carefully. The killing was justified. The killing of a man standing on a sidewalk smoking a cigarette was justified. The killing of a young man who had just completed basic training and was waiting to go to his assignment to protect the United States as well as Iraqi's was justified. What could justify this action?

Muhammad, 23, said he wanted revenge for claims that American military personnel had desecrated copies of the Quran and killed or raped Muslims. "For this reason, no Muslim, male or female, sane or insane, little, big, small, old can accept or tolerate," he said.

So because there are a few bad apples they must all pay? Though you had nothing to do with what a handful of people have done, you will pay with your life anyway. Where does this come from?

"Yes, I did tell the police upon my arrest that this was an act of retaliation, and not a reaction on the soldiers personally," Muhammad said. He called it "a act, for the sake of God, for the sake of Allah, the Lord of all the world, and also a retaliation on U.S. military."

For the sake of allah. My guess is he read his koran and learned that allah hates non-believers and calls for their death. According to allah, anything done for his advancement is good. This would justify murder.

The problem is, what do we call this murder? Does it qualify as an act of terror? If it does, why can't we call it this? Maybe the Teenager in charge is wrong and the war on terror isn't over. Maybe the Teenage in Charge is intentionally blind to the fact that Americans are now being attacked within our borders. Maybe the Teenage in Charge needs to be forced to see reality. If we don't call it what it is, there will be more. If we refuse to treat it as it should be, what's to stop others from murdering for allah?

Asked whether he considered the shootings at the recruiting center an act of war, Muhammad said "I didn't know the soldiers personally, but yes, it was an attack of retaliation. And I feel that other attacks, not by me or people I know, but definitely Muslims in this country and others elsewhere, are going to attack for doing those things they did," especially desecrating the Quran.

This is just another warning. Will it be heeded? Probably not.