Disclaimer: Now if any of you have read or heard one of my rants before, its been awhile, but here goes another plus a little conspiracy theory of my own as well...
Now class, raise your hands. Does anyone know what country; that has a completely polar opposite socio-political ideology and views on freedom, class distinctions, freedom of speech and wealth distribution; owns the MOST of the United States' debt? BOTH Our GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE DEBT? HMMM HMMM?!
Well, if you guessed the Peoples Republic of China, RED CHINA to you old Cold War survivors, then you are right...
Now I ask you, I submit to your logic and common sense:
How smart is it for our government to have allowed a country that is ideologically on the moon compared to us, a country that has the most ACTIVE AND ROBUST espionage program against ALL SECTORS of our GOVERNMENT and INDUSTRY, has the worst CONTINUOUS record on human rights... How smart was it for our current administration to allow them to BUY such a large amount of our credit and bank AND FEDERAL DEBT!!??
Now, to have a country like this, Red China, with so much REAL pressure and influence to bear on OUR GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE SECTOR's FINANCIAL DECISIONS, wouldn't you think, maybe, just maybe for an iota of a second that this MIGHT be a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE? Am I the only one who thinks so?
Now here's where my conspiracy theory and active imagination kicks in... remember when I have kidded before about Obama being a real life "Manchurian Candidate"? Well more like an "Islamic/Manchurian Candidate"... well here is one of the reasons why I am not so sure I may have been subconsciously projecting... (If you haven't seen either version of the Manchurian Candidate get it at Blockbuster or NetFlix, do your homework viewing and get back to us)... Now trust me on this one, Obama will not address or push the Chinese on real issues like trade imbalance or human rights issues, or the many clashes that their military has with ours where we seem to let them do whatever to our troops or planes in the interest of diplomacy because the Chinese have all of this debt leverage over him/US/U.S.!
Conspiracy theory 2: Now, the Chinese are historically brilliant economists and mathematicians- I submit for your mental faculty buffet: HOW MUCH INFLUENCE did the Chinese have on the CREATION and then PURCHASE up of all these CREDIT SWAPS??! Hmmmhmmm?
I'll tell you why they have so much of our debt, because THEY BOUGHT A CRAPLOAD OF THEM, more than any other country or individual or private fund... SCAREY THOUGHT HUH? that MAYBE the country that President BarryO is parlaying with right now may have had more than an active role in the creation and fall of the economic disaster our country just recently felt and is still reeling from?
I sometimes think, when I revert to my most Pinochet of dark places in my head, that before it gets too carried away, in the interest of NATIONAL SECURITY we should have been nationalizing that debt... that Omni-Bus stimulis should have bought that debt back from China... I know, I know, there is much more to this than simply nationalizing and "taking back" our debt and declaring that China no longer owns anything in America because US business and our government have to still go out to other countries and foreign banks and BORROW and finangle to keep the lights on, but people, we need to be cogizant that this is a crisis. And being the capitalist that I am nationalizing is something that I abhor when it is done to American business and industry abroad- spell that Chavez...
No foreign government, especially one as diabolically obtuse to the American way and our values, err I mean the values of our parents, since Obama, Pelosi and Frank have made it clear that it is no longer the values of this administration and Congress; but especially not the Chinese, should not be questioning our government on how or what they choose to spend their money on... Look at it this way, theoretically, the Chinese could say, if you spend money on supporting or bolstering your troops in say, oh Afghanistan or the Gulf, or stop pressuring Chavez or we won't loan you anyore cash or we'll call in your notes asap...
Can you all see how this much influence from a member of the UN Security Council that ALMOST NEVER agrees with us (EXCEPTO against a nuclear North Korea cuz that is a direct regional threat to them, but obtusely they are soft on Iran's nukes)... can you see how this is a VERY BAD THING??!!
Now, if you see the national direction towards Socialism we are being herded to by the left, the re-distribution of wealth, the loss of individual liberties, the marking of veteran groups and vocal moms national threats by homeland security, the central party committee err I mean the central government taking powers normally reserved for the states, you can see that the Manchurian Candidate is taking us back en masse to his controllers... LOL, true some of this I exagerrated because it tied into my movie conspiracy and well, this is a bit entertaining as well as spiritual to me, but most of it is not exaggerated. We need to be afraid and question the direction this administration is taking our country.
It would appear that The Flags of Our Fathers no longer fly over this great country... A new wind is blowing into Washington and our government and the winds are blowing from the Far East- I don't advocate xenophobia or paranoia, I advocate knowledge and the right to question and protest that which is not ideologically in line with the Constitution of the United States of America... Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ALL AMERICANS and the ability for them not to be taxed without representation or voice...
Wil-crest OUT!
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Post PresO address on Afghnaistan thoughts....
Originally written Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 10:37pm - posted late - sorry folks.
Well, here goes... let me say though, that so far, out of all the addresses he has made as President, he sounded most authoritative and Presidential in this speech. He finally figured out that he isn't campaigning anymore and that he is actually supposed to be guiding national policy now and not wishing on a Nobel Peace Star that things will get done somehow...
He was most authoritative in his definitive 30K more troops being deployed to Afghanistan by "early 2010..." but what he didn't say was that if that was a CAP to total troops or if he would send more if needed. He also failed to tell us where the money was going to come from, and by all accounts on the Hill, the Democrats want to tack on a special surcharge tax to pay for it... how about balancing your spending, that would help pay for it and fixing your broken beaurocracies that are too top heavy and s a result provide fewer services than they would if they actually had more people in the service jobs. I digress...
He also spelled out the mission which in a nutshell was: Provide security for the Afghans so that we can train them up to take over so our troops can come home.
He also spelled it out that he was going to START pulling troops out "July 2011..." what he didn't say was when we would be totally outta there - which I for once agree with him on... but usually in a situation like this 18 months is usually when we are at peak effectiveness, to start pulling out at that point? .. but spelling out an complete end date would be a bad signal and only aid to the enemy- hide until such and such a date then come out, come out wherever you are! BUT what it also does is what it did in Iraq, it forces the Afghans to step up and take part in their infrastruscture and defense and security, it also tells them we are supporting their ability to become a free and democratic state.
As LBJ said about Viet Nam and I paraphrase: "to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves..."
In segue, some folks are going to scream and shout about this being another Viet Nam, just ask them crazy Code Pink idiots, they are already making that analogy at their protests. Well there are quite a few differences that don't really agree with that statement:
1. We were never attacked by Viet Nam, we WERE ATTACKED by groups that planned those missions in Afghanistan.
2. PresO pointed out that in Viet Nam we were not part of a true "coalition" of world neighbors, which TECHNICALLY is true, though I'd surely like to know then,what do we call the troops that were from Republic of Viet Nam, Australia, South Korea, Philippines, France and New Zealand that were there fighting with us? I digress...
3. Viet Nam's insurgency was backed by a rival SUPERPOWER, the Taliban just have, get this, Saudi Royal family money propping them up... Hmmm, Wasn't that the family headed by the guy that PresO bowed to when he was on the World Apology Tour 2008: I'm Sorry USA did...(you fill in the blank)? Nevertheless, Communist Super Power nations (spelled China and the Soviet Union) supported, armed and trained the NVA regulars and Viet Cong- they even went as far as taking part in direct actual combat in the air and ground against us while in their trainer capacities... Afghanistan is home grown Islamic extremism, trained there and without alot of true 1-on 1 tactical ability to meet our troops, their well will run dry, we just need the boots on the ground to "drain it"
PresO also noted that it won't work to try to get by with existing troop levels. As noted, the existing troop levels are not halting the Taliban's advance enough. And without more troops, we cannot hope to create the improved security conditions that Afghans need in order to join and later OWN the fight.
Finally, PresO in his speech insinuated that we leave "gate open" for members of the Taliban to be brought back into the existing infrastructure provided they "renounce violence and agree to certain human rights conditions." In other words, what his strategy does is he wants to drive a wedge between moderates and extremists within the Taliban. The best way to do that is by convincing them that they cannot win, of course existing troop levels aren't sending a very convincing message. What he didn't tell say was that his administration has started PAYING Al Quaida/Taliban leaders to defect... SOOO, basically he is just renting them until we leave...
Those were my thoughts and observations folks, what were yours if you watched it? Also, I wrote this quickly while it was still fresh in my head if I forgot anything please add the comment. Thanks!
Well, here goes... let me say though, that so far, out of all the addresses he has made as President, he sounded most authoritative and Presidential in this speech. He finally figured out that he isn't campaigning anymore and that he is actually supposed to be guiding national policy now and not wishing on a Nobel Peace Star that things will get done somehow...
He was most authoritative in his definitive 30K more troops being deployed to Afghanistan by "early 2010..." but what he didn't say was that if that was a CAP to total troops or if he would send more if needed. He also failed to tell us where the money was going to come from, and by all accounts on the Hill, the Democrats want to tack on a special surcharge tax to pay for it... how about balancing your spending, that would help pay for it and fixing your broken beaurocracies that are too top heavy and s a result provide fewer services than they would if they actually had more people in the service jobs. I digress...
He also spelled out the mission which in a nutshell was: Provide security for the Afghans so that we can train them up to take over so our troops can come home.
He also spelled it out that he was going to START pulling troops out "July 2011..." what he didn't say was when we would be totally outta there - which I for once agree with him on... but usually in a situation like this 18 months is usually when we are at peak effectiveness, to start pulling out at that point? .. but spelling out an complete end date would be a bad signal and only aid to the enemy- hide until such and such a date then come out, come out wherever you are! BUT what it also does is what it did in Iraq, it forces the Afghans to step up and take part in their infrastruscture and defense and security, it also tells them we are supporting their ability to become a free and democratic state.
As LBJ said about Viet Nam and I paraphrase: "to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves..."
In segue, some folks are going to scream and shout about this being another Viet Nam, just ask them crazy Code Pink idiots, they are already making that analogy at their protests. Well there are quite a few differences that don't really agree with that statement:
1. We were never attacked by Viet Nam, we WERE ATTACKED by groups that planned those missions in Afghanistan.
2. PresO pointed out that in Viet Nam we were not part of a true "coalition" of world neighbors, which TECHNICALLY is true, though I'd surely like to know then,what do we call the troops that were from Republic of Viet Nam, Australia, South Korea, Philippines, France and New Zealand that were there fighting with us? I digress...
3. Viet Nam's insurgency was backed by a rival SUPERPOWER, the Taliban just have, get this, Saudi Royal family money propping them up... Hmmm, Wasn't that the family headed by the guy that PresO bowed to when he was on the World Apology Tour 2008: I'm Sorry USA did...(you fill in the blank)? Nevertheless, Communist Super Power nations (spelled China and the Soviet Union) supported, armed and trained the NVA regulars and Viet Cong- they even went as far as taking part in direct actual combat in the air and ground against us while in their trainer capacities... Afghanistan is home grown Islamic extremism, trained there and without alot of true 1-on 1 tactical ability to meet our troops, their well will run dry, we just need the boots on the ground to "drain it"
PresO also noted that it won't work to try to get by with existing troop levels. As noted, the existing troop levels are not halting the Taliban's advance enough. And without more troops, we cannot hope to create the improved security conditions that Afghans need in order to join and later OWN the fight.
Finally, PresO in his speech insinuated that we leave "gate open" for members of the Taliban to be brought back into the existing infrastructure provided they "renounce violence and agree to certain human rights conditions." In other words, what his strategy does is he wants to drive a wedge between moderates and extremists within the Taliban. The best way to do that is by convincing them that they cannot win, of course existing troop levels aren't sending a very convincing message. What he didn't tell say was that his administration has started PAYING Al Quaida/Taliban leaders to defect... SOOO, basically he is just renting them until we leave...
Those were my thoughts and observations folks, what were yours if you watched it? Also, I wrote this quickly while it was still fresh in my head if I forgot anything please add the comment. Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
