I am going to make this my shortest blog ever. Lets be honest. Iran's mullahs are not giving up power. If Mousavi wins, he still has the mullahs pulling his strings and anyone with a brain like some of my Iranian friends, understand this. It is terrible that people are dying because they are simply performing their G-d given right to freedom.
Well unfortunately ... to the people who like to think of it as a reverse 1979 Iranian revolution, with democracy as the end result, the army, revolutionary guards and other militia are well paid and fully support the current regime.
Personally I prefer Ahmadinejad or however you spell his name stay in power so he can keep showing the world Iran's real intentions. As Obama says, "With the mullahs in charge, theres no reason to think Iran's policy will change if the opposition wins the election, or at the very least Ahmadinejad resigns."
Iran's regime wants the bomb, most people know it and there is little the world can and will do about it. Keep in mind the irony of the fact that in 1935, the Persian Muslims wanted to show their solidarity with the Nazis so much that they changed the name of Persia to Iran, which literally means lands of the Aryans, keep in mind that they want nukes and it makes for a very scary scenario that the world must eventually be prepared to deal with.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Gambling Reaches New York City.
Gambling Reaches New York City.
It worked in Pennsylvania, however there are those who are very concerned.
In 2006, the New York state legislature gave the NY Lotto the power to regulate and license slot machines and video poker in a racing track 5 miles away from Manhattan. People were immediately fearful that a "racino" with an 18 to gamble law (as opposed to 21 in other area casinos) would do nothing but cause crime and depress real estate prices in the surrounding area.
Many people believe there are benefits in having a racino that brings in millions of dollars. In New York, most of the money generated by the racino, like most New York Lotto games, is used for education. And in Pennsylvania, it helped lower property taxes. However there are others that believe there is indeed a cause for concern.
In the 1970s, when Atlantic city, a resort town that used to be the Disney World of the early 20th century, eventually decayed into a barren wasteland of filth and drugs, the New Jersey state legislature approved one of the most controversial plans ever by a state. The city was one of the worst in the nation and quickly needed money. So by 1976 New Jersey became the second state to allow casinos and gambling. Did it help? Well it certainly created thousands of jobs and with posh hotels like Hotel Chelsea and Borgata, incredible restaurants that rival New York and Vegas and 37,000,000 visitors a year compared to Vegas' 38,000,000 a year, so it can certainly look like a success on paper, especially when you consider the 150 percent increase in real estate prices Atlantic city went through in the past decade. However, crime still runs rampant outside the casino boardwalk area and Atlantic city's high school remains one of the worst in the state.
Then one might point out what gambling did to parts of Connecticut when they allowed the Native Americans to open Casinos. Over 200,000 jobs were created and the tribes who live in these reservations, people who were used to poverty and depression, now see hope and millions of dollars in profits (sometimes billions for certain Casinos).. instant economy for the reservations.
So in essence, it works. Especially when one considers that in its first week, the Empire City Casino, 5 minutes from Yankee Stadium in Yonkers profited 4 millions dollars a day that week and still profits numbers just as close, more any other race track in the tri state area! Consider the fact that most of the money raised in Empire City goes into education and one may feel they are giving to charity when they gamble! so that can be dangerous in its own right! Justified gambling!
It worked in Pennsylvania, however there are those who are very concerned.
In 2006, the New York state legislature gave the NY Lotto the power to regulate and license slot machines and video poker in a racing track 5 miles away from Manhattan. People were immediately fearful that a "racino" with an 18 to gamble law (as opposed to 21 in other area casinos) would do nothing but cause crime and depress real estate prices in the surrounding area.
Many people believe there are benefits in having a racino that brings in millions of dollars. In New York, most of the money generated by the racino, like most New York Lotto games, is used for education. And in Pennsylvania, it helped lower property taxes. However there are others that believe there is indeed a cause for concern.
In the 1970s, when Atlantic city, a resort town that used to be the Disney World of the early 20th century, eventually decayed into a barren wasteland of filth and drugs, the New Jersey state legislature approved one of the most controversial plans ever by a state. The city was one of the worst in the nation and quickly needed money. So by 1976 New Jersey became the second state to allow casinos and gambling. Did it help? Well it certainly created thousands of jobs and with posh hotels like Hotel Chelsea and Borgata, incredible restaurants that rival New York and Vegas and 37,000,000 visitors a year compared to Vegas' 38,000,000 a year, so it can certainly look like a success on paper, especially when you consider the 150 percent increase in real estate prices Atlantic city went through in the past decade. However, crime still runs rampant outside the casino boardwalk area and Atlantic city's high school remains one of the worst in the state.
Then one might point out what gambling did to parts of Connecticut when they allowed the Native Americans to open Casinos. Over 200,000 jobs were created and the tribes who live in these reservations, people who were used to poverty and depression, now see hope and millions of dollars in profits (sometimes billions for certain Casinos).. instant economy for the reservations.
So in essence, it works. Especially when one considers that in its first week, the Empire City Casino, 5 minutes from Yankee Stadium in Yonkers profited 4 millions dollars a day that week and still profits numbers just as close, more any other race track in the tri state area! Consider the fact that most of the money raised in Empire City goes into education and one may feel they are giving to charity when they gamble! so that can be dangerous in its own right! Justified gambling!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Can Socialism in America Work? Does Socialism work at all?
First, it was tried, in an EXTREME form in the Soviet Union. Bread lines, lines for toilet paper, lines to ask what line to get in so that you could get on a waiting list to stand in another line to get a place of your own and be able to leave the 1 room apartment you were sharing at age 35 with your wife, nine kids, your no good brother in law, your grandmother, and crazy uncle Igor who liked to re-enact the Seige of Leningrad at the most inopportune times.
Then it was tried in Eastern Europe, where again, it failed in all of the communist bloc countries.The idea was that the government owned everything, gave you your salary, got you a job, universal health care, and supposedly you lived like everyone else. No upper class. No snobs to make fun of your poor lifestyle. The only problem...there was indeed a ruling class and they lived a heck of a lot better than the rest of the populace. No freedom to vent your anger at the government if they so happened to come in the middle of the night and kidnap your parents, and another problem was that there was no motivation for anyone to work beyond their means since you couldnt exactly buy a nice piece of land eventually, a house, a nice car, or own anything that would make you different or better than anyone else for that matter. So that system of socialism failed.
Then Western Europe, realizing after World War 2 that they badly needed the government to keep things afloat formed a sort of "hybrid form of Capitalism/socialism". Now I am not talking about the hypocritical Chinese form of socialism capitalism. They aren't even a communist country anymore. They are more like a form of a capitalist dictatorship, similar to South Korea between the 50s and the 80s with a lot more people and a lot less freedom for the populace.
The rest of Europe and many countries throughout the world took many of the ideas of socialism and etched it deep in their societies. The government would take a large stake in many corporations to make sure they cant fail. They tax so much it would make a lottery winner feel poor. But in the end there was universal health care (which many feel is a waste, considering the long waiting lists), pensions for much of the populace. Basically in a lot of these countries you can be guaranteed to be taken care of from cradle to grave, you just have to pay more in your taxes.
Some corporations in these countries are deemed just "too big to fail" (sound familiar?). Canada and many commonwealth countries have "Crown corporations" where the government owns and has a big say in these companies so they dont end up the way of Chrysler.
So does it work? ask Iceland, who just ended up bankrupt, a first for a modern western democracy (if im wrong, let me know, but I cant find any other examples). But then again, Western Europe did experience the "miracles" of the late 50s and 60s where they had enourmous economic growth after being torn apart by World War 2.
In America, people have a bad taste for this sort of capitalist/socialist hybrid system. Some bloggers claim that there already was a small form of it before this recent economic mess started.
Police
Military
Some power grids
City and state infrastructure is supposedly a combination of socialism and capitalism working side by side. Or maybe just Federalism.
K-12 schooling
Some higher education is all under some sort of federal and state control. But the whole point here is corporate full blown capitalism/socialism with a planned economy and if it indeed DOES work, because it truly has never been tried here.
If you ask your grandparents, the closest the government came to owning anything was a few banks in the 70s and the famous Chrysler loan of the late 70s, early 80s. But they never had a large stake like they do in the 70 percent ownership of GM and some of the major banks. So whats supposed to happen now? If you ask your parents and grandparents, they may be as puzzled as you because they dont remember the last time the government owned anything this much!
In a way, the corporations themselves, federal and state jobs have forms of socialism. Universal healthcare for you and your spouse, a pension. But take note that many corporations have failed because they were forced to pay out large sums for pensions and surgeries of retired workers i.e. GM, Chrysler.
The bottom line is, in the past, like Flint Michigan in the 1980s, the idea of the government was, "let the natural cycles of capitalism take fold. People will lose their jobs, lives will be ruined but eventually someone will pick up the pieces and such is life." Its worked for 200 years so what I cant understand is why the government all of a sudden has this new idea that government ownership will prevent the inevitable collapse of companies that are doomed to failure because their business models just dont work.
You cant artificially inflate failed business models with money loans and government ownership. It cant work, and it wont work. This country is too big. Now dont even mention Henry Paulson and his famous Wall Street loans. The mere mention of his name makes me angry because a man like him should be brought up on corruption charges. He blindly gave money to wall street, noone has any clue where the money went, and he has a nice snug job in the very same place he helped "save" in what was one of the biggest thefts in US history, but thats another issue that I will vent about another time. In any case, it isnt the sort of Government intervention im talking about.
It sounds cruel, but its true because its worked in the past. Let the natural cycle of capitalism happen. But thats the old idea. We are in a new age, looking at a new abyss.
Noone here has ever been involved with such an experiment before and unlike the people at CNBC who have to tell everyone itll get better by the end of 2009 (thought they said the same thing in 2008), I think we are in for a recession that will not get better until the better part of 2012, 2013, when the new World Trade Center is finally FINALLY built (thats another story ill be venting about next time).
So final answer: We dont know if it will work, because it has never been tried here before. But if we look at other examples, i.e. Iceland, we may be in for a big bad surprise, or not. Its too early to tell.
"Life is so simple, but we insist on making it complicated"
Confucius
551 - 479 BC
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Darfur... The tragedy of our generation's Holocaust
Darfur... The tragedy of our generation
It is extremely sad that we live in a time where politicians openly talk about the Darfur tragedy yet no one seems to want to do anything about it.
Rawanda happened in the mid 90s and we promised ourselves something like that would never happen again. Here we are in the midst of a tragedy that is about to eclipse the horrors of Rawanda and once again our government is paying lip service and doing nothing concrete.
Both the republicans and democrats have promised to do something about it. Once again, all we are getting are empty promises while over 500,000 have been killed, nearly 3 million displaced and an untold number of women brutaly raped and sold into slavery.
It is extremely sad that we live in a time where politicians openly talk about the Darfur tragedy yet no one seems to want to do anything about it.
Rawanda happened in the mid 90s and we promised ourselves something like that would never happen again. Here we are in the midst of a tragedy that is about to eclipse the horrors of Rawanda and once again our government is paying lip service and doing nothing concrete.
Both the republicans and democrats have promised to do something about it. Once again, all we are getting are empty promises while over 500,000 have been killed, nearly 3 million displaced and an untold number of women brutaly raped and sold into slavery.
Similar to how ignorant the world was 70 years ago, when the jews of Europe were being systematically disenfranchised then led to slaughter, once again the world is turning a blind eye to this madness.
Shame on us, shame on our goverment and shame on the United Nations, which was originally set up to stop this sort of thing from happening in the first place.
Shame on us, shame on our goverment and shame on the United Nations, which was originally set up to stop this sort of thing from happening in the first place.
Monday, April 6, 2009
LIVING IN AN ERA OF NUCLEAR APPEASEMENT
LIVING IN AN ERA OF NUCLEAR APPEASEMENT
I look at the political atmosphere and I cannot help but notice the similarities between now, and 1938.
Now I know what you are going to say, it is a VERY different world. The United States isnt into Isolationism anymore and is extremely pro-active in world affairs. Fine. One might also say that the jews now have an army, navy, airforce and over 300 nukes. Fine. Well as much as we have evolved, so has the enemy.
In the world of 1938, the world appeased the Nazis in every possible way to avoid war. The world gave them Czechoslovakia, allowed them to rebuild their army, navy and airforce...and the people who thought that by allowing them to pursue their visions, "peace in our time" would be reached. We all know how that went. The Axis powers went on to start World War 2 and came very close to having Nukes before they were stopped, after causing over 70 millions deaths world wide.
So here we are in 2009. Kim jong Il, the leader of North Korea, successfully sent a rocket to space, and Obama got so upset, he told him that it wasnt the right thing to do. Wow. North Korea, the biggest supporter of arms and technology to countries like Syria and Iran, has now proven to our enemies that they can do whatever they want to pursue their dreams of obliterating Israel and causing holocaust #2 and the world will most likely do nothing as they head toward that goal.
How about in 2006 when North Korea set off their first low level nuclear bomb. The world did nothing either!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea%E2%80%93United_States_relations#2006_nuclear_test
In the 1930s, the Nazis SLOWLY built up their army, in clear violation of their surrender terms from World War 1. They saw that the world did nothing, then built up their Navy, the world did nothing again, then the airforce while the world did nothing other than complain to the toothless League of Nations (the precursor to the even more toothless United Nations).
See the similarities?
How about the little known fact, that in 1935, the Persian muslims wanted to show their solidarity with the Nazis so much that they changed the name of their land from PERSIA to IRAN, which literally means, LAND OF THE ARYANS. Amazing right? Its like a piece of the Nazis are still left over and we are stuck dealing with them.
So the question is, what is next in this era of Nuclear Appeasement?
Do we stand around and do nothing?
In 1994 we almost went to war with North Korea when Kim Il Sung first started this nonsense until we backed off last minute because of the fear of 50,000 American casualties in invading North Korea. So we agreed to give them aid, and what has been accomplished since then? North Korea has been building themselves up even more, supplying Iran and Syria with nuclear technology, and we are standing around, letting this happen!
My grandmother, who is still alive, lived in Berlin in the 20s and 30s. A jew living in Berlin during the 1930s. She says that the world back then never imagined Hitler would go to war with the world or exterminate the jews of Europe. They figured he was just all talk. She goes on to say that Iran is Germany all over again, but with different suits. The world once again does nothing but appease our enemies with concessions (aid to North Korea) and toothless UN sanctions.
War is terrible, but sometimes the cost of nuclear appeasement is even more terrible. Unfortunatley its human nature to do nothing until something happens. Sooner or later, the world is going to have to wake up, or be woken up, its as simple as that. Quoting the leader of Poland "Its either Israel is going to have to attack Iran, or Iran is going to attack Israel, there is no middle ground".
I look at the political atmosphere and I cannot help but notice the similarities between now, and 1938.
Now I know what you are going to say, it is a VERY different world. The United States isnt into Isolationism anymore and is extremely pro-active in world affairs. Fine. One might also say that the jews now have an army, navy, airforce and over 300 nukes. Fine. Well as much as we have evolved, so has the enemy.
In the world of 1938, the world appeased the Nazis in every possible way to avoid war. The world gave them Czechoslovakia, allowed them to rebuild their army, navy and airforce...and the people who thought that by allowing them to pursue their visions, "peace in our time" would be reached. We all know how that went. The Axis powers went on to start World War 2 and came very close to having Nukes before they were stopped, after causing over 70 millions deaths world wide.
So here we are in 2009. Kim jong Il, the leader of North Korea, successfully sent a rocket to space, and Obama got so upset, he told him that it wasnt the right thing to do. Wow. North Korea, the biggest supporter of arms and technology to countries like Syria and Iran, has now proven to our enemies that they can do whatever they want to pursue their dreams of obliterating Israel and causing holocaust #2 and the world will most likely do nothing as they head toward that goal.
How about in 2006 when North Korea set off their first low level nuclear bomb. The world did nothing either!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea%E2%80%93United_States_relations#2006_nuclear_test
In the 1930s, the Nazis SLOWLY built up their army, in clear violation of their surrender terms from World War 1. They saw that the world did nothing, then built up their Navy, the world did nothing again, then the airforce while the world did nothing other than complain to the toothless League of Nations (the precursor to the even more toothless United Nations).
See the similarities?
How about the little known fact, that in 1935, the Persian muslims wanted to show their solidarity with the Nazis so much that they changed the name of their land from PERSIA to IRAN, which literally means, LAND OF THE ARYANS. Amazing right? Its like a piece of the Nazis are still left over and we are stuck dealing with them.
On 21 March 1935, the ruler of the country, Reza Shah Pahlavi, issued a decree asking foreign delegates to use the term "Iran" in formal correspondence.
Members of the Persian intelligentsia were not happy with this decree, seeing a pro-Nazi motive behind it. After Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, the Nazi Economics minister, commented on the Aryan origin of Persians, Reza Shah's ambassador in Germany encouraged him to issue the above-mentioned decree, asking all foreign delegates to use the word "Iran" as used by Iranians inside the Iran (meaning "Land of the Aryans") instead of "Persia" in formal correspondence.
So the question is, what is next in this era of Nuclear Appeasement?
Do we stand around and do nothing?
In 1994 we almost went to war with North Korea when Kim Il Sung first started this nonsense until we backed off last minute because of the fear of 50,000 American casualties in invading North Korea. So we agreed to give them aid, and what has been accomplished since then? North Korea has been building themselves up even more, supplying Iran and Syria with nuclear technology, and we are standing around, letting this happen!
My grandmother, who is still alive, lived in Berlin in the 20s and 30s. A jew living in Berlin during the 1930s. She says that the world back then never imagined Hitler would go to war with the world or exterminate the jews of Europe. They figured he was just all talk. She goes on to say that Iran is Germany all over again, but with different suits. The world once again does nothing but appease our enemies with concessions (aid to North Korea) and toothless UN sanctions.
War is terrible, but sometimes the cost of nuclear appeasement is even more terrible. Unfortunatley its human nature to do nothing until something happens. Sooner or later, the world is going to have to wake up, or be woken up, its as simple as that. Quoting the leader of Poland "Its either Israel is going to have to attack Iran, or Iran is going to attack Israel, there is no middle ground".
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
It's the Maginot line all over again!
It's the Maginot line all over again!
I want you to really quickly click on this link.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
Now the thing I want you to notice is that this article is from 10 years ago. It talks about how the Clinton Administration put all of this pressure on the republican congress to pass housing reform in order to make it easier for the banks to approve mortgages. The roots of the mess we are all in today.
I have always blamed both parties. I blamed President Bush and the democratic controlled congress for approving disasterous bail out packages that, for some reason, noone can figure out where the money went. And I blame the Clinton Administration and the republican controlled congress back then for giving banks the power to give mortgages to anyone and anything that happened to be capable of picking up a pen and signing their name. To make a long story short. It is 1990s Japan all over again.
Let's make some analogies. The Maginot line, a supposedly well thought of defensive barrier built by the French before World War 2 was supposed to stop the Germans from invading France. The Germans simply went around it and the Maginot line was useless. The Israelis repeated that same mistake all those years later in थे 1973 वर with the Bar Lev line when the Egyptians simply went around and over the line, consequently making it useless. The Israelis simply failed to learn from past mistakes.
So here we are in 2009, repeating the same economic mistakes Japan made in the 1990s. It is truly incredible. Japan was suffering from a huge contraction in their economy. So in order to fix it, the economists over there decided the government should pump billions into Japan, nationalize a whole bunch of institutions and well.... fast forward to 2009 and they are still suffering. WHY did we not learn from their example???
Why are we giving billions of dollars to companies that screwed up??? Why are we giving billions to CEOs who destroyed their company??
The obvious solution would be to buy up the mortgages, make them into 30 year FHA loans and, yes, MAYBEEEE, we should give money to companies in order to cover their losses, but they should fill some prerequisites first. They should fire the people who screwed up the company instead of giving them bonuses and they should change their business model before getting a dime.
Once upon a time in the late 70s, Lee Iococca, who was in charge of Chrysler, asked the government for a billion dollar loan. There was a great debate about it. They agreed to change their business model, fire some people, and eventually the company got its money and paid the American people back. This is how it shouldve been done all these years later. Instead we are giving pointless amounts of blind dollars to companies that will die eventually.
GM should just declare bankruptcy so that they can renegotiate the union contracts because if they dont, then no matter what happens, they will always be behind the 8ball and die as well because their profits just cannot cover the money they owe to people in the union, whether its to retirees or people who were laid off. The contracts are just too unrealistic and need to be renegotiated, and this can only happen if they declare bankruptcy.
It's time to get some economists who know what they are doing. Its too soon to tell if Obama will be great, but if he keeps repeating the same past mistakes, then I can guarantee we will still be in the same mess 4 years from now, with little chance of a swift recovery.
I want you to really quickly click on this link.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
Now the thing I want you to notice is that this article is from 10 years ago. It talks about how the Clinton Administration put all of this pressure on the republican congress to pass housing reform in order to make it easier for the banks to approve mortgages. The roots of the mess we are all in today.
I have always blamed both parties. I blamed President Bush and the democratic controlled congress for approving disasterous bail out packages that, for some reason, noone can figure out where the money went. And I blame the Clinton Administration and the republican controlled congress back then for giving banks the power to give mortgages to anyone and anything that happened to be capable of picking up a pen and signing their name. To make a long story short. It is 1990s Japan all over again.
Let's make some analogies. The Maginot line, a supposedly well thought of defensive barrier built by the French before World War 2 was supposed to stop the Germans from invading France. The Germans simply went around it and the Maginot line was useless. The Israelis repeated that same mistake all those years later in थे 1973 वर with the Bar Lev line when the Egyptians simply went around and over the line, consequently making it useless. The Israelis simply failed to learn from past mistakes.
So here we are in 2009, repeating the same economic mistakes Japan made in the 1990s. It is truly incredible. Japan was suffering from a huge contraction in their economy. So in order to fix it, the economists over there decided the government should pump billions into Japan, nationalize a whole bunch of institutions and well.... fast forward to 2009 and they are still suffering. WHY did we not learn from their example???
Why are we giving billions of dollars to companies that screwed up??? Why are we giving billions to CEOs who destroyed their company??
The obvious solution would be to buy up the mortgages, make them into 30 year FHA loans and, yes, MAYBEEEE, we should give money to companies in order to cover their losses, but they should fill some prerequisites first. They should fire the people who screwed up the company instead of giving them bonuses and they should change their business model before getting a dime.
Once upon a time in the late 70s, Lee Iococca, who was in charge of Chrysler, asked the government for a billion dollar loan. There was a great debate about it. They agreed to change their business model, fire some people, and eventually the company got its money and paid the American people back. This is how it shouldve been done all these years later. Instead we are giving pointless amounts of blind dollars to companies that will die eventually.
GM should just declare bankruptcy so that they can renegotiate the union contracts because if they dont, then no matter what happens, they will always be behind the 8ball and die as well because their profits just cannot cover the money they owe to people in the union, whether its to retirees or people who were laid off. The contracts are just too unrealistic and need to be renegotiated, and this can only happen if they declare bankruptcy.
It's time to get some economists who know what they are doing. Its too soon to tell if Obama will be great, but if he keeps repeating the same past mistakes, then I can guarantee we will still be in the same mess 4 years from now, with little chance of a swift recovery.
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Iraq War, similar to another war... NOT The Vietnam War (not even close)
The Iraq War, similar to another war in history... but not The Vietnam War (not even close)
For the past few years I noticed how people in the media, especially the New York Times have this fascination with comparing the Iraq War to the Vietnam War. People are so obsessed with comparing this war to the Vietnam war that they forget to look at the real facts.
There really is no basis for the New York Times' comparisons other than the Iraq War is unpopular to many people. The interesting thing, is that the Iraq war does parallel another war in history. The Philippine–American War.
Interesting right?
Another interesting thing to note is that in 1902, the US declared victory over there, only to have to fight the Phillippine insurgents until 1913. All of this sounds familiar right?
Now we all know that the end goals in both wars were different. One goal was to colonize while the other is to stabilize the place and leave. However from a military point of view, they are incredibly similar.
The insurgency in Iraq had a similar strategy that terrorists used against the French in Algeria. A strategy that worked and the French left. A strategy the Philippine insurgency used. It seemed like a sound theory. De-stabilize the whole place and maybe the occupying forces will leave. Fortunately for us, the Iraq insurgents strategy completely backfired and it looks like we are finally on the road to achieving a democratic, stable Iraq and victory. Again, similar to how the US gained the upper hand in defeating the Philippine insurgency.
Interesting how the New York Times refuses to acknowledge these logical comparisions.
For the past few years I noticed how people in the media, especially the New York Times have this fascination with comparing the Iraq War to the Vietnam War. People are so obsessed with comparing this war to the Vietnam war that they forget to look at the real facts.
There really is no basis for the New York Times' comparisons other than the Iraq War is unpopular to many people. The interesting thing, is that the Iraq war does parallel another war in history. The Philippine–American War.
Interesting right?
- Both wars were almost exactly a hundred years from each other 1902- 1913
- Both wars involved about 130,000 troops.
- Both wars had over four thousand US troops killed.
- Both wars were/are unpopular.
- Both wars were fought against a stubborn insurgency that ended when the population tired of the death and destruction and helped US forces put and end to it once and for all.
- Both wars involved Republican US Presidents.
Another interesting thing to note is that in 1902, the US declared victory over there, only to have to fight the Phillippine insurgents until 1913. All of this sounds familiar right?
Now we all know that the end goals in both wars were different. One goal was to colonize while the other is to stabilize the place and leave. However from a military point of view, they are incredibly similar.
The insurgency in Iraq had a similar strategy that terrorists used against the French in Algeria. A strategy that worked and the French left. A strategy the Philippine insurgency used. It seemed like a sound theory. De-stabilize the whole place and maybe the occupying forces will leave. Fortunately for us, the Iraq insurgents strategy completely backfired and it looks like we are finally on the road to achieving a democratic, stable Iraq and victory. Again, similar to how the US gained the upper hand in defeating the Philippine insurgency.
Interesting how the New York Times refuses to acknowledge these logical comparisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
