An awesome workout machine I like: Ultimate Body Press.
Real Estate in North Carolina: The Peaks at Wolf Ridge.
Attention Dial-up users! Support corporate-free media by switching to IndyLink for your internet access and hosting needs:
Here's a great CD by RudePundit:
UPDATE!!! (June 5, 2007 @ 18:00 EST): Shuler updated his blog this evening, but has chosen to talk about Pfc. Charles George... a young man who died in Korea in 1952.
Very disappointing.
-0-
Congressman Heath Shuler hasn't updated his blog in over 13 days.
This is the longest he's gone without a post since he started blogging... and I'm starting to get worried about him.
Is the good Congressman okay?
What could possibly be keeping him from writing about why he voted to continue funding the occupation of Iraq without timetables or accountability? (HR 2206)
I want answers! Especially since just about every thinking mammal in NC District 11 was expecting some kind of benchmark; to witness Democrats like Shuler surrender over the issue came as a shock.
I'm not alone in my anticipation for an answer. Every Democratic/Progressive WNC blogger I've read over the past few weeks is looking forward to an explanation from Shuler as to why the Democratic party refused to hold the executive branch accountable for it's actions.
It's doubtful the Congressman is avoiding controversy. In the past, he's met his critics head-on; for example, when Shuler voted against stem cell research funding he promptly posted his reasons why on his blog.
My guess for the extended absence is that, unlike the stem-cell funding, his support for HR 2206 may well be racking his soul with guilt.
Hey, it's possible!
Unlike his his predesessor, Shuler has a soul to lose. I'm not being sarcastic when I say he's a good man... and as such, it may be difficult for him to come to grips about what he did.
Bookmark/Search this post with: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Heath Shuler, North Carolina congressperson from District 11, voted to fund the Iraqi Occupation without a time-table. The full bill he voted for was titled: "H.R. 2206: Agricultural Disaster Assistance and Western States Emergency Unfinished Business Appropriations Act, 2007"
The details of the bill are so shameful, the authors didn't have enough courage to name it appropriately. It's an Iraqi Occupation funding bill that gives the president another blank check.
I respect and understand Shuler isn't a progressive. But for God's sake - he just helped condemn thousands of Americans to meaningless death and pain.
To put into perspective what Shuler has voted to continue funding, here is a photo of Marine Ty Ziegel after being burned to a crisp by a suicide bomber in Iraq.
Full story behind this image here and here.
I don't know how Marine Ziegel feels about the occupation of Iraq. For all I know, he might think the occupation is the greatest thing to happen to the Iraqi people since the invention of air conditioning.
I also don't know what kind of President would use human beings as hostages to continue an oil war - and I certainly don't understand how Democratic political strategists would be willing to play along with his sick game.
But here is what I do know: Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable. And our leaders have, once again, shirked their responsibility.
Most importantly I know from this point onward, Democrats are just as culpable for the Occupation of Iraq as Republicans.
Congressional Democrats, like Heath Shuler, sold us all out for a handful of fools gold.
Read counterpoint here.
Tags: Ziegel - Shuler - Democrats - Congress - Surrender Monkeys - Oversight
Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |
The San Fransisco Chronicle is reporting the largest library shutdown in the United States is about to happen. Here's the story in a nut-shell: Last fall, Congress failed to reauthorize a $400 million annual subsidy to 41 states to help rural counties prop up their local economies.
It's easy to condemn the congress for this action - but that's not what this post is about. I just want to point out that, depending on who you ask, the occupation of Iraq costs between nine and thirteen BILLION dollars a month.
That's right - billion. Per month.
According to the most conservative numbers, this breaks down to about 300 million dollars per day.
So for less than the cost of two days in Iraq, all those libraries could have stayed open.
Remember this the next time the nay-sayers claim we can't afford universal health care or decent schools. The occupation of Iraq isn't just wrong, we are stealing from ourselves.
Read counterpoint here.
Tags: Cost of War - Iraq - Libraries
Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |
In response to President Bush's January 10th speech in support of a "surge" of troops to Iraq in order to put down the popular insurgency, I decided to compare some historical data with our past experiences during the Vietnam occupation, which was also an insurgent guerrilla war.
This research resulted in two visual-aides that have a lot to teach us about the effectiveness of a "surge" to pacify a country - something an earlier generation called "escalation".
The graph on the left is a comparison of US troop levels in Iraq before, and after, the President's proposed surge - with the relative populations of Iraq in 2006; and then compared with the number of troops stationed in South Vietnam in 1968 and it's population at the time.
During the Vietnam War the US had 537,377 troops stationed in South Vietnam; which had a population of 16 million people. This meant there was about one American soldier for every 29.77 South Vietnamese.
By comparison, in Iraq today we have approximately 133,000 soldiers for over 26,783,383 Iraqis, or, approximately one person in uniform for every 201. Even after the President's proposed "surge" of 21,000 new pairs of boots on the ground, these ratios will not appreciably change; the number only goes down to about one per 174 Iraqis.
And if these numbers don't illustrate the odds against a "surge" in troop strength defeating the rebellion in Iraq, here's another:
The chart to the right compares the land areas of South Vietnam and Iraq. South Vietnam had an area of approximately 65,000 square miles, as opposed to 168,805 square miles for Iraq. There were about 8.26 American soldiers for every square mile of in South Vietnam. Today in Iraq there is only 0.78 of a soldier for every square mile of Iraq. Even with the proposed surge, this number goes up to only 0.91.
What this means is that the American soldier serving in Iraq must not only protect 576% more people as his (or her) Vietnam counterpart, but also must also 949% more land area. Post surge this will still be 484% more people and 806% more land than the Vietnam soldier.
All the data begs the question: Even with post-surge numbers, if the US military could not control South Vietnam with 537,377 troops; then how can anyone honestly believe we can subjugate a country one and a half times more populous, and with and area two and half times larger - with a force only 29% the size?
Madness. Pure Madness.
To achieve the same force ratio we had in Vietnam in 1968 in Iraq today in terms of U.S. troops to indigenous population we would need to have 899,548 troops in Iraq.
To achieve the same force ratio we had in Vietnam in 1968 in Iraq today in terms of U.S. troops to land area we would need to have 1,395,568 troops in Iraq.
To split the difference between these two numbers, the middle of the range would be 1,147,558 troops in Iraq.
And remember, all this would be just to achieve parity with our situation in 1968 Vietnam - it would not guarantee success.
Read counterpoint here.
Tags: Surge - Iraq - Vietnam - escalation - comparison - graphs - charts - Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
NOTE: This article was co-written by Paul -V-
Sources:
Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |
BBC has just reported that Saddam has just been executed.
Great. Just what we need: Another martyr for Sunni insurgents and enemies of the United States to look up to.
What bugs me most about this execution, other than the sheer stupidity of it, is that if anyone least deserved to be made into a martyr it was Saddam Hussein.
Think about it: If you were a former tyrannical leader of a nation, what is the worst punishment you could get after being ousted by a foreign invader?
1) Executed with the knowledge that your death will be an inspiration to generations of your people and create havoc for your enemies.
2) Rot quietly in a prison cell, slowly being forgotten as the world passes you by.
To people who think Saddam's death will solve anything or dispense justice, I'd like to remind y'all about how empty, in retrospect, were the good feelings you experienced when Bush announced in 2003 that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
Saddam's execution was nothing more than another "Mission Accomplished" moment.
Read counterpoint here.
Tags: Saddam - Execution - Mission Accomplished - Occupation of Iraq - Stupid, short-sighted move
Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |
People who register with Brainshrub.com get the following features: