What's the Deal with Iran?

I admit I haven't been paying attention to Iran. We have so many problems here: California is in deep doodoo, I'm losing my job, the economy sucks (but it's getting better!), and Jon and Kate split up (or so I assume).

(That last one really has me worried!)

But I hear that Iran had an election and the results are in dispute. What a shocker! A corrupt government ruled by a "Supreme Leader" or some shit like that (I'll take a chalupa with my Burrito Supreme) -- did anybody think things would turn out any different?

Now, the oridinary citizens of Iran have taken to the streets and started some crap they cannot finish -- without help.

And guess who is being held up as the knights in shining armor? Yeah, the US.

Um, no.

Obama is getting praise from the left for his stance on Iran (stand pat); he's getting lambasted for being sympathetic to Middle Eastern concerns from the right.

Apparently, now the Iranian government is beating the protestors and getting them to admit to acting on behalf of outside interests like our very own CIA!

(Didn't we do the same to those suspected terrorists at Gitmo? Memories...)

Anyway, the real reason I haven't been paying attention to Iran is because I really don't care. I do feel sorry for folks who want a better life. I really do. But why in the world would I think it's appropriate to meddle in another country's affairs?

I know, the US has been doing this for decades. Why stop now? Well, for one, the economy. For two, we're already in Afghanistan and Iraq. For three, the economy. Did I mention the economy?

If we cannot take care of ourselves, how can we take care of others?

Hey, Dumbass Me Just Looked at a Map

Why are we so hot for Iran, and why is Iran so damned afraid of us? LOOK AT THE MAP, ME!



On the West, Iran is bordered by Iraq. And on the East, they have Afghanistan.



Where are we conducting not one, but two, wars? Right! Duh...



If I wanted to play a game (remember War Games?), I'd invade Egypt, too. Catch my drift?

Bush Administration Gave $43 Million to Taliban: We're So NICE

Man, we give money to everybody. It's like money grows out of printing presses!



May 2001, the US government gave $43 million to the Taliban. I guess it wasn't enough.



Next time, we should give them our entire cache. Then, perhaps, they'll be grateful. Pricks.

Study: 1 out of 4 homeless are veterans - Yahoo! News

Here's a dilemma: Die-hard Republicans (or Conservatives) may say let the homeless live without a home; it's not our fault. They can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, just like I did.

But these are the same folks who get all indignant when a liberal doesn't support the troops (forget for a moment that the ultimate in troop support would be to minimize their chances of getting in harm's way by not sending them to wars that are stupid).

So, since 1 in 4 homeless are veterans, what's a guy like Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Paul, Thompson, et al, to do?

Don't you think we ought to at least give them the mental help they need to get back on their feet, and perhaps -- just perhaps -- give them something so that they can afford at least the minimum housing (4 walls, a ceiling, water, sewer, heat)?

That would show some troop support.

Or, is it that they support the troops, but not the former troops. As in, what have you done for me (your country) lately?

Here's some more startling news about our most recent veterans, those who have served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan:

“We’re beginning to see, across the country, the first trickle of this generation of warriors in homeless shelters,” said Phil Landis, chairman of Veterans Village of San Diego, a residence and counseling center. “But we anticipate that it’s going to be a tsunami.”

Well, we know how unprepared this country is for natural disasters (as well as unnatural disasters)!

You're on your own, soldiers!

Study: 1 out of 4 homeless are veterans - Yahoo! News
NY Times

The Next War

Retired General Wesley Clark on The Next War:

The Next War - washingtonpost.com

Surely here is where some of the most salient lessons from recent wars lie: in forcing civilian leaders to shoulder their burdens of ultimate responsibility and in demanding that generals unflinchingly offer their toughest, most seasoned, advice.

Gen. Tommy R. Franks embarked on the 2001 Afghanistan operation without a clear road map for success, or even a definition of what victory would look like. Somehow, that was good enough for him and his bosses.

So Osama bin Laden slunk away, the Taliban was allowed to regroup, and Afghanistan is now mired deep in trouble and sinking fast.

In Iraq, President Bush approved war-fighting plans that hadn't incorporated any of the vital 1990s lessons from Haiti, Bosnia or Kosovo; worse, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld fought doing so. Nation-building, however ideologically repulsive some may find it, is a capability that a superpower sometimes needs.

At the same time, the United States' top generals must understand that their duty is to win, not just to get along.

They must have the insight and character to demand the resources necessary to succeed -- and have the guts to either obtain what they need or to resign.

If they get their way and still don't emerge victorious, they must be replaced. That is the lot they accepted when they pinned on those four shiny silver stars.

Above all else, we Americans must understand that the goal of war is to achieve a specific purpose for the nation. In this respect, the military is simply a tool of statecraft, one that must work in tandem with diplomacy, economic suasion, intelligence and other instruments of U.S. power. How tragic it is to see old men who are unwilling to talk to potential adversaries but seem so ready to dispatch young people to fight and die.

Bush: bin Laden "dead or alive" 6 years later

The Ongoing Hunt for Osama bin Laden - Newsweek: World News - MSNBC.com

It's got to be frustrating working for the military, what with all its paperwork, approval processes, and red tape.

"We'd be typing in 130-degree heat while we're crapping away with bacillary dysentery and sometimes the brass at Kandahar or Baghram would kick back and tell you the spelling was incorrect, that you weren't using the tab to delimit the form correctly."

Here's the saddest part about the difficulty (stupidity?) of staging two wars, neither of which we could, by definition, focus fully on:

In 2005, the CIA gave President Bush a secret slide show on the hunt for bin Laden. The president was taken aback by the small number of CIA case officers posted to Afghanistan and Pakistan. "Is that all there are?" the president asked, according to a former intelligence official, who declined to be identified discussing White House meetings. The CIA had already embarked on a "surge" of sorts, and doubled the number of officers in the field. But many were inexperienced and raw recruits, and they produced little improvement in "actionable" intelligence.

It's sad that we've lost thousands of troops and killed and maimed many thousands of others, not to mention all the Iraqis we've destroyed, for nothing.

The world consensus has always been that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11. Priority Number One ought to have been to kill the son of a bitch. Or, better yet, capture him and hold a public trial that ended in his execution.

But, no, we let him go. Don't even get me started on why we let the bin Laden clan out of the US right after 9/11 or the fact that bin Laden and Little Bush shared the same sandbox.

Nice. Army reprimands in Tillman case will not be part of officials' records

Army Reprimands in Tillman Case Mild - The Huffington Post

"You should not consider this as an adverse action," letters to the officers say. "This document will not be filed in any system of records maintained by the Army."

Wouldn't it be great if YOUR life worked this way:

Oh, Mr Smith, we know you stole that box of staples. And normally, we'd fire you. But we feel good about your past accomplishments and want to keep you on. Please, just don't steal any more office supplies.

Please.

Okay, pretty please.

When did the White House know about Pat Tillman's death?

And when did they start lying about it?

White House’s Tillman data sought - Military Affairs - MSNBC.com

Bush "sympathetic" to Tillman family?!

As if he didn't know. It's amazing that anybody buys this crap anymore. Giving the prez the benefit of the doubt, the question becomes even more difficult: If Bush didn't know, why not?

You mean to tell me Donald Rumsfeld was not honest and forthcoming with the President of the United States?

Bush said sympathetic to Tillman family - Politics - MSNBC.com

Tillman, Lynch: On the Hill to dispel the legends

Pat Tillman's mom and brother testified before Congress yesterday, as did Jessica Lynch. All went to great lengths to discount (dare I say, "call the Bush administration liars") the stories behind the sensationalism surrounding Lynch's rescue and Tillman's death by friendly fire.

It's one thing to keep things secret while an investigation is going on. But the measures, extreme measures, the Army took in covering up the story behind Tillman's death is beyond anything any of us civilians could imagine. They almost immediately cut off Internet and phone service (standard procedure) as well as ordering everybody to keep mum about it. Then they made up a story and sold it to the public.

Same with Lynch.

The Republicans claim that they are "true Americans." This doesn't seem like an American thing to do: Make up heroes and lie about it.

Tillman, Lynch accounts slammed - USATODAY.com