Peoples vs. Bank Robber

What happens when a combat vet home on leave encounters a bank robber who then threatens the vet's kids?  Typically, the robber gets the spank down, and that's what happened.  

Army Staff Sargent Eddie Peoples stopped at a bank before taking his boys on a fishing trip where said thug was encountered.  Thug was dumb enough to threaten the kids of a soldier who has probably cleared rooms in the bad areas of Baghdad and disarmed insurgents, meaning that a man with a fake pistol wasn't all that difficult to spank into submission.  (Read the article for the detailed take down, as the thug certainly qualifies for a Darwin award for stupidity, only difference was he didn't die). 

I'm sure somewhere, some sad panda pacifist is crying in their Wheaties thinking that this guy took a chance he didn't need to and that he could have been a statistic.  It is just a shame he can't even be counted amongst the concealed carry permit holders in helping to thwart crimes in progress.  Certainly Peoples' actions deserved a commendation from the police department, and not to detract from his bravery, but does the same thing happen for those who pack?  I doubt it. 

Hellfire vs. Sniper; Which One is Your Bet On?

What happens when a hellfire missile from an Apache meets up with a sniper hanging out in his hide?  Only this. 

I can only imagine that he felt no pain, which was far to good for him.  However, one less Jihadist in the world is one less Jihadist in the world.  Now, if we could just convince our political leaders (and our allies in the International Security Assistance Force) that we don't need to be spending 100k a hellfire to take out insurgents, then we might actually win over there. 

No Fanfare: US Soldiers Casualties Continue to Mount

I am posting this only as a redirect.

The more I read and learn about history, current events, and monetary policy, I have to question why we are still in Afghanistan (and thus why we went into Libya).  Further, I have to ask, why isn't the media covering the fallen whom are supposedly fighting for our freedom?

Perhaps it is time for a dramatic shift in US geo-political-economic policy? 

No Land Invasion

Well it is very nice to know that there will be no land invasion by US Marines on the Shores of Tripoli.  I am sure some of the grunts are thinking "Damn, I wanted to kill me some Ghadaffi!"

It's nice to know that there is a clearly defined (portion) of the plan of action in Libya.  What's that you say Mr. President? 

The exit strategy will be executed this week in the sense that we will be pulling back from our much more active efforts to shape the environment.

Oh, so we have no exit strategy?  NICE!  Wait, what?  You say the Germans are pulling out their assets?  NATO can't agree on anything?   We've nearly run the Navy (Brits that is) out of it's stock of Tomahawk cruise missiles?  I hope their success rate of hitting targets is slightly better than taking out pharmaceutical factories (that may or may not have been actual Jihadist training and weapons facilities).

Stealing from AK fan, this is precisely why NATO is a joke.  Additionally, with this kind of infrastructure and munitions on hand, who in their right mind thinks that the US will be pulling back on any of the action in the coming days?  Not me.

We're for These Guys?

Just so we are clear here, these are the rag tag rebels that we are spending $100 million+ a day on?  I am just a bit curious to know precisely what is our return on investment?  Is it oil?  Perhaps it's the hearts and minds of men?  Or will it be more Islamo-fascists hating our "imperialism" and "Zionism?" 

These are our monsters?

QOTD x2: Searching for Monsters

From founder John Adams: 

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America's heart, her benedictions and prayers, but she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.  She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.  She is the champion and vindicator of her own.

Should we interpret this quote to mean that the United State should be an isolationist country?  Perhaps that argument could be made, but unfortunately it is only true in theory.  Throughout the history of mankind, there are morally righteous cases to be made for going to war or waging conflict against other nations, but those cases are made with opaque colored glasses.  If one side is right, and one side is wrong, who has the righteous clarity to play referee?  (Often, the winner of the war, I suppose.  It's a deep philosophical question without a correct answer). 

So why do we engage in such conflicts when our founder warned against seeking conflict and "troubles" to be "correct?"  It is even harder to answer that question.  There is no mandate for the USA to play referee to the world when there are human rights at stake by anyone other than ourselves.  We chose to intervene in one civil war, but which other civil wars are we neglecting?  True, we can alter world events and change the course of history into the future should the right tactics be used, the best results achieved, and the evils eradicated, but it's time we start asking "at what cost."  (And I mean not just monetary terms).  

Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge.  It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base.  All men are afraid in battle.  The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty.  Duty is the essence of manhood.

Patton was a pure student of history and realized that often times, just one simple event changed the course of mankind for forever.  Further, the general realized that battle was only ever, at best, a necessary evil; one he emphatically hated.

As the last beacon of true freedom in the world (that which is quickly dimming and dwindling for its own people), should we be looking for monsters?  Should we be engaged in Libya while still trying to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis and Afghans?  Or should we realize that perhaps our doctrine of spreading democracy and forging peace with friendly nations should no longer be spread by the spear, but by pure example?  Should we switch from a manifest destiny of military action, foreign aid, and good will towards all men (enemies or friends), and once against turn inward to concentrate upon our own?  

I'm sorry dear reader, I've been doing a lot of pondering upon my beliefs lately, and I find myself questioning just how much I claim to know (or believe that I am right).

Ever Wonder How Good...

Our armed forces airmen are? 



THAT GOOD!

H/T militaryphotos.net.

Russia, USA, Iran: 3 Countries with Nukes & the Power Struggle of Persia

Readers of this blog know that I like to get outside the realm of US politics and occasionally focus on geo-politics.  I will say that by no stretch of the means am I more than an arm chair QB on matters of foreign affairs, but it is safe to say that the middle east is remaining a brew-ha-ha of disturbing tensions.

While Yahoo news service only picks up on the Iranian threats against Israeli nuclear assets, what is being unreported in the USA media is the escalation of the proxy war via the Syrian and Lebanese backed Hizballah.  As the DEBKAfile report details, Hizballah and the 13 various orders of Hamas are all bring joint operations to increase terror efforts against Israel.  Additionally, these groups are seeking to sink and destroy Israeli ships in the Mediterranean Sea.  Of course, all of this comes on the heals of strategic Russian, American diplomacy trade offs that probably will not stop Iran from creating a nuclear device and will leave us to make a tough decision on whether or not we should be engaging in yet another foreign conflict.  

I know that there is a lot of material to cover inside those links, and some of it is is a few weeks old.  However, the hindsight here is pretty self explanatory.  Obama has created himself a fine pickle of problems to deal with internationally for the remainder of this term as president.  Iran isn't going away, especially not with the back room blessing from the UN security council's too major players (Russia and US).  If the current administration had wanted to honestly prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities, it would have green lit an Israeli strike on the facility before it happened.  Of course, that means the USA would have been drug into another war for regime change, undoubtedly, but there is still that potential anyways.  

Reagan proved that peace through superior firepower (Russian doctrine) is precisely the way to go.  People fear cowboys because well, cowboys are unpredictable.  Cowboys are certifiably insane, psychopaths that can actually control their fits of rage and know how to use them for personal (or general public) benefit.  Teddy Roosevelt Theory still works to this day, and always will.  If you have a big enough stick, they will always leave you alone and in the Persian region, Israel is the one with the biggest stick.  Iran and it's surrogates only want the same big stick, but, are the consequences to the moral people of Israel worth it?  What about our new found Iraqi republic and the potential disaster that could ensue?  

I guess we will continue to the follow the story as it unfolds. 

Laughable Solutions to Major Debt Problems

Paul Craig Roberts, writing for Alex Jones' INFOwars has a hit piece out yesterday detailing that it's time for an American Revolution.  Funny though that the piece never calls for a revolution until the final sentence, nor does it offer any realistic solutions to the debt problem that is ruling the USA.  Roberts' article starts out well with stated facts that we have a huge budget and trade deficit that are crippling the country but that's about where the good part stops. 

It seems that Roberts understands that we have been off shoring too many jobs and far too much debt, but he fails miserably to see that the USA has lost it's competitive manufacturing advantage.  To bring those lost manufacturing jobs home, he advocates for a tiered tax structure that would make a value added tax on companies who produce goods outside of the USA.  Unless Roberts has taken notice, almost everything sold on the store shelves of American retailers is made in some other country THAN the USA.  Not only would this asinine idea increase costs to American consumers, but these "tarrifs" would effectively spark a trade war with China and other trade "partners."  If Roberts believes continued deficit spending will ultimately spark a US dollar / debt purge by Treasury bond holders, there would be no better way than to do it by slapping a tax hike on imported goods.

If Roberts truly wants a competitive America, perhaps he should find a way to reduce the costs of business here in the USA.  Labor costs are currently as cheap as they have been in the last decade, but the hurdlers of business to meet OSHA protocols, union thuggery and legislative manipulation of the markets is what is truly dooming our country.  Failing to fix these things, along with a fair tax structure instead of the regressive and putative punishment of success, companies will flee to countries like China that have lower taxes, less restrictive zoning laws, no property taxes, less restrictive government oversight, and no labor lawyers and union bosses breathing down their necks.  Further, without double taxation of capital gains, dividends, and absurd confiscation rates, the real economy could then be built on investment instead of debt as Roberts seems to advocate against. 

Instead of those trade solutions and a serious reduction in social spending and pork bellies, the dimwit decides to loose all credibility and rail against the "neocon" and "military/security complex" of the country.  Roberts wants to fix the budget deficit by a reduction of military spending.  This seemingly "brilliant" idea discounts the fact that our biggest bond purchaser (besides the Fed), China, is in a full blown military arms race with the USA.  Unfortunately, the defense budget isn't even the biggest contributor to the budget deficits!  The winner of those titles can easily go to porkulious, TARP I & II, quantitative easing I (and hopefully not II), unemployment benefits, pay for teachers, medicare bailouts, health care, social security and pork barrel pet projects, pay for unions, and bailouts of the states! 

While continuing in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't exactly the best use of federal budget, leaving Iraq while real progress has been made is not currently justifiable.  I will conceded that Afghanistan is a lost cause.  Simple isolation and mitigation of the Taliban / terrorist threat from that country would suffice our national security needs.  However, when the defense budget of the US for Fiscal 2010 was 23% versus the 55% spent on social programs, we could have easily eliminated 2 trillion in waste that was simply vote buying for incumbents (source).  If that had been done, we would have had about a 1 trillion budget surplus (tax receipts vs spending).  True, Roberts is correct that US military budget "exceeds the budgets of all the serious military powers on earth combined," but that isn't what has made us bankrupt over the last 80 years.


Perhaps Roberts realizes that gutting the social programs is actually necessary to the survival of this country, even though it is not politically expedient.  Unfortunately, I would not believe that anything the crew from INFOwars publishes, actually has any real credibility behind it, since the wackos run the asylum.  I suppose though that we could toss Roberts a peanut for effort, even if it comes up a bit short sighted. 

Mr. President, Israel Means Business

Zero Hedge has an memo published by VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) to the President detailing the dire situation that is manifesting in the Middle East.  The memo is extremely long, but a worth while read. 

If you have been following the non-USA news lately, you would know that Lebanon and Israeli tensions hit another flash point this week and border skirmishes have kicked off yet again.  It is apparent that Israel is staring to feel they are backed into a corner, with no where to go, along with an American administration that will probably do nothing to support them, unless forced.  Israel knows how to play the fiddle and force America into support, despite the US's apprehensions, or so the memo explains.

The memo is too detailed to really summarize here with my lack of concrete understanding on Middle Eastern politics but it is simple enough for the laymen to get a good idea of where we are headed.  The main factor to take home is that Israel seems to want regime change in Iran and they are less concerned with nuclear weapons as they are the body politic of the Iranian leadership.  As you will read, this "baiting" strategy is familiar to the world, circa 2003.  Go figure, another intelligence piece that wants to advert another war of preemption which seems to be the modern norm. 

So, I'll pose the question to my readership;  With hindsight always being 20-20 and the philosophical fight between good and evil always a metaphysical relevant, if you were President, what would you do?