No on 8

I don't mean to turn my blog into a serious of videos and images, but this issue is important and needs to be considered. Please join me (and Dianne Feinstein) in voting no on prop 8!

Just so the point is clear

Ok, just so the point is clear, I am against any law discrimates between citizens, regardless of how those laws are worded. Keep marriage straight, No on 8.

What? Someone is VP pick for McCain?

Let’s patronize women in the 21st Century because it worked so well in the 20th Century. McCain’s pick for his running mate is one of those things that says, “See, I listen to you women. I know what you want because I’m smart like that.” It is an idiotic move that may have already backfired. For all the phony praise Palin got for her convention speech, in reality, she came off as seeming like she doesn’t really belong there. Her energy was strained and her message was without substance. I noticed very few people talking about the message itself. Most of the praise was about her poise. Joy. It weakens the McCain bid for the presidency.

Patent exhaustion rule upheld

Yet another blow for customers' rights last week via the Supreme Court which just handed down a ruling that upholds Patent Exhaustion regardless of a patent holder's notices or attempts to put limitions on the purchaser. I recommend this more detailed article found at Electronic Frontier Foundation. It provides many links on the topic along with a detailed description.

Infection: Bigotry

As a Californian, I am oddly in the minority on the particular issue of acceptance of "gay marriage". It seems odd to me that so may people are so dead set against marriage between gay partners, particularly when their is no finiancial gain from such a ban. In fact, allowing gay marriage would help the ecomony by providing more jobs for people who are in the wedding industry. It is silly for people to look to the government to tell other people who they can and cannot marry. The Court here recently did its job. Life long conservative and liberial judges alike determined that their is clear discrimation. In fact, even though the vote was 5 to 4 by the judges, the minor opinion wasn't that gay marriage was wrong, but that it is ok, though a matter for the people to decide. I respectivefully disagree with that logic, of course. The rights of the minority must be protected regardless the opinion of the majority. When discrimination is institutionized, the majority will always side with it originally. We look to the courts to correct wrongs in our lawmaking. At one time, the majority felt slavery was acceptable. At one time, it was felt that banning interracial marriage was acceptable. Those laws not only banned blacks from marrying whites, but at one time also banned Asians from marrying anyone at all (even other Asians).

Even if you don't agree with the idea of allowing marriage between same-sex partners, there's no point in preventing them from having the same privileges and status as you. No one is harmed. It is a matter between each couple, and not for society to dictate with bigoted laws. Finally, it will help boost the Californian economy. Being the only state that allows gay marriage and that also allows anyone to marry from any other part of the country will create a new industry of Wedding Tourism. New money will flow into the state as a result of this Court ruling.

It's time to just let this happen. Just let people live their lives without asking the government to interfere just because we have personal beliefs. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine if gays where the majority and we the minority. Wouldn't we be running to the courts to protect our rights to marry if laws where passed to prevent breeders from joining in marriage? Every right we take hold back from a minority is ultimately a right taken away from everyone, including ourselves.

Current Cell Phone Cancellation Fees Legislation

I wrote this to my Representitive in the U.S. House of Representitives. I recommend everyone send something similar to their Rep This is in response to a recent article reported by AP.

Rep *** *****,

I voice my opposition to the current cell phone cancellation fee legislation going through Congress right now. The bills in their current configurations represent a free pass to the cell phone companies to get out of taking responsibility for their egregious actions in charging hellaceous amounts for cancellation of their service.

I agree with the following statements.

"If this plan goes through, the nation's largest cell phone carriers get a get-out-of-court-free card," said Chris Murray, senior counsel for Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine. "We have long opposed limiting consumers' rights to sue, and that seems to be what we're doing here."

"The consumer protections are an inadequate fig leaf to justify federal pre-emption," said Patrick Pearlman, a lawyer with the consumer advocate division of West Virginia's Public Service Commission. "The FCC is not an adequate policeman."

"It's Christmas in May for the companies," said Pamela Gilbert, an attorney with Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, a Washington-based law firm working on one of the class-action lawsuits against the industry. She said if the FCC agreed to the proposal, it would save cell phone companies hundreds of millions of dollars. The people left holding the bag are the millions of people who paid illegal ETFs (early termination fees) and now will never get their money back," she said.

We do not need to punish these cell phone companies for taking advantage of American consumers, per se. However, we just need to prevent them from continuing to do so, with reasonable reconciliation to those consumers who have already been ripped off or forced to maintain plans by the industry.

Do not give the cell phone carriers a get-out-of-jail card. Hold them accountable for their actions and prevent them from abusing fellow Americans.

Any new bill about this topic should maintain State authority to decide how to regulate billing for services. It should also establish a national prohibition against any cancellation fees what-so-ever.

Sincerely,

Matthew Lorono

Politics 2008 (Part 1?)

I'm going to cover a couple of topics here.

Just some quick opinions about Props 98 and 99 for the June 2008 ballot here in California. Prop 98 is a load crap from special interest groups trying to sneak in their agendas guised as something beneficial. It is supposedly about emanate domain, but it's more about reduction of a city population's rights to affordable housing. Prop 99, supported by Democrats, is an over reaction to use of emanate domain. Emanate domain, of course, is the power of government to force the sale of a property for the benefit of the general population. It is useful for building large scale projects, to improve city structure and for urban renewal. Both 98 and 99 will make it very difficult for cities to conduct this sort of activity. 98 is especially bad because it has a bunch of special interest riders attached to it. I'm voting NO on both. I will wait for a better emanate domain prop to come along that addresses the issue of urban renewal.

Also, California Supreme court has just overturned two bigotted laws regarding those who can marry. It's about time. The idea that the government still has the right to dictate who can marry is still possessed by many. I just hope more people understand the issue now than before, so that our state constitution doesn't get raped by bigotry in an attempt to make gay marriage illegal.

Drug Pushers

I used to be in favor of allowing drug companies the right to directly advertise their products to consumers. However, the more time that goes by, the more I realize the misguided ideology of this line of thinking. History now bares witness to the facts that reveal several truths about this matter.

Pharmaceutical companies do not do nearly the research that they need to in order to determine the effectiveness of their drugs before they start selling them to customers. Also, when such research is not favorable, they delay the release of the information to the public in order to drive more sales. The most recent example of this is Vytorin (and its component Zetia). These drugs were proven to reduce bad cholesterol. However, a dangerous assumption was made that this inherently also reduced the risk of heart attacks. The fact is that the drug does not reduce the risk of heart attacks. The drug companies of Schering-Plough Corp. and Merck & Co. marketed this nearly useless drug for two years after they knew it did not work for the purpose it was intended, according to AP in their article.

Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on marketing campaigns. This is taking money way from research and development. In my opinion, it is also likely the major reason that drug costs are raising drastically since the band on drug advertisements was lifted.

Advertising drugs directly to the public encourages self-diagnosis. People are trying to be their own doctors. Advertising, along with the establishment of the Internet has given hypochondriacism new life and even legitimacy. Self-diagnosis is very dangerous.

Given these reasons, I am now in favor of re-establishing the restrictions on advertising for proscription drugs. This will help reduce the chances that corporate greed will take advantage of Americans. It will help reduce the cost of drugs. It will help provide for more R&D funding into new treatments. And, it will help reduce dangerous hypochondriacism and self-diagnosis.

California Ballot Jan 2008

Proposition 91, Transportation Funds: This bill puts limits the California state budget. It's yet another prop that is trying to put unnecessary controls on the state budget that causes much of the budgetary issues this state suffers from. I'm voting No.

Proposition 92, Community Colleges Funding: This bill attempts to force the state to fund our schools. It sets up a new bureaucracy as part of this effort. What the heck? The legislature needs to do this, not some new bureaucracy. I'm voting NO!

Proposition 93, Change of Term Limits: This reduces the total number of years Representatives and Senators can serve in the state legislature, but allows more freedom as to where those individuals can serve their time. I am against term limits. The people should be able to vote for whoever they want for as long as they wish. However, this is at least 1/2 a step in the right direction. I'm voting a very marginal yes.

Proposition 94, 95, 96, and 97, Indian Gaming Agreements: Allows four specific Indian tribes in Southern California to grow their casino operations. In exchange, they will share more of their revenues with the state and other Indian tribes. The problem is that these bills make these new rules without taking the other tribes in to consideration. The other tribes aren't too happy about that. I'm voting an ambivalent no.

Local measures A and B are here in Santa Clara county where a private developer wishes to take a publicly owned property for private one-time profit, instead of keeping the property public and developing it for the common good. Can anyone say "Land Grab"? I'm voting a big, fat NO! The local commercials have old people saying how nice it would be to have affordable housing. But the plan will actually stuff hundreds of senior citizens into small apartment complex, while the bulk of the property is turn into massive high end homes sold to the very wealthy. Total scam. The property could be developed to provide hundreds of real houses to senior citizens and still have plenty of property left over for public use. So, No and No!

Economy America

It seems a lot of Americans really don't understand economy nearly as much as they've been told they do. Many seem to confuse economy with government, falsely believing that Free Market is intrinsic to Democracy. Of course, many Americans are under the false belief that America's economy is Free Market. America has a Mixed Economy based on Free Market principles, it does not have a pure Free Market.¹

Although government and economy work together, one particular type of government does not require one particular type of economy. It is possible to have a free society yet have an economy based on the sun worship. That's not an ideal mix, but it's not outside the realm of possibilities.

Free Market has its place in our country. It is necessary to regulate that Free Market to prevent abuses. Anti-trust, monopolies, rigging or hording of necessary supplies are examples of possible abuses that hurt both the individual and the market overall. However, redundancies in a Free Market can also lead to inefficiencies. Examples of these are if a city privatizes services such as water piping, garbage collection, electricity routing, and other infrastructure services without a central contract giving one entity the sole right and authority to provide such services. For example, it is OK to have more than one source for water, but it is bad to allow one property to be serviced by 4 separate pipes that bring that water in from the outside. In such as case, the city is responsible to regulate infrastructure services efficiently to prevent wasteful redundancies that can drain the overall resources of the city.

More on this some other day. :)

Please don't impale the president, mr. president!

I'm not sure if this is a true story, but it is pretty funny.

Trouble with PETA

From PETA’s mission statement,

“PETA is dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the abuse of backyard dogs. PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns.”

Although I do agree that humans must take responsibility for our treatment of animals, I disagree with PETA’s stand and many of their characterizations of how animals are treated by people. PETA has undertook good activities, but bringing to light some serious mistreatment, such as in the fur farms. But they’ve also overplayed their position on many occasions.

I remember listening on TV to one individual complaining about California cheese ads with the slogan, “Real cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California.” He was going on about how the ads are misleading and how bad cows are really treated on a daily basis. From his description, one would assume conditions resembled those of WWII concentration camps. His description may have worked on someone who spent their life in New York City and has never seen open land.  However, I grew up in a region that has a lot of farms here in California. I’ve seen just how cows are treated first hand. His description is misleading. Beyond that, the ads are obviously funny and not meant to be taken literally. I do understand they aren’t treated as one would treat people, but they aren’t people. They are a source of food.

This brings me to a second point: animals as food. I’ve seen pro-vegetarian literature written from both Eastern and Western perspectives. Unfounded statements generally fill pages with arguments against the eating of meat. The underlining goal is to convince the reader that humans are not meant to eat meat. This effort is complemented by some moral or ethical reasons. I just have to laugh when I see these arguments. One argument compares the human intestine to that of a wolf. Of course, the argument never makes a similar comparison to truly vegetarian animals, such as cows. That’s because the human digestive system doesn’t resemble that of either carnivores or herbivores.

In fact, our digestive system has specifically evolved to eat something that no other animal on the face of this planet ever has before. Our digestive system has evolved to take advantage of cooked meat! Even our close cousin, the Neanderthal didn’t make that evolutionary leap. 80% of their diet was raw meat, making it likely that their intestine actual did more closely resemble that of a wolf.

A third point is that all flora and fauna have the same origin. Plants, animals and fungi all have a common ancestor. From a truly unemotional perspective, there isn’t a whole lot of difference between munching on a head of lettuce and munching on strip of bacon. Actually, there may be a difference. The bacon is already dead when we eat it. The lettuce is still alive! Experiments from the 20th Century proved that plants experienced rudimentary reactions to things happening to them (such as leaves being trimmed).  The responses may be interpreted as emotional in nature, such as fear. More recently, it's been discovered that plants actually scream (Plants Really Do 'Scream' Out Loud; backup link).  Should we stop eating plants now too?

How far are we supposed to go to protect other live forms? Our bodies may be invaded by parasites, such as tape worm or malaria. These are also animals. Is it wrong for our bodies to defend themselves against these invaders?

Is it ok to kill bacteria? Our body kills millions (maybe billions or trillions) of bacteria throughout our lives. Are we to take a moral stand against that as well?

Bottom line, all life feeds off of other life to sustain itself. The only reason why members of groups like PETA try to protect certain types of life forms is because we as humans tend to identify with them. If a person makes a personal choice to not use other animals for any purpose (food, clothes or otherwise), that is their choice. However, they should not try to enforce their own beliefs on to others, especially when those beliefs are based on emotion instead of fact. PETA often reminds me of a religious cult whose god is the idea that animals are somehow more special than other life forms.

My own personal belief is that we should use animals to fulfill our needs. This should be balanced with some level of humane treatment to avoid unnecessary suffering. Additionally, I believe that humans are responsible for the proper care of animals we have domesticated for co-habitation (pets or labor animals), whether born as such or feral. But how far we go in these areas should not be determined by self-righteous organizations that do not have a clear foundation for their reasoning.

California Props 2006 (quick note)

My main problem with the California propositions this year (2006) is that most of them are trying to sneak something by the voters. I've commented on some of this on a previous entry.

California Proposition Nov 2006

Prop 83 - Known as Jessica's Law. This law is extremely unrealistic. Some of the provisions of the law are good, but many are simply ludicrous. The one thing that I find completely insane in the requirement for people tagged as "sex offenders" to wear a GPS tracking device for life. WTF? Not only is that completely pointless, it is a complete waste of public funds to maintain a system that has to keep track of these people. It is the first step to requiring more and more minor offenses to also have this GPS requirement limiting their freedoms. Sure, none of us like sex offenders, but I also don't like the fact that society feels it has the right to tell an undefined segment that it can go here, but can't go there, for LIFE! This is a slippery slop to totalitarianism. First it was repeat offender drunk drivers, now this nebulous class of sex offenders, then terrorist, then supposed gangbangers, then violent criminals, then any criminal, then any group who's views don't fit the social order. One day, it will be political opponents, and maybe the general population. Think I'm kidding or exaggerating? Just take a look at the end result just this kind of control over the population in North Korea! Already, the term "sex offender" has been expanded to include people that might be a bit surprising to many. It even has been applied to people that have never been convicted of a crime! How's that possible?! Imagine such limitations being applied to someone that has never been convicted of anything! It will happen. I'm reminded of the book 1984. Another fact that makes this prop just silly is that only 7% sexual assults are committed by registered sex offenders. Most incidents are perpetrated by someone that the victim knows from within their family or circle of friends. Should we next put GPS devices on everyone to prevent the other 93% of incidents? Jessica's law is far too broad. It needs to be more well thought out, and limited to increasing law enforcement's ability to catch perpetrators, increase of prison time, and increase of parole terms. It should also make medical treatment more dominate during and after prison terms. Anything else should be scrapped as unworkable or just ridiculous. NO! 

Prop 84 - Proposition to protect and improve our water and natural resources infrastructure. I'm marginally yes. I don't have a strong opinion about this one though. Yes. 

  Prop 85 - This proposition seeks to establish a waiting period and Parental Notification before a minor can have an abortion. The previously rejected proposition for this same purpose attempted to define when life began in a first step to completely outlaw any abortions. I am in favor of requiring parental notification for any medical activity for a minor, but I'm against the attempts to erode away at a woman's right to choose. So, NO! 

Prop 86 - Tax on cigarettes. One issue that hasn't been addressed is the fact that this proposition does remove some level of accountability by Hospitals. Why would a simple tax want to have any say in how Hospitals operate? It is very suspicious. No. 

Prop 87 - This is a tax on California oil to fund Alternative Energy research, production and incentives. This is a very good idea. We need to pay for this now or later, and it is always more expensive later. Right now, Texas and Alaska get paid for the oil pumped from their states, but California does not. In fact, even though much of the oil we use is from our own state, we have traditionally paid much more for gas than any other state! We need to kick this oil habit, and this proposition is a big and correct step in the right direction to that goal. It will decrease our dependency on all oil (not just foreign). It takes money from oil company profits (billions of dollars) that should be paid to California anyway. For too long, the oil companies have been taking or oil, making too much money from us by selling it to us at the highest rates in the country. I'm voting Yes. 

Prop 88 - I don't have a strong position on this one. So, since it is a tax without any strong purpose for me, I am voting no. (BTW, it's something to do with Education funding). 

Prop 89 - It's called Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Contributions and Expenditure Limits. Initiative Statute. It seeks to regulate public financing for campaigns, especially for all these propositions. However, it does go way to far. I like the idea of limiting corporation financing of political campaigns, but I'm against many of the other provisions, including taxing corporations to pay for public funding of political campaigns. I don't see the value in this. It would be much better to require TV and radio stations to provide certain amounts of free airtime dedicated to the political campaigns. This would go much farther to evening the playing field between the rich and powerful with grass roots. The more support one has by the people, the more airtime earned. So, while limiting corporations in their funding of pthingcal campaigns (a very good thang), this proposition is over reaching by forcing the bulk of all funding to come from the government. This can be used to eventually silence the minor or grass roots instead of helping them. In my opinion, this Prop is nothing more than a power grab attempt by particular unions. NO! 

Prop 90 - This proposition seeks to limit State and Local government use of eminent domain for any other purpose other than public use. It also narrowly defines public use. It does a few other things too, which make the proposal a bit more palatable. I'm pretty much dead set against this proposition. In an attempt to limit government powers regarding eminent domain, it in fact opens the door for developers to do pretty much whatever they want, increasing urban sprawl, while allowing inner city degradation. Cities must develop both by expanding at reasonable rates and by urban renewal. Taking away a government's authority to carry out its responsibility to the people to keep our cities vital, this proposition tries to pull us back to a period in which cities expanded without regard, ignoring their interiors without any an organized overall plan. It puts communities at the mercy of large land owners and developer by taking away the public's right to have any say in the process. It will cost money strapped communities millions to revitalize city interiors, and open them up to unlimited lawsuits regarding any move towards urban renewal. Someone thought, "hey, it would be a good idea to limit government power." But what this proposition really does is limit the people's power to determine the course of their community's future. This is libertarianism taken to an unrealistic and poorly executed extreme. NO! Prop 1A - This proposition strengthens Prop 42 on how sales tax revenue can be used for transportation purposes. Limiting government's power to fund projects is normally well intentioned, but usually has consequences. A marginal No from me. 

Props 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E or all much needed bond measures. I'm marginally Yes on these.

Al-Qaida must be scratching their heads

Recently Al-Qaida leadership has offered a hand out to Americans to join the Muslim faith. Then days later, they go about making more threats against us. I say it now, truly, if every American was a Muslim, Al-Qaida would still be a terrorist organization fighting against us. They are so hypocritical, that it is just ludicrous. One has to wonder why they haven't figured out why 1.2 million Muslims within the U.S. haven't stooped to join their cause. America isn't a place that people live so much as it is an idea we hold valuable. Freedom isn't a sin. It is God's gift to those who are willing to give trust to a system that at least tries to treat everyone with equality, even if we do fall short of that goal in reality. What does Al-Qaida offer? Freedom from freedom? Laughable. America isn't a superpower because strove to be. We did not seek this out. It was thrust upon us. And, history will show, we have acted most responsibility amongst any other nation that has held this position in any time in history. Al-Qaida is nothing more than a power lusting organization that is covering over their sins under the banner of jihad. Watching them work is like watching a mediocre online RTS game play out. It's as though they got their world strategy by playing Command and Conquer. Seriously, if you've play any of those games, you can see the pattern. There will always be a yin and a yang, with two opposing sides. But Al-Qaida has done nothing except make the U.S. more powerful and drove us to become an even greater superpower. ::sigh:: I've never seen the U.S. be able to wield so much force with so little effort. We are waging two wars at the same time on a peacetime economy! Imagine what would happen should America convert our economy over to wartime again (as we did in WWII). This is not the direction we should be taking the world in. Yet, it is Al-Qaida which is driving the America to become such a force. As much as the Japanese underestimated America in the 40's, Al-Qaida is underestimating us much much worse now. The Japanese awoke a sleeping dragon. Al-Qaida has sharpen that same dragon's claws and given it steroids.

Just when you think it's safe

Wow, what the hell was he thinking? I mean, Bush just doesn't stop being an embarrassment! Check here: HERE! Freaky!

What is desecration of the U.S. Flag?

What is desecration of the U.S. Flag?
Is marking over the flag with felt tip pin?
Is sneezing over a flag?
Is not saluting the flag?
Is standing with one’s back turned to the flag?
Is printing an image of the flag on paper, then throwing it out?
Is wearing flag colors as underwear?
Is soiling a flag with dirt?
Is walking upon a sidewalk with the flag painted upon it?
Is dying ones hair with the stars and stripes, then later getting a hair cut?
Is using a flag like handkerchief to wipe one’s brow of sweat?
Is throwing a shoe at the TV while the flag is displayed?
Is using the flag as a backdrop for another symbol?
What is a flag?
There is no law that defines what a U.S. Flag is besides the general dimensions for the different color fields, and placement of the stars.
How is one to know when one is handling a flag, or simply an image of the flag?
Does printing out the stars and strips on one’s printer constitution the creation of a flag? Does painting on the side of one’s truck?
Does having a cloth of the right size and color fields, but no stars?
Does using alternative colors for the color fields?
Does a photo of a flag?
Does a tattoo of the flag?

As a citizen, the flag represents my country and for which we all stand. I’m proud of my country and know that the desecration of my flag is wrong. But to make laws concerning such matters is about as un-American as one can be. To hold a piece of cloth that happens to be of a certain shape and design over the rights of our citizens to freely express themselves is abhorrent. The flag amendment being discussed by our Congress is a desecration upon our Constitution, and the rights for which the flag represents.

Sometimes too cleaver

Some websites can be a bit too cleaver. I was going to post a link to an article that appeared in the Feb 1-8, 2006 Seattle Weekly which detailed the fall from grace experienced by the Discovery Institute in their efforts to combat reality with the highly fictional "Intelligent Design" notion. Well, Seattle Weekly does have their back issues on their website, but in the form of an Active X controlled pseudo-PDF format. Not so easy to link to, though it does store the exact pages as they appeared in the periodical when printed. I still recommend reading the article entitled Discovery's Creation. Goto Seattle Weekly and click on the Print Edition link under the Home tab. The browse for the Feb 1-8 issue under the back issue folder in the left menu, then goto page 19. It's not as hard as it sounds, but still is way too many steps when all would be needed is a direct link.
Anyways, the article does a good job of laying waste those nut-jobs at the Discovery Institute in light of recent Federal Court decisions reaffirming the lunacy of "Intelligent Design". It's a good read, and worth the time it takes to click through all those steps.

Trouble with Bush

It's funny, people dislike Bush Jr. so much that in an informal poll online, these are the running results when he's compared to Jimmy Carter.

Who will history judge more favorably?
Carter
77%

Bush
23%

Total Votes: 32,283

What the hell? LOL

In other news, this is a recent story about yet another retired general speaking out against the administrations (particular Rumsfield) approach to the Iraqi War. Read article

Just some thoughts on U.S. war capability

For a long time the U.S. had a policy of keeping a standing military ready to fight one full war and one half war at the same time. This means that the U.S. can engage in one all out war in one region, while still being able to do peacekeeping missions and smaller scale operations in other regions at the same time. There was a time when people viewed the need for this with skepticism. Following the Persian Gulf War, some believed the world was becoming more united and less tolerant of rogue states.
After 9/11, many began to realize that the proper approach was neither a single war policy or a war and a half policy. So the U.S. adopted a two war policy. This allowed the U.S. to fight the Iraqi War and the Afghani War at the same time. Of course, here comes my criticism.
I've got the sense that the U.S. is barely able to fight one all out war right now. It seems to me that the politicians and bureaucrats have significantly underestimated the resources required to fight a war. It's my opinion that the current chaotic situation in Iraq could've been avoided had we sent in the appropriate number of forces from the beginning. In additional, the Afghani War never got significant U.S. forces at all. In reality, it was a half of a war. So, the U.S. really is fighting and rebuilding nations from one and a half wars. Yet, our ability to do this was based on trying to implement a two war policy. It seems to me that maybe our leaders don't really have a sane grasp of reality when it comes to what's really involved when fighting a war. We haven't learned from many of the biggest mistakes in the Vietnam War. Mistakes like never making a formal declaration of war, underestimating the enemy's ability to stay entrenched, or working too closely with the existing powers within the occupied nation. We succeeded with reforming Japan and Germany, but these were two nations weary of wars they started. Right now, we are occupying one nation that is weary of the war we started, and another nation that's not had a strong central government in modern times.
These wars need to be finished. In my mind, the Afghani War will not be done until Bin Laden & crew is captured. This should be our main focus. We should've been fighting the Afghani War as a full war. We need to get Iraq on its feet so we can finish our job in Afghanistan.