Forget about Iran, what about the Kurds?

The current administration has starting mumbling that we may need to invade Iran as we did with Iraq to protect ourselves & Israel from future weapons of mass destruction. Though this claim sounds familiar there are other threats that should be viewed as more immediate. There are over 25 million Kurds in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Armenia. An estimated 20-25% of the entire population of Iraq are Kurds. Turkey has had violent flare ups with the Kurds for some time and is on record stating that the Kurds are an "ethnic secessionist organization that uses terrorism and the threat of force against both civilian and military targets for the purpose of achieving its political goal."

So just what is their goal? It is to create an independent, Kurdish state in Kurdistan, an area that comprises parts of southeastern Turkey, northeastern Iraq, northeastern Syria and northwestern Iran. The group that is organizing this goal is known as the PKK and since 1984, PKK violence has accounted for the deaths of more than 30,000 Turkish security personnel, government officials, diplomats, commercial interests, and civilians. In 1999 PKK's leader, Abdullah Ocalan, was removed, however in 2004 violence erupted yet again. In 2006 Stephen Hadley, U.S. Security national advisor, and U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack issued statements about the Turkish violence officially calling the PKK a terrorist organizaiton. Condoleezza Rice is quoted saying that the US Government would work with Turkey and with the new Iraqi government to "deal with this problem".

The US Government knows that they are a problem, but we have not done much to solve this issue. Currently the US government is only helping Turkey identify Kurdish rebel camps in Iraq. The issue here is that the current administration wants to stay in Iraq, and in order to solve regional tensions, but the issue with the Kurdish rebels has to be solved, or at least contained to stop the spread of violence. There are over 25 million Kurds that do not have any land to their name, and that is what they are fighting for. This could cause increased instability for Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Armenia. Though I don't want to praise Saddam Hussein for anything, many pundits believe that he forced the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia to live together, even if it was because of an iron fist & ethinic cleansing. The current Iraqi government and the US occupation are not solving this issue.

The large population of the Kurds, and the mere fact that they reside in some of the most politically unstable regions of the middle east is unsettling, though to be fair the the large Kurdish population does not share the violent tendancies of the Kurdish rebels. In fact, the current Iraqi president is Jalal Talabani, and he is also the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, or PUK, which represents about half of the Kurdish population. The other half is represented by Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) which was founded by Mustafa Barzani. For years, the parties were fierce rivals, but the utlimate goal of both parties has always been the creation of an independent state for the Kurds, but they both realize that they must work within the Iraqi government, for now. The governments in Turkey, Iran and Syria fear separatist movements and it's not just Turkey that has fights with the rebels. Iran has also fought them on the Iran-Iraq border.

In northern Iraq the official language is Kurdish, not Arabic; and the Iraqi flag has been taken down in many places, and replaced with the Kurdish flag. The leaders of the PUK and the KDP want Kirkuk to be the capital of Kurdistan for historical reasons, however the city is right next to some of the largest oil reserves in Iraq. The Kurds in power are trying to "reverse" Saddam's ethinic policy. When Saddam was in power he imported Arabs in these Kurdish areas, and ethnically cleansed Kurds that spoke out, now Arabs are being forced out of Kurdish areas, and other Kurds that have lived peacefully in other areas are being forced to move to other areas that are less secure, but are heavily Kurdish populated. Since the Kurds want an autonomous region in Northern Iraq, they are also supporting similar Shiite concerns as the Shiites want an autonomous region in southern Iraq as their own.

Maintaining a central federal system has become increasingly difficult to do in Iraq, with many groups wanting their own region to call their own, and does not seem very likely in the end. We must work with these groups and make a firm decision to split Iraq into pieces or keep Iraq on solid state, however last time we tried this it didn't work out very well. Israel & Palestine still fight for Jerusalem. It is a capital of two seperate states, and the regligious home for three different religions. In Iraq the issue could very well be where the oil reserves are, and the question remains if we don't split of Iraq now where they be a civil war later? Or if we split Iraq up now will their continue to be violence because of oil? In my opinion whether or not we help craft the borders, or if we do nothing there will also be violence because if the Kurds take over northern Iraq, and also take over the oil reserves we will have just as much violence if not more. A bipartisan U.S. panel made recommendations to the White House on Iraq strategy and recommended a stronger central government was needed which would control oil revenue, however the Kurds obviously want to retain control over that money.

So before we start preparing for another war, let's finish up the one that we have going on right now, because the issues we face in Iraq could be potentially deadly for the entire region. Personally, I wish we could have some actual discussions and debate about this topic rather then Iran.

Letter to Fox News

I sent this letter to Fox News about their Obama "joke":

I am asking my readers, as well as anyone else to boycott Fox News after the comment Liz Trotta announced that should would be happy if Obama was assassinated. There is no place for jokes about an assassination of a candidate for the president of the United States. Whether or not she, or Fox News agrees with his views or policies suggesting that he should be assassinated is not only negligible for a news program, but it is also extremely un-American, and quite honestly absolutely no reliable respectful media would ever air such a comment.

At the very least a national apology should be made for letting the comment air when it was such a gross mistake. Shame on you Fox News. You have proved how far you will go in order to meet your goals. Your channel category should be moved from a right wing news channel to pure and utter gossip.

For those of who have not yet been able to view the comment, please view it here:



...and if you would like to send your comment to the show that Liz Trotta said these comments on, please send an email to americasnewsroom@foxnews.com

Why America is losing the war on "terror".

Terrorism is not new, but the way it has been branded during the Bush Administration is indeed unique. If we want to try to decrease the amount of individuals that would cause harm to us and to our friends we have to start from the beginning. What is terrorism? The dictionary term for terrorism is defined as: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

There are some basic principles that we need to understand. First we must remember that any media that reports terrorist actions are indeed spreading terrorism. If a terrorist organization completed a horrendous act, but it was not reported on locally or globally there would be no intimidation, and hence no reason for terrorists to continue to harm people for ideological or political gain. Of course we can not ban the media from reporting these terrorist actions. After all - it is news, but when politicians run campaigns solely based on fear we must hold them accountable for helping the terrorists with their goal. This might be a hard concept to swallow, but it is true. Terrorists want to scare their enemies so they can obtain whatever they want, so why are politicians doing the same thing? I can not just blame republicans with this issue. George W. Bush, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton are all guilty of creating an unnecessary level of fear simply to gain power, and to win elections.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Americans understand that there are significant threats to this country from organizations that wish to do us harm, but we need real solutions to our very real security problems. Diplomacy has been under attack for the past seven years, and when Obama simply stated that he wanted to talk to leaders of countries and organizations that are considered our enemies diplomacy was attacked again. Terrorism and state sponsored violence, or even fear from other countries is nothing new, however the way it is being packaged today is very different from our history. Have we forgotten the cold war? Though the United States and Russia were involved in a heated arms race we still talked with each other. During the Vietnam war it was the Chinese that were exporting weapons to Vietnam, however Nixon sat down with China and worked with them, and even now we are currently working on diplomatic discussions with North Korea, however the president and other members of the republican party completely disagree talking to countries like Syria & Iran. There is no way to increase stability in the middle east without having diplomatic discussions with both Syria and Iran. Iran is exporting weapons to Iraq to help Iraqi rebels (also known as "the insurgents") to harm the American installed Iraqi government and our soldiers. Syria & Iran are exporting weapons and quite a bit of money to Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hezbollah is bent on destroying Israel. If we don't work with these two countries there will never be any semblance of peace in the region.

Americans also need to realize that politicians in countries like Syria, and Iran run on a campaign of hate, just as politicians here run on a campaign of fear. The citizens of these countries do not have access to the international media as Americans do, and these ideologies are not just taught by politicians, but also by the media and educational institutions. Just as many Americans bought into the idea of FEAR, the citizens of these countries have bought into the idea of HATE. The process of eliminating terrorism is not simply a political one but a human issue.

Here is a sample of what the children of Palestine are being brainwashed with:



It is very easy to hate an entire country without realizing that they are being taught hate by their parents, teachers, politicians, news reporters, and even children cartoon shows. The only way to defeat, eliminate, or at least decrease the amount of people that wish to do us harm is to teach them otherwise. We need international support and money to create schools, to negotiate diplomatically with the leaders of these countries and to try and deliver uncensored world news to the masses.

Before we invaded Iraq we were told by our leaders that Iraq was responsible for 9-11, and that Saddam Hussein was going to bomb us with his weapons of mass destruction. We were lied to, and as a country, we voted to go to war with Iraq, and 5 years later we have displaced 4 million Iraqi refugees, and killed almost 100,000 civilians by military or paramilitary action. Is it that hard to believe that an entire population could be lied to and commit reprehensible acts on a people based on the word of politicians?

What we need is diplomatic negotiations, followed by understanding. Of course, our negotiations, will always be backed up by a threat of force, but it should be exactly that - a back up solution, not our primary course of action when dealing with a country that is our enemy. I urge any politician to talk about foreign policy, however as Americans we deserve to have unbiased truthful information instead of talking points that are shown on the 11 o'clock local news. I understand that politicians want to win their elections, but there has to be something more then just the winning of an election. This can not be the entire goal of a politician, and yet when politicians run their campaign by instilling fear in the American public I don't see what good it does for them, their party, the American people, or to the world in general.

Let's talk to our enemies. Let's get to work.

Is it over for Clinton?

Many major media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and even David Gergen, former advisor to Bill Clinton, have all said it is over for Hillary Clinton. The truth is that Hillary Clinton's chances of winning have been slim to none for over two months. The difference now is that major supporters and super delegates are now switching their support to Obama. Many have seen her negative campaign ads, and her blatant pandering, such as the backing McCain's plan for a gas tax holiday for the summer, as the last straw. Supporters such as:

- DNC member and superdelegate from New Jersey Christine Samuels
- Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joseph J. Andrew
- Washington D.C. councilman Harry Thomas Jr.,
- Service Employees International Union member Sarah Swisher
- Civil rights leader & Illinois senator John Lewis
- United States Representative, Senator, and Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern

...and the list is growing.

Hillary Clinton has proved that her campaign part of the problem of the "old politics regime", instead of a political solution. From the 3 a.m. ad, to the ads lying about where Obama is getting his money. People know she lies, and she'll do whatever it takes to meet the end goal. Unfortunately for her, that is not the type of president that most democrats want in the white house. We just had an administration that did whatever they wanted without keeping the constitution, and the will of the people that elected them in mind. Nobody, not even republicans want 4 more years, and Clinton is looking more and more like McCain's running mate.

What's more is people have finally started to question her "experience". For months know everyone has been trying to find out what the 35 years of experience actually where. Thirty five years takes us back to 1973, when Hillary Clinton was finishing up law school. Now Clinton does have quite a bit of professional experience including corporate and public-interest law, and she performed advocacy work for the Children's Defense Fund as well, but she doesn't quite have what t she claims when it comes to government experience. Hillary Clinton had said that her experience in the white house has prepared her for being president herself.

Really? Hillary Clinton did not hold a security clearance, did not attend meetings of the National Security Council, and was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She did make trips to Bosnia & Kosovo, on behalf of the American people but her role was not as a negotiator but merely as the First Lady. After moving to New York, Clinton was elected as senator for New York State in 2000, and was reelected in 2006, and shortly after that she started campaigning for the presidency. Most democrats can see how this information would be a problem in the general election when you compare Clinton's experience with McCain's experience. Aside from his military experience he has been in congress for 25 years.

There is no way her campaign can continue to run on experience, and when she supports things like the gas tax holiday she can not run on change. She is loosing support with democrats, and super delegates, and with the recent delegate wins for Obama this week, she has increased the gap between her and Obama with respect to total delegates. It is getting increasingly harder for Clinton to continue, and on top of all of this - her campaign is having money issues. She has loaned her campaign almost $6.5 million dollars. People are not willing to invest in a loosing candidate, and her campaign knows it. The question now is what will she do.

There is no chance of Obama selecting her as his Vice President, or a prominent Cabinet position with the campaign ads and statements that she has made. She has made that decision for him because there is no way Obama can run on change and bring Clinton on board his administration. So what will she do?

My guess is that her campaign has given up, and they are doing their best trying to convince her, but she hasn't given in yet. One thing is true, Hillary Clinton is a fighter, but like most voting democrats, I don't want someone like Hillary Clinton fighting for herself, I want someone that will fight for me.

Is Cuba still an enemy?

Ever since Raul Castro came into power he has been doing his part to bring Cubans into the 21st Century. While I believe there is still much to do it does not make sense to continue the trade embargo to a country that is now trying hard to restore rights and deliver the conveniences that we all take for granted. Since Raul Castro became president he has increased the state pension by up to 20%, and finally gave Cubans mobile phones, and most recently personal computers. The average price of a computer in Cuba is around $800, but considering the average wage of a Cuba is only $20 a month this is still a luxury most can not afford, however it is a start. Unfortunately internet is still limited to businesses and government agencies due to an inability to connect to undersea fibre-optic cables because of the US trade embargo. Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, is laying a new cable under the Caribbean which most likely will be utilized by Cubans.

I believe it is time to end the trade embargo with Cuba, because all we are doing is making our enemies stronger friends. As a democratic society that believes in encouraging democratic beliefs, and civil liberties we should take the 1st step to help the Cuban people, not by delivering aid or militia, but engaging in simple trade relations. With Fidel Castro out of power there is no major threat to national security, and by continuing the trade embargo we are only frustrating a country that is only trying to right its wrongs.

I believe this is just another reason to add to the list why we need someone like Barack Obama that would stop this insane trade embargo and start trade relations with Cuba. Instead of trying to defeat all our enemies (which has proven to be almost impossible), we can try to make friends which is what a democratic society should fight for.

Please sign this petition to allow travel in Cuba, and a please sign the petition to end the trade embargo to Cuba.

If Wright is Wrong then McCain is a Looser

Barack Obama’s former minister Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr has made comments that are upsetting to many Americans, however I don’t believe that this story is as big as the media makes it out to be. I understand Reverend Wright has some beliefs that many of us don’t agree with, but how does this affect my understanding or respect of Barack Obama? Is the media saying that Obama shared Wright’s views because Wright was Obama’s minister for many years? Obama has given quite a few interviews and speeches where he has said that he does not share the same views with his former minister, as is the case with the vast amount of the religious population in America. Is the media implying because of Wright’s influence in Obama’s life Obama is less unpatriotic? Obama has dedicated 20 years of his life to community service, and is running for the highest office in the land. I don’t see how anyone can come to this conclusion. Personally, I believe Rev. Wright is not unpatriotic, but he is bitter. He’s bitter because of what african americans have had to deal with for hundreds of years. We can’t forget the fact that Rev. Wright was a US Marine and a navy officer, or that he lead his church with over 10,000 members for over 36 years, but even I must disagree with some of the racially biased comments that he made. In the end, however there is absolutely no clear link between Rev. Wright’s comments and Obama’s candidacy for president. There are links between ministers and other candidates that can leave a much more sour taste in your mouth.

John C. Hagee is a CEO of his non-profit corporation Global Evangelism Television (GETV). According to his book, A Warning to the World, Hagee believes that that Russia and the Islamic states will invade Israel and will be destroyed by God. This will cause, the head of the European Union, who he also believes is the “anti-christ” to create a a confrontation with Iran. In his latest book, Jerusalem Countdown, he states that an Iranian confrontation is a necessary precondition for Armageddon, which will mean the death of most Jews, in his eyes, and he Second Coming of Christ. Hagee said Hurricane Katrina was an act of God, punishing New Orleans for "a level of sin that was offensive to God." He referred to a homosexual parade held on the date the hurricane struck and this was proof "of the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans." Hagee has called Catholicism a “false cult system”, and “The Great Whore”, however John McCain went out of his way to seek Hagee's endorsement. McCain spokesperson Jill Hazelbaker says, "Hagee endorsed John McCain. While we welcome his support, it shouldn't be seen as a wholesale endorsement of all of Mr. Hagee's views. In fact John McCain was asked about this issue personally and McCain told reporters that "it's simply not accurate to say that because someone endorses me that I therefore embrace their views."

Exactly. Why is the Wright-Obama discussion still hot? Let’s keep going...

Rodney Lee Parsley, a televangelist of World Harvest church and founder of the Center for Moral Clarity, a key McCain ally in Ohio, continually discusses his dislike for activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture", the "abortion industry," and the entertainment industry, but Parsley targets another threat to the United States: the religion of Islam. In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues “I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.” In his book, Silent No More, he notes that Christopher Columbus shared his goal: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492...” McCain has been largely silent when asked if it was appropriate to seek Parsley’s endorsement given his views on Islam and homosexuality.

I guess some hateful white ministers are acceptable and some black ministers are not?
Note to the Media: Stop playing "gotcha!", on issues that have no bearing on this country, or this election. We need political reporting that is 100% yellow-free.