Nuclear Non-Proliferation

By Timothy Rice

The U.S has repeatedly expressed that it doesn't like the idea of Iran gaining nuclear weapons. Iran says it is simply trying to get nuclear-electric power, while the U.S and other U.N. countries think otherwise. To be honest in 2008, with a growing number of countries gaining nuclear technology, Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Unfortunately for the U.S it is caught in tough situation it has seen many times since 1968 when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was first signed, how can the U.S expect other countries not to develop nuclear weapons when it's own stockpile is of ridiculous proportions?

The NPT was in itself a tool of proliferation. A collection of the most powerful states, all nuclear armed, signing an agreement that they would not aid in the proliferation of nuclear weapon technology. If this doesn't send a message to the rest of the world that the keys to world dominance lay in nuclear technology, then what does? In India, Israel, and North Korea, three new comers to the nuclear scene, regional dominance is thought to be a major pushing factor into nuclear technology. Iran is now poised to be the next nuclear regional power, and little is going to stand in its way of making that happen.

Unfortunately for the U.S as it leads in the quest to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, it has very little in it's arsenal to do so. In the examples of North Korea and Pakistan the U.S has done little more than subject the states to unilateral economic sanctions. The U.S has found it difficult to convince other states who are part of the NPT to impose their own sanctions on these states. In Iran there is an even greater quagmire, the U.S has had Iran under economic sanctions ever since they took over the U.S embassy there in 1979, long before they began developing nuclear technology. In an attempt to force Iran to halt their nuclear development the U.S has attempted to hold Russia and China accountable through economic controls so that they too will sanction Iran. Unfortunately neither state is very interested in doing so, as they are both major weapons traders with Iran, including much of the materials needed for their nuclear program. By trying to force these two world powers around, the U.S is actually further eroding its power of persuasion over them.

Lack of a bargaining chip isn't the only problem the U.S faces as it tries to force the world into adherence to the NPT. Two other factors greatly diminish its influence, it's own interest in breaking nuclear treaties and it's very real threat of willingness to use nuclear weapons against other states. First for it's treaty breaking, the U.S has in 2006 proposed a program which will replace its current nuclear stockpile with more updated warheads and delivery devices. This replacement can only be considered ethically wrong, not lawfully as no more nuclear weapons are being created than are already owned. However, the situation becomes problematic when dealing with the treaties signed by the U.S and other nuclear states against the further testing of nuclear weapons because of the known negative effects on nature and humans. The U.S would never create an entirely new stockpile without testing. So what will it do?

Beyond redevelopment the U.S, the only country in history which has used nuclear weapons against an enemy, still considers nuclear weapons an option in times of war. Furthermore, this option has been considered for Iraq a non-nuclear armed country. After decades of the Cold War, where at least Mutually Assured Destruction somewhat protected both the U.S and the Soviet Union, the U.S has now plunged the world back into 1945 with threats of nuclear strikes against countries who do not have comparable devices.

Although the U.S has made some substantial movement to decrease its number of nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War it still harbors the best equipped nuclear arsenal in the world by far. Those who attest that the U.S must have a far superior arsenal in order to retain its police power over the world are out of touch with human emotion. Nuclear weapons may be able to deter countries from using other forms of conventional warfare, but they in no way can stop their own proliferation. With every day that passes that smaller states feel threatened by the U.S' ability to completely decimate them, they will want more to create a comparable weapon.

If the U.S really wants to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world it needs to stop meddling with pointless sanctions and needs to take the first step to changing what defines power in the world. Cutting it's arsenal in half after the cold war ended had little effect around the world, when what was left still greatly dwarfed what every other state had (with the exception of Russia).

The U.S needs to drop is arsenal to near zero in order to get other countries up to the table, and to get them to consider their own dismantlement. No one is going to put down their gun until the biggest gun gets put down. America, it's our move.

Support Our Troops?

By Timothy Rice

Four years ago the magnets were everywhere, everyone was slapping them on the back of cars, on their front doors, mailboxes, and businesses. Now it is 2008 you really have to wonder how many people are paying attention to them, and to the bigger picture, their namesake, Our Troops.

“Shell Shock”, “Battle Fatigue”, and “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” different names which all highlight a troublesome fact: many soldiers can not readily reintegrate into society after deployment. The term shell shock was applied to the soldiers who managed to return home from WWI,physically, but mentally the war had taken something from them. Ninety years, six major wars and countless smaller conflicts later, we've obviously figured out how to cope with this situation.

Or have we?

The military certainly has programs in place. Disability payments are awarded to those tested and failing psychological tests. Numerous government programs run on an opt-in basis including Military Onesource, Courage to Care, and Operation comfort offer a wide array of help ranging from finding a temporary home for pets before deployment, information for families about helping their soldier cope with reintegration, to available suicide hotlines.

But the problem with these programs is that they are largely opt-in. Some soldiers are found early on as having a high chance of developing PTSD and are pushed into treatment, others ask for it, but still others fall through the cracks, a life shattering situation that often ends in suicide and at times also put the lives of the soldiers loved ones in danger. It is time for the government and military departments to step up mandate psychological testing early and often.

Critics attest that the suicide rate of returning soldiers from Iraq is no higher than in the general population. Hogwash. If you look at the statistics of the returning soldiers from Vietnam with the knowledge that little more has been set up to help soldiers cope, you know that there is a pending crisis. The numbers for post-returning suicides range from 20,000 to 200,000. The discrepancy of the large range has been explained by many doctors, that the cause of death has often been misrepresented out of respect to the families.

Many psychologists have highlighted two reasons why Vietnam created such a horrid situation for soldiers upon returning home. First, that the prevalence of guerrilla war is more detrimental to the human mind because it lacks a front line to show progress and creates a soldier who must be constantly “hyper-vigilant” about their surroundings, a situation which often doesn't immediately go away upon returning home. This situation is certainly occurring again in Iraq and Afghanistan as each of these wars are fought largely in city streets. The other cause that is often blamed on the increased prevalence of battle related psychological disorders is the expedited reintegration since the world wars. Before mass aviation transportation the soldiers' trips often took weeks on ships and trains during which could converse with other soldiers easing their stress with those that could understand before returning home to a relatively oblivious home and society.

Although very undesirable, delayed re-integration, may be a viable and helpful action that could in the end help soldiers. In addition across the board psychological testing needs to be completed in the warzone, at the time of homecoming and at times thereafter depending on the degree of need. Sessions with psychologists need to be more than offered, they should be mandated. More programs for group help need to be opened and strongly advertised. Soldiers need to get out of their houses and talk to other soldiers. Family members need to be better informed on their task of helping the soldier reintegrate.

In this digital age the military is unfortunately relying heavily on Internet and phone based opt-in helping programs. Psychological problems cannot be solved by the sufferer with research offered by the military on PTSD. Sufferers need actual personal contact help, and the military needs to take a more active role in opening up these roads to recovery and encouraging soldiers to seek help.

The military needs to learn from its mistakes in Vietnam. Beyond the fact that the United States lost a war, many soldiers who fought in have suffered from depression leading to drug use, homelessness, and suicide and even murder.

These same things are happening with the Afghanistan and Iraq veterans. These veterans have the added fear in the new smaller military ,of re-deployment, even repeated re-deployment. The excuse that this is an all volunteer army and therefore they knew what they were getting into is no longer an argument. USA Today reported last month that the use of Military Onesource, a military jack of all trades helpline, has increased every year by 40%, this shows that there is a strong need for this support out there.

The military has been stressed far beyond the expectations of everyone and new programs need to be put in place to protect these soldiers from themselves upon returning. Ignoring the knowledge that we learned from Vietnam is harmful to the soldiers themselves,their families and our society.

Columbia: The U.S' Spoiled Child

By Timothy Rice

Thankfully, last week the tensions between Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa and Colombian president Alvaro Uribe ended amicably, calming fears that the area would erupt into war.

After the Colombian military crossed Ecuador's border in search of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), a rebel group against the government of Columbia, Ecuador and neighboring Venezuela stepped up military operations on their borders with Colombia.

Ecuador had all rights to step up their military preparedness- the very premise of the modern international state is its sovereignty within its borders. Venezuela also has substantial reasoning to flex some military muscle, as a fellow neighbor of Colombia and also an ally of Ecuador. Hugo Chavez certainly dramatized the event for his own political gains, but none-the-less Venezuela also had reason to fear that its sovereignty could be intruded on by the Colombian military.

But the United States was not justified in any way in its strict unabashed support for the Colombian government.

The U.S certainly has a history with Columbia, and their alliance now goes back for decades. The U.S has repeatedly sent aid to the country in order to help build law and order. In turn it has hoped that a more controlled Colombia will not send so much cocaine to us, which is so expensive to track down once it gets here. The U.S has grown quite fond of its little child Columbia, but must remember one important fact: even our favorite children can really mess up sometimes. And although we still love them we can not condone this behavior.

Unfortunately, the U.S has a history of these unsavory alliances. We like to make ourselves inseparable with other states and their leaders, expecting that if we give them aid, and promise protection, they will be by our side in a conflict in their state neighborhood. -Think Saddam Hussein, The Shah of Iran, Cold War Afghanistan and even the development of Israel.

Since 2001 we have clearly learned that our support of Saddam and the Afghanistan government were both bad ideas, obviously. In addition supporting the Shah of Iran turned out not to be such a great idea since he also was an unelected dictator. In recent years the U.S has even realized that Israel, a long time ally may not be the all time good child, and may actually be unjustifiably causing much of the turmoil with Palestine.

So why is it that the U.S cannot realize these mistakes when it wholeheartedly endorses and protects its allies of today?

Colombia is a troubled state, corruption and lawlessness are rampant. It contains some of the most dangerous cities in the world. There is no shame in helping such a country mature. Indeed financial , social, and educational aid given by the U.S to Colombia are commendable, no matter how selfish the reasoning may be (remember our own drug war).

However-The U.S testified that actions taken by the Columbian military inside the borders of Ecuador were OK. Clearly, the U.S would not feel the same if it were our border which was crossed.

The U.S as the hegemon owes it to the world to stop playing favorites. Obviously a good part of the reason the U.S even took the time to speak at the conference was for political reasons against Hugo Chavez. Chavez has personally made himself and his country an enemy of the U.S, mostly for his own political reasons. Standing up to the U.S as little Venezuela has a way of making him look strong to his people. The U.S however does not need to look strong in the international arena, it is strong, there is no question.

The U.S has vilified Chavez as an enemy. In truth however he affords more to his people than Uribe does to the Colombians. Rather than playing political games and standing up for Columbia's wrong doing, the U.S could have taken the opportunity to take the higher road and make amends with Venezuela. Admitting that Columbia, although an ally, was at fault would have helped boost our diplomatic relations with South America and just may have helped re-polished our tarnished international reputation.

But alas, we failed again.

The pull-out method

So it’s commonly known that there is an ideological problem with democratizing Iraq. Commonly known to everyone but George Bush, and his millions of followers. It seems safe to say that democracy is a better system in the protection of individual rights than Authoritarianism. Just by the very fact that our standard of living is much higher and freer than any authoritarian state, at least yet. There are of course (I repeat) ideological and religious reasons that democracy is unacceptable, but lets not forget that there was a time when the separation of Christianity and the state was considered ridiculous. There are obviously Muslims today that are living under democracy, so as George understands, it is possible for Muslims to democratize. Anything is possible… with time and energy. Time in Iraq is not being considered. Energy is, but its type is certainly questionable for the effect being striven for.

Lets first look at the need of time. Iraqis are not democratic and they never have been. There is a political theorist named Harry Eckstein who developed something called the congruence theory. Without getting into great specifics, for those of you who aren’t theory nerds, the basic premise is, for a democracy to succeed there must be a congruency or sameness of institutions all through society (from government, to schools, small governments, clubs, families and down to the people.) All of these things need to be somewhat democratic for a democracy to work. It really makes sense, if all parts of a society are organized democratically, it is a sign that the people of that state are thinking democratically (they feel that they have the right to influence their own future.) This is not the case in Iraq. We can not expect to stop and old authoritarian government and have a democratic one take its place overnight. Even if everyone in the state wanted it (they don’t) it still wouldn’t work because the people don’t know how to be democratic. How to educate people is a question that I and anyone else is hard pressed to answer. The only thing known is that democracy seems to be learned better by example than by schooling. Since the U.S (a democracy “ish”) has invaded Iraq and occupied it very undemocratically it can be safely assumed that the example we are showing is not a very good one. I would go so far as to say this might be the worst way to try to democratize Iraq. Which leads me into the next section, “energy.”

It takes energy to make a democracy, but who should do it, and how should it be done? The biggest problem with democratizing is that it seems nearly impossible to jump start it without the use of violence (is it?). Saddam was not going to one day say “ok make a democracy” to his people. People are most likely going to die, and war may ensue. I will leave it up to you to decide whether you think war for freedom is moral. I might venture to say that it is more moral if it is for your own freedom. This isn’t for the U.S’s freedom. The greater problem in Iraq, more so than moral (wow, more than moral?!?) is the strategic problem of outside force. The prospective citizens of a new democracy first of all must want to democratize, it cant be decided for them, (that’s undemocratic!.) The force that we use against the Iraqis will cause them to run from democracy, not internalize it. You can’t force someone to not want to be forced anymore.

I’m obviously looking at a very narrow section of the Iraq situation, there are many more variables effecting it. I think however that it is important to point out these problems. I think it shows that what the U.S wants and what they are actually doing in Iraq are counter-intuitive and counter- productive. Iraq isn’t our toy. It’s a state full of people that are going through a lot of shit. They have been going through shit for a long time, but we have changed what kind.

Now that we have changed things should we really pull out and leave them to settle it themselves? Yes and no. That’s my opinion anyways. We’ve done the harm, we’ve put the country into shambles, we can’t leave it that way, look into the U.S history of war, when we do that, it's not so good for the other country. On the other hand we would really like to see Iraq democratize, and its fairly safe to assume that in time they will want it too, but that transition has a much smaller chance of occurring if a democratic state is enforcing a will on them violently. We need to stay there but change our course. Demonstrating democracy while helping stabilize and re-build the country wold seem to be a better sort of operation.

The cause to pull out our troops now, is backward. (sorry Cindy) It’s a nice concept but doesn’t make a lot of sense. Certainly leaving completely now would save American lives, but if we are truly to be moral beings we must weigh consequences pan-nationally. Us leaving now would cause more death to the world. If America is going to use its army to help other countries liberalize (this is considering that this is not simply an excuse) then we are going to have to update our military. Our old methods are not going to be able to appropriately manage our new goals. If we want to liberalize countries we are going to need a peaceful, democratic army that expresses those very attributes which we wish other countries to emulate. That is something to strive for. I would join that army. It’s too late to pull out, the damage has been done, now we have to do what we SAID we were going in for.

Death Toll, ON THE RISE

Since the Iraq study group papers came out a few weeks ago it has been the goal of democrat congressmen, senators, and journalists galore to try to get George Bush to admit, as did the papers, that we are not winning the war in Iraq. Well he finally did (kinda), in a turnaround from the November election's “Absolutely, We're winning” he now says “We're not winning, We're not losing.” First of all we must realize that George Bush is a complete idiot, I'm sure that we are exactly “tied” with the Iraqi's. Damn another CAT game! Seriously though what could not winning, not losing mean? Is it that we killed a whole lot more of them than they've killed of us, but we just can't seem to make them stop hating us, like the Vietnamese? I certainly hope so! Lets see we entered Iraq in 2003 so by Vietnam standards the US should get sick of getting its ass handed to it in about 2018. Gee by then ill be in my early thirties, aging to the far right of the spectrum and be ready to support the war!

What is more absurd is the mindset that we could have ever been winning, nor could the Iraqis. Lets be honest with ourselves we have a meat grinder in Iraq, it's top of the line, can grind up more meat than any other, unfortunately it takes about 10 billion dollars a month to power it. The Iraqis also have a meat grinder, it's older, American made left over from the cold war, its cheaper to run but can't grind up as much meat. The meat that they grind up are the bodies of the American and Iraqi soldiers. The money that they spend running the grinders is supposed to feed their people, keep them healthy and educate their children. Instead the people are hungry, dieing of disease, and the children's education is being replaced with brainwashing nationalism. Don't think that I am just describing Iraq either, these things are happening right under our noses. Our raised up to the sky, “I see no evil” American noses.

I hate to be all “wimpy” about this but it is just impossible for any winning to occur in war. I hate death counts, it's what kept American support behind the Vietnam war for so long, We were winning! Or were we? Are the Vietnamese children any different than the American children? Different from the Afghani children, Iraqi children? I bet if you put a child from each country in the world together in a room they would play as if there was no difference. How could it then be ok that we are killing children in Iraq now and setting them up for years of hardship in the future (depleted uranium, minds, bombs, weapons, general instability) when we are so hell-bent on protecting the children of this country. If a child goes missing in Indiana the whole country goes on alert looking for that child, very few of us know that child, we just care because they are an innocent being and they deserve to live. How are Iraqi children any different? They are born into the world just like ours are, born ignorant of the worlds problems and prejudices. Ignorance is not only bliss in the eyes of children it should be a picture of God to us.

“Its going to take a while for the ideology of liberty to triumph over the ideology of hate”- Bush, speaking to press encouraging support of another permanent expansion of the military. Are we really going to be able to teach people out of the habit of hate with the use of hate? This really does put the final piece into the puzzle. Bush has now lived up to Reagan's prestige as the worst president ever. Economics, corruption, ignorance, and war mongering....

In an effort to try to be more legal about this blog the title is a lyric from a song by The Casualties. The random quotes throughout are from these news articles on truthout, Pentagon wants $99.7 billion more for wars and Bush calls for larger military

Right to Life.

Fox News: Military Draft: Good for stock market and good for America!
I shit you not, this was the title of a show that I saw while watching the new. They were comparing world war II to the present and showing that the draft did such a good job back in the 40's raising the economy, why not do it now?

Why not? Ahh, seriously you can't figure out why we shouldn't start up the DRAFT again? Am I living in a nation full of fucking idiots? (Yes) Here's an important question, is it good for the 18-24 year olds who are actually going to be drafted? The answer of course is yes! You will get a yes from many, many old men who have been in the military before, they say that its a great learning experience, that you will never find anywhere else. Just out of curiosity how much did the draftees learn that died in combat in World War II? For those that did have time to learn something, how much did it matter after all of their blood was spilled out of their bodies and their hearts stopped beating? It is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. For those that choose to do it, its just that, its their choice. For those that have been tricked into it after being fed lies, I'm sorry. As for forcing us young people to put our lives on hold and in horrifying danger, to fight a war that has nothing to do with us, No thank you.

I would love a chance to tour the world, see some new views and learn some new cultures. I just don't want to take part in the destruction of these things while I'm doing it. Can't I just do what I want to do in this country? They've restricted us enough already, the “free country” slogan makes me laugh. Most of us can't afford an education without going deeply into debt. Kids get tortured with tasers because they don't whip out their ID immediately when they're not doing anything wrong anyways. Their satellites can probably see us through our roofs now. Re-instating the draft would just be the keystone to it all, we would formally have no rights left. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Those are all really hard to do when your body explodes because of a car bomb.

Granted it is very unlikely that the draft will be re-instated, but what if it really was. What would happen? The protesters in the sixties did an impressive job the last time the draft was in effect, but the movement slumped into a pile of garbage because most of the protesters were doing too many drugs to remember what they were fighting for. Could we even hold out as well as they did? There certainly doesn't seem to be any unity today, and this shit is getting pretty bad already. If our situation gets worse will the young people of this country band together against these fascist policies, or are we all just too brainwashed from too many years of booze and conservatism? I am trying not to lose faith, but if something like the draft went down, I would be very worried...

Guess who has all the answers! ME!!!

Ever since Bush started his war on 'Teer,' America has been going at it at the wrong way. When we went to Afghanistan we found some of those terrorist because we were able to take them by surprise, but not as many as we expected. Then we went to Iraq to get the 'dubya-em-deez'(weapons of mass distruction), but I think that was just a cover, I think the real reason we went to Iraq was that the terrorists escaped Afghanistan and went to Iraq and Bush just didn't want to admit that they were getting away. So once we went to Iraq the terrorists already knew that we were coming so they stole the the dubya-em-deez and ran out of Iraq too. This would explain why we havn't found any sign whatso ever of alqueda in Iraq or dubya-em-deez. Yeah so now we have some real danger on our hands, but its ok because I know what to do.

What we need to do is invade all the countries that they could hide in, at the same time. I'm thinking Syria, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia pretty much all those towelhead countries, and the ones with oil because im getting sick of being raped at the gas pump. Well were at it lets invade North Korea, and China, I don't think we can trust them anymore, Oh and Venezuela, and France because they're mean to our president. Yeah thats about all, if we invade all these countries at the same time the terrorists won't have anywhere to run, we'll get 'em!

Now I know what you're thinking, 'i would love to invade all these countries but we don't have enough people in the military now to stay in Iraq safely, how can we invade all these other countries?' Thats just stupid, the only reason we have shortages in the military is because we haven't used the draft yet. There's 250 or so million people in America, and if you take out the elderly, the babies and the rich you still have a good 100 mill to go to war with, it worked in the old days, why can't it now? This is America! We stand for freedom, and its our duty to liberate these people from the terrorists that are in their countries! Even if we have to liberate them to death, atleast they're free!

I'm proud to be and American, where atleast I know I'm free, and I won't forget the men who've died to give that right to me, and I'd gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today, cuz there aint no doubt I love this land, GOD BLESS THE USA!!!

P.S fuck you Bush, Cheney, most of the democratic party, almost all of the republican party, Pat Robertson, and Ann Coulter (haha warartist you have me on a tangent), among others.

America:Making people hate us one forced feeding tube at a time.

I can't take this anymore, how could there possibly be a debate in 2005 about whether prisoners of war held by the US should be tortured? We're not even trying to look like we give a shit about human beings any more we blatantly just say that we like to kick the shit out of everyone weaker than us, kick them when they're down, and then when they're die spit on their bodies.

The house passed a bill last fucking month that would have protected POW's in US prisons from torture, now the fucking republicans are freezing the house so that the bill that its attached to won't get passed. On top of this the white house has already pledged to veto it, on what grounds you ask? "it would restrict the president's ability to fight terrorism and protect the country" FUCK YOU! How can human beings not care about other human beings? Ok they look different, we got that already, GET OVER IT! I want to rip out so many hearts right now with my bare hands. I feel so bad for these people, its not fucking right, criminals or not they deserve a trial, decent conditions and they shouldn't have fucking feeding tubes shoved up their noses that haven't been washed since they were shoved in someone else's nose! (allegedly)

As for the white house's stupid reason that it will not allow us to protect our county from terrorists, I offer this. Beating the shit out of the people that hate us only makes them hate us more, now they will just try harder to kill us, thanks.

How about the rules of the Geneva Convention? America hated the Vietnamese because they didn't follow them when we invaded them. Now America can't even show that respect, whatever fuck this, I hate my country blah blah blah if Hitler was around he'd be so amazed at Bush he'd probably suck his dick.

If it makes any difference Arab world, I care.