Yesterday, it was reported that Iraq has destroyed 10 of its estimated 120 resolution-infringing al-Samoud 2 missiles. We're talking actually destroyed, not just said they would. And Tony Blair claimed that it was 'a game' by Saddam. This raises the question, exactly what does Iraq have to do to avoid a war?

It seems for every demand that Iraq complies with, it's called a 'joke' or a 'ploy', and 2 more requirements are imposed. An important point seems to be missing from this though, namely that destroying missiles and other weapons takes time. Disarmament is not something that can be expected to occur overnight, nor is it something that should be demanded under the threat of war. What motivation is there for Iraq to disarm itself, when the Bush administration has stated that it will go a war with Iraq alone, seemingly even without a reason like the WMD that Iraq is alleged to have. So if Iraq were to disarm, there is the very possible threat that they'll still be attacked by the US, except that Iraq won't have a way to defend itself. The fact that the Bush administration is now calling for a regime change as a condition to avoiding war shows that the Bush administration seems to be hiding their true motivations, and only revealing them when they feel there is enough public support for an existing, similar measure to begin on their new path. Or, should I say, enough of a chance to mislead the public with fallacious arguments and baseless fear-mongering to drive 'support' of a war.

It certainly appears though, that Bush feels that it takes a war to create peace, saying that a democracy in Iraq will benefit the Middle East as a whole. I fail to see how toppling the government of one of the area's largest countries is going to suddenly make the entire area a more peaceful place. If anything, it would create a greater amount of chaos and increase the likelihood of something happening just due to the massive shake-up that would be happening. Assuming, of course, that Iraq has anything to do with a long-standing conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with them.

An interesting link (first linked on omlette's site) compares the US government to Iraq's. Who has weapons of mass destruction? The US does, Iraq may or may not. Who's preparing to wage an offensive war and invasion? The US is, Iraq is not. While there are no doubt points which this doesn't address (fair & balanced reporting is very hard to come by, and many of those who profess it merely lower the standard for those who actually try and provide it). That comparison, when viewed in close temporal proximity with this short presentation by the Democrats of the House Appropriations Committee, show that Bush is quite willing to say something to appease a large group, and then in his next move, go against everything he said to further his own agenda.

The Bush war machine suffered a setback today, as Turkey failed to pass a vote to allow use of Turkish bases by US forces to attack Iraq. I wonder how long until Bush's post 9/11 'you are either with us, or you are against us' statement is applied and Turkey accused of supporting Saddam and terrorism.

Enough about the war though, another issue has been in the news a lot lately, and I would definitely like to express my feelings on this. The issue is that of Jesica Santillan, the 17 year old girl who received a botched heart/lung transplant and eventually died after a second transplant was ineffective. Did I mention that she was an illegal immigrant from Mexico? Her family paid someone to smuggle them into the US three years earlier to increase her chances of getting a transplant. And indeed, she received two heart and lung transplants, which are the rarest form of transplant. So now, 2 deserving, legal American citizens are forced to wait, and possibly die, because it was felt every effort had to be put forth to save someone who had absolutely no right to be here in the first place. This brings up the question, what created such a media frenzy about this? The first I remember seeing about this issue was about the botched transplant, nothing before that, so I'm going operate on the assumption that's the impetus for all the attention this has drawn. Could the fact that many news programs seem to have it out for hospitals and health care system in general have any effect on this?

I'm sure there are those who are going to say that she deserved that chance at life, even more so after it was bungled the first time. To which I say, if Jesica were to have received the correct transplant the first time, and still died, virtually no one outside of her family and the hospital staff involved would have known or cared about it. But since the operation was messed up once, it was all over the news, and somehow a dying illegal immigrant became the focus of so many people's sympathies and prayers. It's my feeling that if you want to receive public health care in the US, you should, at the very least pay taxes to us. I would very much like for it to be only open to citizens and legal immigrants; people who have legal reasons to be in this country, and who just aren't here because something or other isn't perfect in their country. I find the widespread acceptance of this, and the widespread sympathy people expressed for this girl, to be absolutely wrong. Because of someone who offers absolutely nothing to the US, the government health programs that we the taxpayers fund has spent money which should have been earmarked only for those who paid money towards those same programs. We the taxpayers, the supporters of all government programs, should not have to bear the burden of those seeking a free ride at our expense. The fact that our country still distinguishes between legal and illegal immigrants, has a Border Patrol to keep people from illegally entering our country, and makes efforts to return those who do to their native countries, says that our country is not open to anyone who comes by and asks. It is open to those who will contribute to it; those who put their efforts in to this country are the ones who should see the benefits of their labors.

This line of thought is worthy of elaboration. If I look back at pay stubs from all the jobs I've worked, they all have one thing in common, and that is the taxes that I am forced to pay out of them. Things like unemployment, and in particular, welfare programs. One of my previous jobs was as a cashier for a supermarket. In the year that I worked there, I never once rang up a customer who used food stamps or welfare checks who actually deserved to be getting them. When you see the same people coming back after 6 months, I became very angry at the fact that part of the compensation work I was doing was forcibly going toward programs that give people no reason to ever do anything with their lives. I've seen people who purchase large, expensive steak with their food stamps. If you can use them to buy steak, then you certainly didn't need them in the first place, since steak is hardly something that could be considered anything close to a necessity. And there was the guy who paid for what he could with food stamps, and then use a gold credit card to pay for the rest. These are stories and sentiments I've heard echoed from my co-workers there, and from others who have worked as supermarket cashiers. The sentiment goes beyond that though, many people I've talked to have similar feelings. The problem is the loud and obnoxious 'human rights' groups who feel that the lazy have some sort of natural right to benefit from the work of the willing. Such groups badger politicians with their views, oftentimes making their cause seem far larger than it actually is, in the hopes of convincing this politician that their cause is what a majority of people want, without actually taking the time and effort to find out just what it is the majority actually wants. And even if they did, would that stop them from misreporting those views?

There are always jobs out there, no matter what the conditions may be like. A job at McDonalds may not be very appealing, but it's work, and it's a way of giving effort, and then getting compensating. The phrase 'beggars can't be choosers' comes to mind here. I'm not generalizing people on welfare to beggars. but rather, my point is that there's work out there, and if you need a job, you can't be picky about what it is you do. Unfortunately, we've given people an extra option. It would otherwise be the case that you would either work and get paid, or not work and have no source of income. But we've added programs like unemployment. You don't have to do anything, but you can still make close to $500 a week. That's $500 a week that's paid for by the people who actually are working. Social Security is the same way, those who work now are funneling money to those who didn't have enough foresight to plan on their financial future after retirement. There is absolutely no reason that the government should continue to pay retired workers. Especially not a rate greater than that with which money was put into Social Security. As it stands now, it's entirely likely that the funds for Social Security will no longer be adequate within 20 years. That is long before myself or any other member of my generation should plan to retire, and so we won't ever see a cent of this money that we continually feed into the bureaucracy of the federal government.

What else can I say, but this country is heading to hell in a handbasket; I have seen predictions of a major governmental collapse within 50 years. With the actions of the Bush administration, I have a feeling it won't take nearly this long; and the fact that very few people are expressing and kind of discontent with these policies (the war being the exception, there is quite a large upswelling of public opposition to that) is only serving to expedite the process. And if it were only the US, it might not be so bad, because there would be other places where freedom was still a right enjoyed by the people. The problem is the US pushing it's weight around in an attempt to 'harmonize' other countries to the US system. Threats of sanctions and embargoes by a major power such as the US is often enough to cause a smaller government to just give in, and abandon those things which made it different than the US. No country on this planet has any system of government that is well-suited for use on a global scale, the Unites States included. But yet we seem to have taken it upon ourselves to the humanitarians of the world, yet at the same time the warriors of the world. The same people who on one hand support unity and solidarity on certain issues are the same who turn around and then decide to wage a war.

I think 'Not in my name' (I refer the phrase, not the organization) sums everything up best; I am an American citizen, but I do not support a government action against Iraq (not without any provocation), and I have opposition to many, many parts of the inflated and unworkable behemoth that has become the federal bureaucracy. Not in My name, indeed.