Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 9:50 am

Note: This is not part of my "Hollywood Series" - I hope.

Per chance to dream.   Per chance to dream "American Dreams" more understandable.

Do we need to look critically at Al Qaeda?

Do we need to look at Saddam Hussein, necessarily, for likely thinking America would let him keep Kuwait?

Do we need to look at Iran and Iran Shia insurgents maybe of having a "justification" for disrupting "progress" in Iraq of Operation Iraqi Freedom once it turned more to the near three different wars happening in Iraq simultaneously?

Do we, necessarily, need to look at the state of America’s major urban centers and especially New York City at the time of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and that world could easily have been sold on an interpretation like:  Saddam Hussein ran Baghdad better than any United States major city was then being run?

And, on today’s economics and especially specialties in "urban economics" and governance philosophies related:   Are we now at a time in history, and around "federal spending" and "government size" issues such that now, especially with new techonolgy to empowering as never before, we should wax to considerations that an urban center such as New York City and its five boroughs should be able to sustain and fund itself without any federal spending/funds?

And, on today’s economics how can we not look at current state of technologies and class and social and economic differentials and not, necessarily, fully discuss that NYC should be able to fund itself and as the next step towards improving its community and real governance.  

If New York  City cannot fund itself - WHY??? 

If such a metropolitan area with enough riches and rich people cannot present an economics and social argument with a fair distribution not a national socialist "redistribution" how can we argue for a national socialist "redistribution"?

With Saddam Hussein having better run Baghdad but having been a horrible neighbor, and with Al Qaeda reportedly of a rise to bring justice to Saddam Hussein for his un-neighborly invasion of Kuwait, that President George H. W. Bush didn’t rush into Baghdad takes on a greater "understandability".   Bush seemed right not to rush into Baghdad and so much more on Saddam’s timing of his strategic calculus around thinking America would let him keep Kuwait or risk, or risk, or risk serious new more dangerous conflicts.  So Operation Iraqi Freedom turned into like three separate wars within Iraq and largely because the eight years of Clintons did not bring "sufficient" justice upon Saddam Hussein to the satisfaction of Al Qaeda or Iran Shia?   So, sanctions, sanctions, and sanctions but such thought to be with "bite" of a re-election of President Bush with a clear willingness to return to Baghdad within just maybe leaving Saddam just three years to fully comply - or else?   So Operation Iraqi Freedom cost so much more in lives and American dollars specifically because the Clintons’ eight years let fester "anti-Americanism" around the festering "abandonment" felt from US and Coalition having left so many Iraqi hanging by not going immediately after Saddam Hussein?  

That, and maybe the surge wouldn’t have been necessary if Clintons, instead of flip-flopping "CYA" style did own up to their years as much a foul and ignored that shouldn’t have been - that Clintons had stood on honor and fought the dumb down of complex regional and internal issues in and around Iraq that became the American mindset with the "anti-war" movement leading the mass dumbing?  

Oh no!   The surge was necessary because the Dems manufacturing of "anti-war" movement was too much of an effecting, intentional, to dumbing down complexities such that not only did Americans not know enough about the real issues in November 2008 but also Iraqi insurgents had cause and motivation to fight the efforts of Bush administration for an early victory for Bush would support the dumbed down messaging the Clintons were supporting?

Comments »

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Publication may require admin approval; please come back later to view your comment.