It is well known that on May third a cyclone hit Burma's coast and killed or displaced 135,000 people.  The government there has not until today allowed foreign aid of any kind and have mostly not done anything to help its own people in this their hour of need.  Whats news to me is that on Saturday the people of Burma were supposed to vote on a new Constitution, which would allow the military junta which is their government to maintain power.  Does anyone else see the motive?  The fewer people that vote, the more likely it is that the Military will remain in power.  Thats why the Burmese government has done nothing to help its people.  Its disgusting. 

An article from the New York Times......

 

GARMSER, Afghanistan — For two years British troops staked out a presence in this small district center in southern Afghanistan and fended off attacks from the Taliban. The constant firefights left it a ghost town, its bazaar broken and empty but for one baker, its houses and orchards reduced to rubble and weeds.

But it took the Marines, specifically the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, about 96 hours to clear out the Taliban in a fierce battle in the past month and push them back about 6 miles.

It was their first major combat operation since landing in March, and it stood in stark contrast to the events of a year earlier, when a Marine unit was removed in disgrace within weeks of arriving because its members shot and killed 19 civilians after a suicide bombing attack.

This time, the performance of the latest unit of marines, here in Afghanistan for seven months to help bolster NATO forces, will be under particular scrutiny. The NATO-led campaign against the Taliban has not only come under increasing pressure for its slow progress in curbing the insurgency, but it has also been widely criticized for the high numbers of civilian casualties in the fighting.

The marines’ drive against the Taliban in this large farming region is certainly not finished, and the Taliban have often been pushed out of areas in Afghanistan only to return in force later. But for the British forces and Afghan residents here, the result of the recent operation has been palpable.

The district chief returned to his job from his refuge in the provincial capital within days of the battle and 200 people — including 100 elders of the community — gathered for a meeting with him and the British to plan the regeneration of the town.

“They have disrupted the Taliban’s freedom of movement and pushed them south, and that has created the grounds for us to develop the hospital and set the conditions for the government to come back,” said Maj. Neil Den-McKay, the officer commanding a company of the Royal Regiment of Scotland based here. People have already started coming back to villages north of the town, he said, adding, “There has been huge optimism from the people.”

For the marines, it was a chance to hit the enemy with the full panoply of their firepower in places where they were confident there were few civilians. The Taliban put up a tenacious fight, rushing in reinforcements in cars and vans from the south and returning repeatedly to the attack, but they were beaten back in four days by three companies of marines, two of which were dropped in by helicopter to the southeast.

In the days after the assault began, hundreds of families, their belongings packed high on tractor-trailers, fled north from villages in the southern part of the battle zone, according to marines staffing a checkpoint. The Taliban told them to leave as the fighting began, they said. Hospital officials in the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah, reported receiving eight civilian casualties as a result of the fighting, including a 14-year-old boy who died from his injuries. The marines did not sustain any casualties, but one was killed and two were wounded in subsequent clashes.

Marines from the unit’s Company C said the reaction from the returning civilians, mostly farmers, had been favorable. “Everyone says they don’t like the Taliban,” said Capt. John Moder, 34, the commander of the company. People had complained that the Taliban stole food, clothes and vehicles from them, he said.

There are about 34,000 American troops in Afghanistan, with more than 3,000 marines having been sent into the country after NATO requested additional help in the south, where the Taliban are particularly strong.

The deployment occurred almost a year after up to 19 unarmed civilians were killed and 50 people wounded on March 4, 2007, when a Marine convoy opened fire after a suicide car bomb wounded one marine. On Friday, the Marine Corps said it would not bring charges against two of the commanding officers from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit for the episode, a decision that was greeted with dismay in Afghanistan.

The commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Dan K. McNeill, had a checklist of tasks around the country for 3,200 marines when they arrived in March. But the majority of them have spent a month in Garmser after changing their original plan, which was to secure a single road here, when they realized how important the area was to the Taliban as an infiltration and supply route to fighters in northern part of Helmand Province.

“This is an artery, and we did not realize that when we squeezed that artery, it would have such an effect,” said First Lt. Mark Matzke, the executive officer of Company C.

They also realized it was worth exploiting their initial success. The whole area was unexpectedly welcoming to the American forces and eager for security and development, Captain Moder said. “Us pushing the Taliban out allows the Afghan National Army to come in,” he said. “This is a real breadbasket here. There’s a lot of potential here.”

The region has long been an infiltration route for insurgents coming across the southern border with Pakistan, crossing from Baluchistan Province in Pakistan via an Afghan refugee camp known as Girdi Jungle. The Taliban, and the drug runners, then race across a region known ominously as the desert of death until they reach the river valley, which provides the ideal cover of villages and greenery.

With such a large area under their control, the Taliban were able to gather in numbers, stockpile weapons and provide a logistics route to send fighters and weapons into northern Helmand and the provinces of Kandahar and Oruzgan beyond.

The Taliban, who kicked out villagers and took over their farmhouses, were also mixed with an unusual proportion of Arabs and Pakistanis, Major Den-McKay said.

“The majority of elements in this area are Arab and Pakistani, and the locals detest them,” he said. The insurgent commanders were from Iran, which shares a border with Afghanistan to the southwest, as well as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, he said.

Afghan villagers confirmed that there were local Afghan Taliban fighting, too. But they also said that there were Pakistanis, ethnic Baluchis from southern Iran and Arabs fighting as well.

Locals complained that the Taliban taxed them heavily on the opium harvest. They demanded up to about 30 pounds of opium from every farmer, which was more than the entire harvest of some, so they were forced to go and buy opium to meet the demand, said Abdul Taher, a 45-year-old farmer.

“We had a lot of trouble these last two years,” said Sher Ahmad, 32. “We are very grateful for the security,” said his father, Abdul Nabi, the elder of a small hamlet in the village of Hazarjoft, a few miles south of Garmser. “We don’t need your help, just security,” he said.

Villagers were refusing humanitarian aid offered by the marines because the Taliban were already infiltrating back and threatening anyone who took it, Lieutenant Matzke said.

After a month in the region, the marines have secured only half of a roughly six-square-mile area south of Garmser. Taliban forces operating out of two villages are still attacking the southern flank of the marines and are even creeping up to fire at British positions on the edge of the town.

But the bigger test will come in the next few weeks as the marines move on and the Afghans, supported by the British, take over. The concern here is that the Taliban will try to blend in among the returning villagers and orchestrate attacks.

Major Den-McKay said they were ready. “The threat will migrate from direct attacks to suicide attacks” and roadside bombs, he said.

Now on his fourth tour in Afghanistan, Major Den-McKay said he had seen considerable progress in the confidence and ability of the Afghan security forces. Reinforcements of the police, trained and mentored by the British and Americans, have already moved in and are working well with border police and intelligence service personnel, he said.

The marines, meanwhile, prepare for their next move. To the south are miles upon miles of uncontrolled territory where the Taliban still operate freely, as well as a dozen other districts around the country demanding their attention.

     Recently, there has been peaceful civil unrest in Tibet.  Imagine that, a country that is occupied doesn't like the occupying country.  So how does China respond?  By killing 140 Tibetans.  Then, they go and blame the Dalai Lama, the coolest most peacful guy on the planet.  They claim he wants to sabotage the olympic games for them.  I'm not sure how this is even possible, the Dalai Lama hasn't been in Tibet for forty some years.  How is he supposed to be leading the protests?  Whats more, the Chinese are the most oppressive people on the planet, whose bright idea was it to give them the right to host the Olympic games, which are supposed to represent peace and all that is good in the world?  Also, the Dalai Lama is not for the seperation of Tibet from China.  For several reasons I'm sure.  Number one, its not possible without bloodshed, which he is against.  Number two, it has to do with attachments and enlightment, this isn't a religious website, if you have any questions, just email me.  I'd bet there are other reasons as well.  So, what can you do?  Don't buy products from China.  I'm guilty of it too, but I'am recommitting myself to this idea, I WILL NOT BUY CHINESE PRODUCTS FROM NOW ON.  Please follow my example. 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/28/china.tibet/index.html

There have been 4,290 coalition deaths -- 3,983 Americans, two Australians, 175 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Czech, seven Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 33 Italians, one Kazakh, one Korean, three Latvian, 22 Poles, three Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of March 11, 2008, according to a CNN count. (Graphical breakdown of casualties). The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose deaths have been reported by their country's governments. The list also includes seven employees of the U.S. Defense Department. At least 29,395 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon. View casualties in the war in Afghanistan and examine U.S. war casualties dating back to the Revolutionary War.

I have a question, how many more have to die?  Why does America give a damn about this country?  It certainly isn't oil, gas hit 3.50 a gallon yesterday.  It isn't to get at Al Queda.  They are still performing operations outside Iraq world wide.  Just last year they attacked the UK, and spain in the previous year.  I've been reading Che Guevera's Guerrilla warfare recently and he makes an interesting point, a group of guerrilla's (Al Queda) cannot operate in an area without the support of the people in that area.  The guerilla's would need food, lodging, weapon's and at the very least, not to be ratted out to the government.  What I'm saying is, a portion of Iraq supports Al Queda.  Most of that nation is Muslim, so I'd say a large portion.  Somebody has to see those Al Queda bastards planting road side bombs, and yet no one will warn our troops when they approach the bomb.  So, we're not there to liberate the people from the Muslim fascits, THEY ARE THE MUSLIM FASCITS!  So what's left?  To protect American's from being killed by terroists?  Hmm, lets see, nearly 4,000 troops dead?  Then that can't be the reason.  Whats left?  Oh, yeah, Haliburton.  They are some war profiteers if I've ever seen one.  Billions of dollars each year on no bid contracts.  Nice.  So if the war ends, Haliburton's gold mine will be closed.  Do you think that the Iraqi people got to decide which company got to rebuild their nation?  No.  I'd even go so far as to say Haliburton likes it when Al Queda causes trouble in Iraq.  If the terroists blow up a oil well, then Haliburton gets to charge the American people a bunch of money to fix it.  If the terrorists blow up a bridge its the same story.  The American armed forces are there for one reason, to promote American corporations in the middle east.       

 

My good buddy President W. came out with his new budget plan today.  Here are the programs he wants to cut money from.  I hate that bastard. 

Spending on poison control centers would be cut 62 percent, to $10 million. Rural health programs, a favorite of many senators, would be reduced 87 percent, to $16.9 million.

A special health program for rescue workers and volunteers who responded to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001 would be cut by 77 percent, to $25 million, even though the administration has said that many workers were exposed to "unprecedented levels of risk" for lung disease and other illnesses.

Mr. Bush's budget would end the Community Services Block Grant, a $654 million program that provides housing, nutrition, education and job services to low-income people.

The budget would also end special programs to care for people with Alzheimer's disease and to treat people with traumatic brain injury. Mr. Bush would eliminate federal money for a new "patient navigator" program, which coordinates care for people with cancer and other serious illnesses. The administration contends that these programs are ineffective or duplicate other government initiatives.

Mr. Bush proposes a 22 percent cut in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides $2.6 billion to help people pay heating bills. Many lawmakers want to expand the program at a time when oil costs are soaring.

Mr. Bush wants to end the Hope VI housing program, which upgrades severely dilapidated public housing. The House voted two weeks ago to renew the program for eight years.

The White House wants to eliminate spending for more than a dozen education programs, including Even Start, which promotes family literacy; grants to the states for classroom technology; Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, for needy undergraduates; and a scholarship program named for the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia.

This was copy/pasted from the NY times.  I encourage all of you who read this to call/email your Senators/congressmen and let them know how you feel about it.

"It's the War," Says Iowa to Hillary -- And a "Happy Blue Year" To All! ...from Michael Moore
January 3, 2007
Friends,
There was no doubt about it. The message from Iowa tonight was simple, but deafening:
If you're a candidate for President, and you voted for the war, you lose. And if you voted and voted and voted for the war -- and never once showed any remorse -- you really lose.
In short, if you had something to do with keeping us in this war for four-plus years, you are not allowed to be the next president of the United States.
Over 70% of Iowan Democrats voted for candidates who either never voted for the invasion of Iraq (Obama, Richardson, Kucinich) or who have since admitted their mistake (Edwards, Biden, Dodd). I can't tell you how bad I feel for Senator Clinton tonight. I don't believe she was ever really for this war. But she did -- and continued to do -- what she thought was the politically expedient thing to eventually get elected. And she was wrong. And tonight she must go to sleep wondering what would have happened if she had voted her conscience instead of her calculator.
John Edwards was supposed to have come in third. He had been written off. He was outspent by the other front-runners six to one. But somewhere along the road he threw off the old politico hack jacket and turned into a real person, a fighter for the poor, for the uninsured, for peace. And for that, he came in a surprise second, ending up with just one less delegate than the man who was against the war from the beginning. But, as Joshua Holland of AlterNet pointed out earlier today, Edwards is still the only front-runner who will pull out all the troops and do it as quickly as possible. His speech tonight was brilliant and moving.
What an amazing night, not just for Barack Obama, but for America. I know that Senator Obama is so much more than simply the color of his skin, but all of us must acknowledge -- and celebrate -- the fact that one of the whitest states in the U.S. just voted for a black man to be our next president. Thank you, Iowa, for this historic moment. Thank you for at least letting us believe that we are better than what we often seem to be. And to have so many young people come out and vote -- and vote for Obama -- this is a proud moment. It all began with the record youth turnout in 2004 -- the ONLY age group that Kerry won -- and they came back out tonight en force. Good on every single one of you!
As the only top candidate who was anti-war before the war began, Barack Obama became the vessel through which the people of this Midwestern state were able to say loud and clear: "Bring 'Em Home!" Most pundits won't read the election this way because, well, most pundits merrily led us down the path to war. For them to call this vote tonight a repudiation of the war -- and of Senator Clinton's four years' worth of votes for it -- might require the pundit class to remind their viewers and readers that they share some culpability in starting this war. And, like Hillary, damn few of them have offered us an apology.
With all due respect to Senator Obama's victory, the most important news out of the caucus this evening was the whopping, room-busting turnout of Democrats. 239,000 people showed up to vote Democratic tonight (93% more than in '04, which was a record year), while only 115,000 showed up to vote Republican. And this is a red state! The Republican caucuses looked anemic. The looks on their faces were glum, tired. As the camera followed some of them into their caucus sites, they held their heads down or turned away, sorta like criminals on a perp walk. They know their days of power are over. They know their guy blew it. Their only hope was to vote for a man who has a direct line to heaven. Huckabee is their Hail Mary pass. But don't rule him out. He's got a sense of humor, he's downhome, and he said that if elected, he'd put me on a boat to Cuba. Hey, a free Caribbean vacation!
Bottom line: People have had it. Iowa will go blue (Happy Blue Year, Hawkeyes!). Whomever your candidate is on the Dem side, this was a good night. Get some sleep. The Republicans won't go down without a fight. Look what happened when Kerry tried to play nice. So Barack, you can talk all you want about "let's put the partisanship aside, let's all get along," but the other side has no intention of being anything but the bullies they are. Get your game face on now. And, if you can, tell me why you are now the second largest recipient of health industry payola after Hillary. You now take more money from the people committed to stopping universal health care than any of the Republican candidates.
Despite what your answer may be, I was proud to sit in my living room tonight and see you and your family up on that stage. We became a bit better tonight, and on that I will close by saying, sweet dreams -- and on to that other totally white state of New Hampshire!
Yours,
Michael Moore

According to the issues (and the NY times), here is where they stand.....

Iraq.......

Clinton- out by 2013 (she just lost my vote, even in the general election)

Biden-  Partition Iraq and out by summer 2008  (I'm pretty sure he wont be the President until '09, not a fan of partioning, not on my favorites list)

Dodd-   Leave Iraq by April 2008  (He won't be President until '09)

Edwards-   Out of Iraq within 10 months of election.

Kucinich-   Out of Iraq NOW!

Obama-     Leave Iraq within 16 months of election.

Richardson-   Withdraw all troops by 2010 (BEST, most believable answer). 

Health Care.......

Clinton-  Mandate that everyone get health care, subsidized by the government and employers, roll back tax breaks for people making over 250 grand a year. 

Biden-    All under 21 will be insured, pay for it by ending the Iraq war and tax cut roll backs (not insuring everyone?  Bad answer).

Edwards-  Has the same plan as Clinton.

Dodd-  Has the same plan as Clinton.

Kucinich-     Establish Medicare for all; pay for it by removing costs related to private insurers and implementing taxes for the highest earners and a payroll tax (BEST ANSWER!).

Obama-  Make Health Insurance affordable and require that all children have health care.  (Bad answer, definetly not on my favorites list). 

Richardson-  Requires that everyone have insurance, subsidized by the government and employers.

Iran......

Clinton-  Declared Iran's military a terrorist group, military option on the table, would not meet with Irans President (WRONG ANSWER).

Biden-  Engage in direct diplomacy; tighten economic sanctions with international cooperation; believes there is no military option.

Dodd-   Engage in direct diplomacy; use economic pressure; would not meet with the Iranian president; military option not off the table (WRONG ANSWER).

Edwards-  Engage in low level diplomacy; use economic pressure; military option not off the table (WRONG ANSWER).

Kucinich-   Would engage in direct diplomacy; says U.S. must disarm as well; opposes military strike (GREAT ANSWER).

Obama-     Engage in direct diplomacy; tighten economic sanctions with international cooperation; would meet with the Iranian president with no preconditions; military option not off the table.

Richardson-  Direct diplomacy without preconditions; work with international community to place sanctions; would not meet with the Iranian president; may allow civilian nuclear capability; opposes military strike (GOOD ANSWER).

All of the candidates are very close on Abortion, Climate Change and I still don't care about Immigration.  I don't know about you, faithful readers, but I'm still stuck between Kucinich and Richardson. 

This article can be found at http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html#/context=index/issue=immigration

 

     I've been toying with the idea of voting for a Republican in the upcoming primary elections.  As a West Virginia Independent, I am given the opportunity to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary as described here (http://www.wvsos.com/elections/voters/partyregistration.htm).  I've never voted for a Republican before and thought this might be the best time to do so.  I don't like Hillary Clinton (voted for the Iraq war and declared Irans military as a terrorist group http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/weekinreview/14cooper.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) and Barack Obama seems to have the John Kerry flu (never can give a straight answer.).  I like Kucinich, but he did claim to see a UFO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSRWRbuMqyc) which seems a little crazy to me.  Biden wants to partition Iraq into three countries based on religion (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/opinion/23galbraith.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), now tell me, how has that worked out for India/Pakistan and Israel/Palestine?  Edwards just seems ingenuine to me, I don't have a link for that, he just seems like a phony.  Bill Richardson is by far my favorite but I even have ticky tack problems with him, and it doesn't look like he'll win anyway.  However, even with the problems I have with the Democrats I truly believe that any one of them would make a capable President (well, maybe not Edwards).  So, by the time West Virginia rolls around to its primary on May 13th, We will probably be down to two candidates, Clinton and Obama.  Between the two I don't care who wins, I might flip a coin, heads its Obama! 

       Now, as far as the Republicans go, theres only one I could even dream of voting for, and he may be able to get me out of voting for one of two Democrats I don't particularly like.  Ron Paul.  I am now going to break down this candidate by the issue according to his website and tell you what I think...

On the environment...

     Congressman Paul states that the key to sound environmental policy is the respect for private property and that to punish polluters we as Americans should sue the polluter.  In that case, I should sue Masey for blowing up my mountains here in Kanawha county WV.  Tell me, who's going to have the better lawyers?  What Ron Paul forgets (and its the downfall of all Libertarians) is that the government IS the people.  I shouldn't have to sue a company.  Thats why we have the WV EPA.  The government is there to protect us, not hurt us.  Sometimes they do screw up, but its better than not helping at all.  Minus one for Ron Paul.

The war in Iraq.....   

     He wants out of Iraq in a big way.  Plus one to Ron Paul.

Universal Health Care......

     Against UHC.  Minus one to Ron Paul.

Public education....

     Against federal funding of schools.  For giving tax breaks to parents who want to send children to religious schools so they can learn all about creationism.  Minus one to Ron Paul.

Roe VS Wade....

      Against.  As President would do his utmost to overturn.  Minus one to Ron Paul.

Second amendment.....

       Against any restriction of fire arms.  Plus one to Ron Paul.

Right to Privacy.....

       Against the National ID and wants a repeal of the USA PATRIOT ACT.  Plus one to Ron Paul.

Those are the issues that he lists on his website that I care about (notice immigration is not one of them).  His total score is -1.  Alas, with a score of negative one, I cannot vote for a Republican in '08.  The search continues...........