How Could We Know? by Allan Ayo
February 19, 2008
How Could We Know? I didn’t know! You didn’t know! How could we know?Did you know that 47 countries’ have reestablished their embassies in Iraq ?Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people ?Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated,
364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq ?
Did you know that Iraq ’s higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?
Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United State s in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program ?
Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational ?
They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.
Did you know that Iraq ’s Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers ?
Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?
Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?
Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq ?
They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?
Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158% ?
Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?
Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?
OF COURSE WE DIDN’T KNOW!
WHY DIDN’T WE KNOW?
YOUR NEWS MEDIA REFUSES TO TELL US!
Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.
Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves three two major purposes of the liberal news media:
1. It is intended to undermine the world’s perception of the United States thus minimizing consequent support, and:
2. It is intended to discourage American citizens and erode their support for the war.
3. It is intended to help the Democratic Party gain more power in the next elections.
—- All the above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.”
Pass it on! Give it wide dissemination.
Allan Ayo
Secretary
V V A Chapter 991
Palestine TX.
903-322-4850
Vietnam Veterans of America ( www.vva.org)
Democrats still play politics with national security
February 17, 2008
It never ceases to amaze me how Democratic leaders continue to play politics with the security of our country and no one in the media seems to care. Once again Nancy Pelosi and house democrats stand up for the big trial lawyers and the ACLU by not bringing to a vote the legislation needed to allow wiretapping of terrorists to continue.
Democrats in the house don’t want the portions of the bill passed in the Senate that grants civil immunity to telecommunications companies that did what their government asked of them and in turn got sued for it by the ACLU. Trial lawyers stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars in fees from these frivolous lawsuits so once again we can count on Pelosi to put fundraisers and vacations ahead what’s best for the security of our country.
Are these really the people we want running the country? Are these the people we want appointing judges to our nations courts? When Republicans were in charge of the house we could at least count on them to do what was best for national security, the majority of the time.
Speaker of State strikes again
December 13, 2007
Chief dimwit in the house, Nancy Pelosi, strikes again. This time she goes goes after Republicans because they “like” the war in Iraq.
“They like this war. They want this war to continue,”
“But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush’s war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress.”
Actually truth be know it’s the loony left that likes this war, if not for the war they would literally have nothing to bash Bush about. But hey let us except the exhalted ones premise and say that Republicans like this war. Let’s Republicans like to fight terrorism, Republicans like to help defeat brutal dictators, Republicans like to help the 25 million Iraqis win their freedom from a brutal dictator.
Ok I can accept that, they question is why are Democrats against, fighting terrorism, why are Democrats against removing brutal dictators, why are Democrats against helping 25 million Iraqis win their freedom and overthrow a brutal dictator?
Why won’t Democrats answer that question? The American people don’t want to lose in Iraq, they don’t want to cut off funding for the troops, they see that we are winning this war and want to continue to win this war!
The death of diplomacy
November 18, 2007
Conservatives I ask you, do you remember when diplomacy wasn’t a dirty word? I am a fairly young conservative but I have studied my history and from that I learned that in the far and distant past diplomacy used to be the art of letting your enemies know that if they messed with the United States of America that we would come over there and blow them back to the dark ages in such a way that it sounded nice.
Now Reagan got it right, when he would talk to the former Soviet Union he could convince them that we intended to build bigger, more advanced weapons than they could hope to develop in a hundred lifetimes and they didn’t see it his way he would simply walk away. However I am not just talking about specific Presidents, I refer mostly to the culture that lives and festers at a State Department that is polluted mentality stuck in the late sixties.
Also the left wing media seems stuck in the same backwards thinking, take for example the story this last week about how relieved Condi Rice and her senior Management were that enough applicants had been found to go to Iraq that they wouldn’t have to “force” people to go. We had certainly seen plenty of whining over the last several weeks from career diplomats that enjoy cushy assignments at all the popular places in the world. Never mind the fact that this duty with the State Department is entirely voluntary to join but they can be assigned duty anywhere in the world.
Diplomats whined about their kids, going to a war zone where they might be killed, never mind the fact that no State Department diplomats have been killed in Iraq to this point. I thought that this is what modern day diplomacy was all about, go to hot spots around the world and just talk to the people that don’t like us and let them know that we mean them no harm and then everything will be peachy and we can hold hands and sing cum-bi-ya. Blah, ick.
No my friends, diplomacy was JFK convincing Khrushchev that we are prepared to invade Cuba, fight in Europe, or anywhere else for that matter and that we would not permit nuclear weapons on the island of Cuba. It was the threat of overwhelming force that was clearly articulated that finally forced Khrushchev to believe that he was wrong.
So when we look for a Presidential candidate we need someone that can redefine diplomacy, someone who will literally clean house at the State Department because there are very few people there that are qualified to be diplomats in the this era.
Hugo threatens $200 oil
November 18, 2007
Hugo Chavez, left wing dictator of Venezuela, warns the United States of oil reaching $200 per barrel if the US attacks either Iran or Venezuela. However let’s look at a few facts on the subject of oil in Iran and Venezuela.
Both Iran and Venezuela are economically isolated countries, Iran’s economy is in shambles, it’s infrastructure for pumping oil is not well maintained and it is controlled by the Iranian government. If Iran would modernize (or allow outside companies to do it for them) then more oil could be pumped. Venezuela has had socialism thrust upon them and Chavez is taking every nickel he can squeeze from oil and fund social programs. The problem with this is that he to is not maintaining his ability to pump oil. He has taken over all the oil interests for this country and doesn’t allow private companies to invest in the needed upgrades to bring more oil out of the ground.
So with both of these large oil producing countries so screwed up how can we avoid $200 oil anyway? Shouldn’t we work to remove these thugs that run these countries so that the oil that drives the world economy can be pumped from the ground? Yes I know a war would drive the price up in the short term but fixing the infrastructure would allow both countries to produce two or three times their output today and this would bring the price of oil back down to the $35 or $40 range.
Granted this only solves half the problem. We also have to remove the socialists from power in the US. The environmental movement, and current far left wackos in congress are probably a greater threat to the United States than Hugo or Mahmoud could ever hope to be. All the oil in the world means very little if it can’t be refined and our refining capacity hasn’t changed much in the last 20 years. We import roughly 3.5 million barrels of refined product every day.
So I say fine, let’s remove both dictators and get on with the war. The sooner we do it the sooner we restore balance to the world, the sooner that we will see added growth in the world economy, and oh the byproduct that no one seems to care about the sooner that millions more people in Iran and Venezuela will be free from tyrannical dictators.
The definition of Sacrifice
September 12, 2007
Merriam-Webster defines sacrifice as: destruction or surrender
of something for the sake of something else, something given up or lost, the sacrifices made by parents.
I have discovered in recent years that the definition of sacrifice varies more with other factors, generation, political beliefs, political party, etc. The “greatest” generation, those born from 1911 to 1924, seemed to sacrifice a great deal. Many of these people suffered through the great depression, many went on to fight in World War II, and many did not come home. There are those that didn’t fight for our country in Europe or the Pacific but worked in factories to support the war effort, but all were impacted by the war.
Everyone was restricted in the fuel they could use; scrap metal was reused to make planes, tanks, ammunition, etc. People made do with what they had at the time, if the radio broke you fixed it, you didn’t throw it away and buy a new one, people didn’t replace cars every twelve months because it was “old”.
Recent Comments