I have tried to stay away from making comments regarding the fighting in Iraq. I am as disappointed as the next person when it comes to what we have failed to accomplish in Iraq. I am also not ashamed of what we have done or why we went to war against the government of Iraq. A humane person could reason that the war against these thugs who were leading Iraq was worth the loss of our young people in uniform and the money spent when we think of the innocent and defenseless people we saved from routine rape, torture and murder. Is there truth to the old saying, ''are we our brothers keeper?'' God only knows what we may have prevented. One could certainly argue that the threats of an unbridled Iraq verbalized as well as acted on was enough to tip the scale toward U.S. Military action. We all know the history of the real violence that Saddam Hussein used against his own people and neighboring countries and that the United Nations Sanctions were documents the Iraqi regime hid behind. Every time American or for that matter Great Britain's jets flew across the no-fly zone our pilots had to use every skill they knew to keep from being lit up like Roman candles by Iraqi missiles. Iraq continued to make threats toward its neighbors. The Iraqi leadership continued to openly discuss the possibility of using weapons of mass destruction and developing nuclear weapons. There is absolutely no question that Saddam Hussein expressed his evil purpose through serious threats of aggression along with past and present acts of violence.

There will always be focused debate on the war with Iraq between Liberals and Conservatives and the many special interest groups along with the various political parties. It is extremely difficult to know what should be done about the war. My father was in WWII and he earned a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart in battle in the South Pacific fighting against the Japanese. I believe in our armed forces and I support our men and women in uniform. How bad does a person have to be before that person earns the status of a madman thus calling for the U.S. to respond with our Military. Where do we draw the line as to how many innocent people have to die by the hands of a ruthless cutthroat like Saddam Hussein and those two savages he called sons before the U.S. can take action? What is the criteria that we use in order to determine that a government or a regime is so terrible that we have to take action in order to protect innocent people including U.S. citizens. Some could make the point that we cannot be the world's police force and I agree with this. I think history will prove these crazy leaders will torment, torture and murder their own people and for whatever reason try and expand and export their evil to their neighbors or countries that may complain or possibly take action against their brutality. It is apparent to me that we can no longer depend on the United Nations, NATO or old allies with the exception of Great Britain and Australia to chip in and put the fear of God into some of these crazy lunatic leaders. We can not act as the countries of Old Europe doing nothing hoping the problem will pass. These once proud countries cowering in fear hoping that their country would not be the next one falling before another madman that has cursed his own people with evil. The Old Europe just sat watching their neighbors fall like dominoes until there was no strength left in Europe to resist Adolf Hitler. We cannot be the world's police force. How do we decide the legitimacy of threats against humanity and weigh the violence against our Military and our citizens to determine when and how to act? When is enough a enough? 

I am thinking through some of the reasons that we went to war with Iraq. Saddam Hussein was certainly a piece of work and he obviously did not fear serious consequences for the domestic violence against his own people or his threat of exporting violence. It may have been that we made a mistake or at least Bush one made the mistake by not invading Iraq during the first conflict and finishing off at least the leadership. One could say the same mistake was made during WWI with Germany. Germany was never invaded during WWI. After WWI Germany was certainly in a bad way economically but the country was never invaded. The U.S. had to fight the Germans again in WWII. There is no Time Machine to travel into the past to correct the problems or mistakes we all wish no longer existed. What should we do in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, North Korea Venezuela and some of these areas in Africa where tribal warfare consists of groups fighting with at times primitive weapons to control and isolate people in order to starve them to death. This fighting is as effective as tanks and airplanes in destroying whole cultures. How many hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, hundred thousands or numbers and experiences that would rival the Holocaust has to happen before the Untied States can act on at least humane grounds? In some circles, including historians, politicians, religious leaders and scientists a debate still rages concerning the dropping of the atom bomb to end WWII with Japan. Was the dropping of the atom bomb illegal, unethical or immoral, killing so many innocent people in order to end the war with Japan? I was able to ask my father this question. He said that the Allies had to fight for every inch of real estate throughout the islands of the South Pacific with the goal to force Japan into unconditional surrender. My father said that Japan was beat months before the bomb was dropped. He said that Japan’s Army had little to no materials or supplies to continue the war. He said that the army and the people were starving and that Japan's Military was left with sacrificing their young men in suicide attacks to stall off the inevitable. My father explained that the Emperor was not running the war or leading the people. He was only a figurehead with little knowledge about what was really happening. He said that Japan's Military wanted to force a fight as long as possible to try and gain better terms for surrender. This meant there would have to be an invasion of the islands of Japan causing even greater suffering. My father said if the Allies would have been forced to invade Japan they would have lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers not to mention the wounded. He said the decision that went into dropping the A-bomb had to do with the ethics of killing tens and tens of thousands of innocent people or seeing tens and tens of thousands of American soldiers die on the beaches and on the city streets of Japan. My father thought it was an awful thing to drop the A-bomb but he also thought it was an awful thing to see the war prolonged. Of course I am not recommending we use any nuclear weapons at this time.  I'm just pointing out the decision process are at least some of the thinking that went into ending WWII. My point simply stated is that America has to have the willpower to win unconditionally. The terrorists we are fighting are not limited to the boundaries of a single country where we have to fight for every inch of soil and at some point when the country is overrun, the enemy captured or killed then victory is declared.  After all I have said it is clear that the key to success is that once a decision is made we as a people demonstrate the willpower and resolve to carry through with that decision. If we want to remain a viable country we have got to mean what we say and do what we mean. America has to be true to itself from handing out a parking ticket for wrongdoing to mobilizing and amassing a great army to invade Afghanistan hunting down the hatred that caused 9/11. 

I have chosen to believe that we entered into war with Iraq for ethical, moral and legal reasons. At this time I've chosen to believe that our efforts were and are noble. Terrible mistakes have obviously been made. It has been very hard to watch the various political as well as special interest groups control and run the war based on political need instead of Military need. The big question remains, what next. How do we get out? Administration, politicians, Military and concerned United States citizens are worried that this war could become another Vietnam. If we move out will the real bad guys move in. If the U.S. gets out in the wrong way what are the ramifications? If the U. S. leaves now will we be viewed as not keeping our promises. Will our enemies view us as being weak and unwilling to protect our own people and interest? These are all troubling situations.

The major concern I have is how does the U.S. declare success and move on. We've spent years and billions of dollars and thousands of American lives doing good deeds before God and Country. We have trained Iraqis to take care of themselves but it does not appear that the Iraqis have the will to protect themselves or their country. This is a sad situation. We have trained their military, given them supplies and weapons and paid their salaries. The United States has done these things but we continue to get reports describing the lack of interest and will power of the Iraqi government and military to protect themselves and their people. The Iraqis are reluctant to put their own lives at risk. We still receive reports that Americans are having to go in and handle the dangerous work. In other words the United States Military is still pulling the wagon. I believe our Military leaders are telling us the truth. Our generals are trying to put the best face on the situation but that doesn't mean they're not telling the truth. There is a major problem when it is obvious that we want the Iraqis to have their freedom more than the Iraqis want their freedom. When our Military is working harder than their military that tells us something. It has been reported that the Iraqi military will choose when and where to fight. It has been reported that Iraqi military personnel will just leave and be gone for weeks and then come back to their companies when it is payday. I remember a story I used to hear when I was a young boy. Some of the old people used to say that when you wanted to teach a boy how to swim that was resistant, you just throw him in the water and he sinks or swims. The Iraqis have no incentive to see the Americans leave. As long as the U.S. taxpayer's money flows into Iraq and the United States puts effort into their country why would the Iraq military step up to the plate? There is absolutely no incentive for Iraqis to see the American soldiers or other American personnel leave their country.

I would like to see our country isolated from our own choice. A statement just came out by the leadership of the United Nations that they are demanding that the Mexican government withdraw their military from the borders and cease using their military to combat the drug lords and the drug trafficking along the border between the United States and Mexico. The drug lords and traffickers are better financed and better equipped including weapons than the Police Departments on both sides of the border. Hundreds of murders and dozens of kidnappings are happening from month to month and the local police can no longer handle this amount of violence. I cannot imagine what the United Nation's leadership is thinking making a statement of that kind. I am all for using air strikes on the border if that would be possible. It is obvious that their was some type of illegal or at least unethical goings on between the United Nation's leadership and the Iraqi leadership before this last war broke out. The outrage over food for oil never seem to go anywhere. I wonder why we were not told about the activities and efforts of the French and Russian governments and their business relationships with Iraq. It is strange that our dear brother country to the south also failed to support us in our war with Iraq. Isolationism seems to be an interesting idea.

We got into the war with the best of intentions given all that our country knew. The News people tells us in the morning that 2 out of 3 people want us out of Iraq. At night we are told that 5 out of 7 people want us out of Iraq. At 3 in the morning the media says the polls read 9 out of 11 grand mothers on the east side of Stockton Ca.want us out of Iraq. It may be time to decide. I think no one would argue that the loss of over 4000 of our wonderful young men and women is hard to take any way that someone tries to explain it. Our present administration reported that the Iraqis would be able to pay for all of the United States efforts in the war along with rebuilding the country by using its oil reserves. The American people were told that we were going to get our money back. When the war started we were paying $50 a barrel for oil and now we are paying $112 plus a barrel. It is reported that the Iraqi government has billions and billions of dollars in reserve in their country and billions and billions of dollars in bank accounts in New York. I am unclear as to why Iraq is not paying for their own reconstruction and paying for their own military. Why are we paying for Iraq's reconstruction, their military and the protection of their government? Why are we paying four dollars a gallon for gas? I think our administration and the country of Iraq could go a long way in healing the animosity that some in this country has for Iraq if the Iraqi Government offered a substantial monetary benefit to the disabled and families of our decease soldiers. When is enough a enough?

I feel bad for these people who have found themselves facing foreclosure because they have a mortgage that looks similar to those handed out when Jimmy Carter was President. It really is sad listening to a husband and wife describe their experience of losing their home. It is even more troubling listening to the reasons being given for these horrible financial nightmares. This incredible situation becomes a little bit crazier when I watch the nightly debate to determine if the government should help, bailout or rescue these soon to become fomer home owners. The debate is like any other political question these days having 3 sides to every answer.

 

The debate is heated at times with twist and turns. The argument rages on with the answer for blame depending on the public's perception if the home owners are giving excuses or reasons for their mortgage problems. I am probably missing much of the interaction between the parties but it seems as if the home owner is blaming the loan company for giving them a loan. I thought this was how the loan companies made money. Call me crazy or some other name I answer to but loan companies loan money. My understanding is that the loan company evaluates the credit application and the down payment offered and says yes assigning risk and an interest rate for the length of the loan. The house and down payment is held by the lender for collateral. The Loan compainies are not suppose to loan if the borrower can not pay the monthly payment. The borrower should not borrow the money if they can not afford to pay the loan back. There is a battle raging as to who is at fault. If laws have been broken then prosecute the law breakers. If only rules have been broken then enforce the rules. People are claiming ignorance. My father was a great man. He was a WWII hero. He was the greatest teacher on ethics I have ever known but he only had a second grade education. He never owned a house or a new car with the exception of a 4 door Ramberler American 200. I watched my dad walk away from 3 other deals for new vehechies because he said he could not afford the ''deals.'' I remember the salesman trying to convince my dad that he could afford these ''deals.'' I asked my dad why we didn't buy the cars when we had the chance? He said ''because I am going to have to pay for the car not the salesman.'' We were poor but we always had enough. I am not going to give the reader one of these stories where I had to walk 3 miles a day to attend a little one-room red schoolhouse. It did not snow where I lived and the schoolhouse had four rooms. I didn't understand about money as I grew up. As an adult I still don't understand that much about money with the exception that one has to be careful with it.

 

My wife and I had been looking for a new SUV for the last 18 months. My wife and I walked away from 3 ''deals'' before we finally made our purchase. I could not believe what we went through. During the last negociations that were successful the saleman's manager asked me why we could not close the deal because we were so close? I told the guy with all respect that I was responsible to my wife who was sitting next to me and  to my 4 year old at home. I told them that we were one of the first families to move in on our block and into our community. I explained that we had been in our house for 7 years and when we moved in I noticed a phenomenon in our neighborhood. There were brand new cars showing up all over our streets in every other driver way. There seemed as if there was new furiture being delivered up and down the street everyday. It looked as if everyone had the spending disease. I told the sales manager that there are now for sale and for rent signs decorating my neighborhood. I told him that this is why I have walked away from other deals because I am responsible to pay for what I buy and in 6 months I don't want a for sale sign in my front yard. I have a friend bless his heart that has spent every dime he has ever had his hands on and has an interest in assisting anyone he knows in spending any money they may have. This gentleman has other financial dealings that the mountain people are making songs about so there will be some historical record of his escapades. He was very intense wanting to know about our last efforts trying to buy a car. He was upset that I shared little information and he wanted to know why we did not buy the car. I just said we could not afford it. Then I heard these words from the past when my friend said ''yes but the salesman said you could afford the car.'' Before I could think I said yes but the salesman is not going to pay for it, I am.

 

The question remains who is to blame given this housing crisis? If this question is by some miracle answered then how shall we help. Who should pay the cost to fix the problem. Anyone can see the direction I am heading in with this essay. What is wrong with both parties being responsible to the rules and to the laws. This may seem pretty hard but because of my line of work I have seen many a person loose their house by negotiating it back to the bank or through foreclosure. I have seen people loose their homes because of  loss of employment, death of the breadwinner, catastrophic illness and divorce especially when a spouse runs out on the other. I have never until recently seen a person loose their home because some tall thin guy dressed in black and a cape with a top hat and a long curly cue mustace that answers to the name of Oil Can Hairy or Snidely Whiplash (one may need to be a baby boomer and remember way back to Saturday morning cartoons to connect to Oil Can Hairy and Snidely Whiplash) come around demading payment of all 3 mortgages at once. I haven't seen this until recent. Five years ago we tried to refinance our home and when the loan officer was done with us we would have had 3 brand new morages due at the first of every month. The officer was creative. He said we would save on our taxes.

 

I was listening to a discussion between Clint Eastwood and a popular cable talk show host and Eastwood was very sensitive to the issues of people loosing ''the American dream.'' He ended his statment with the view that there has to be some responsibility by the borrower and thus some pain. There are individuals and couples that were probably hoodwinked. There are those that signed on the dotted line who did the math but figured that their situation would improve over time an that a raise, promotion, new job, a second job, supper lotto or divine intervention would make up the difference when Oil Can came calling from the bank. The borrower and the lender was taking their turn rolling the dice but unfortunitly the supper lotto is not going to help in that many situations. My wife and I loved living in the bay area near the Santa Cruz Hills. We moved into a beautiful professional apartment complex. We were paying top dollar and we understood the cost. When our first 6 months were up we received a rent increase. It was more than 20 percent. Even if we were to have received divine intervention and won the supper lotto we would still had to have moved. We told the couple upstairs to prepare themselves for a significant increase but they told us not to worry. They told me they were getting a special subsidized rate because she decided to quit her job and have a baby. Their income level now allowed them to stay in one of ten apartments that was subsidized by the local city goverment. Their rent would not increase. They were paying a third of what we were because she stopped working to have a child. Now don't get me wrong. I love children but I don't want to pay for someone else's child if they can pay for it themselves. We had to move. I watched a good friend go through a divorce and his wife left the country causing him to loose his home. Sad situations for all. My friend learned through his divorce and has since remarried and has another home but he lost a small fortune. It took him years to recover but all is well for my buddy. The couple who was living beyond their means and living off the taxpayer's dime was crazy makng for me. If those two young people can't aford to pay the same rent as I did why should my taxes and my rent be higher allowing them to live in a place they really can't afford? They made the choice to quit work an have a baby but I wasn't consulted. If I am going to pay for something I would at least like a say in the decision process. If you can't afford the rent then one has to move somewhere where they can afford it. As a middle class taxpayer I cannot afford to live where I want. There are other opportunities in more desirable areas but in many cases a person has to make choices about their work and effort to be able to live in these desirable areas. Is it fair for this couple to choose to earn far less than the taxpayer who is paying a portion of this couple's rent. There are loud cries for the tapayer to take responsibility for the mismanagement of these loans. There is a movement for the government I mean taxpayer to pay these loans off and for everyone to start over. When is the middle class taxpaer going to get a big break. For most of us we have had our ups and downs financially. Most of us learned by our mistakes and from the pain we experienced that was generated by these mistakes. As much as some would like the government cannot be all things to all people. The government cannot solve every problem and I don't believe the founding fathers intended for the government to be the peoples ultimate safety net. If these financial institutions that provided these crazy loans misrepresented the truth and the responsibility of the borrower then these lenders who represent these institutions should be prosecuted under the law and those individuals and institutions should be fined. The money from these fines should be used to help the home owners. If these foreclosures are a result of rule violations or unethical practices then possibly the government could step forward to provide low interest loans so these people could save their homes. This would allow the borrower to remain responsible for the loan and give the borrower a chance to maintain dignity. No one wants to see someone lose their home but contrary to popular belief by some there is no such thing as a free ride. Ultimately it is not the government that is bailing out the financial institutions or the borrower's. It is the taxpayer.