Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Cyber Attacks in Estonia Update

This post may be completely useless, but maybe some readers will find it interesting.
In the previous post here at Thoughts on the World regarding the cyber attacks in Estonia it was mentioned that attacks had subsided. They started back up again, but they have stopped once again.

Courtesy NYT:
Cyber Attacks in Estonia

Monday, May 28, 2007

Extradition Is Allowed Under the Russian Constitution

The next chapter in the best-selling murder story of Alexander Litvinenko continues, with British police accusing Andrei Lugovoi of his murder. The plot thickens…

Russian officials have refused to extradite Lugovi, claiming that the Russian constitution does not allow for extraditions. According to Bucknell University, Article 63 of the Russian Constitution states:

The extradition of persons persecuted for their political views or any actions (or inaction), which are not qualified as criminal by the law of the Russian Federation, to other states shall not be allowed in the Russian Federation.
Murder, of course, is illegal in the Russian Federation.

UPDATE: Robert Amsterdam has a great post on the subject.

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Abraham Lincoln, George Bush and Civil Liberties

George W. BushA controversial Republican president during a time of war, utilizing controversial new powers. Many, even in his own political party, were outraged when he suspended the right of habeas corpus and imprisoned many without trial. Military tribunals were authorized to try suspects quickly; money was spent without congressional authorization. Who was this president? None other than the great Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln:
• Suspended the writ of habeas corpus. [1]
• Spent money without congressional authorization. [1]
• Imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. [1]
• Conducted at least 4,271 trials by military commission. [2]

George W. Bush:
• Defined captured enemies as "enemy combatants". [3]
• Denied "enemy combatants" habeas corpus. [3]
• Tried "enemy combatants" through military tribunals. [3]

No similarities there, right? Of course there could be more added to both presidents, but this list gets the idea across. So what can we learn from this?
• Abraham Lincoln was one of the most popular presidents of all time, if not the most popular.
• President Bush isn't popular.

Abraham LincolnDoes this mean that history will look back at Bush as one of the greats? Maybe, maybe not. The next year and a half will decide that. But looking at the last 6 or so years and comparing it to the President Lincoln's, one could say that it appears Bush will have a nice legacy. But take another look.

In Article I, Section 9, the Constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

During Lincoln's time, there was a rebellion going on. One could argue whether "public safety may require it." But if you want to argue about that, adventure into the comments section.

How History and the Current Events Relate-A New Series

A new series begins today at Thoughts on the World: How past events and current events relate.

Abraham Lincoln, George Bush and Civil Liberties
Nixon and China + Bush and Iran?

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Do You Think Democrats Duped Voters?

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 4:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
Do you think Democrats duped voters this past November on the issue of pork?

The Democrats were being unreasonable; it was implausible that they were going to stamp out corruption in only 100 hours. But, they had the right idea. One of the biggest reasons the Bush administration has made so many mistakes is because of the administration's affiliation with lobbyists like Jack Abramoff.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Irans Nuclear Program Should Play No Part in Iraq Talks

Nuclear SymbolUS and Iran ready for Iraq talks

The US says it has authorised its envoy in Baghdad to hold talks with Iranian
officials about the situation in Iraq.


The White House says Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad can talk about Iraq, but not about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Old news, right? Let's talk about it anyway.

Iran wants to talk about its nuclear program and Iraq at one sitting, while the U.S. doesn't. Iran wants to use its nuclear program to protect its interests in Iraq. Stratfor sums it up nicely:

Stratfor has extensively discussed the nexus between Iran's nuclear agenda and its blueprint for Iraq. Iran is trying to link the nuclear issue to its dealings with the United States on Iraq as a sort of insurance policy. Iran does not want to reach an agreement on Iraq and then leave the nuclear issue to be dealt with down the road, when the United States is in a stronger position to take action against Tehran.

It is essential that the U.S. leave the nuclear issue out of Iraq talks. "Never negotiate from a position of weakness."

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

What a Children's Book Can Teach Us About The War on Terror - "The Year of the Hangman"

The Year of the Hangman by Gary Blackwood

"Now he realized how it really worked: When two opponents--or two armies, or two different ways of life or thought--met and clashed, then rules and ideals and honor were left behind."

Page 227

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Hydrogen and Aluminum as a Fuel

Although this blog hasn't published a report on hydrogen power yet, it looks promising. Now a National Medal of Technology winner says he's "ready and able to start a revolution." Using hydrogen and aluminum as a fuel, an engine would be able to produce it's own energy without ever needing to fuel up. The best part? No CO2 emissions.


The worst part? "The egos of program managers at DOE [Department of Energy] are holding up the revolution," he said.

Friday, May 18, 2007

Paul Wolfowitz Shouldn't Quit - A Look at Both Sides of the Argument

Paul Wolfowitz

Did Paul Wolfowitz do anything wrong when he raised his girlfriend’s salary? That’s the question we’ll be investigating today. We’ll look at both sides of argument.

Wolfowitz Should Quit

• Wolfowitz unfairly gave his girlfriend a raise.
• The raise was above the maximum allowed raise ($47,430 when the limit was $20,146)
• It was unethical, just as the World Bank board ruled.
• He was a hypocrite; he was a champion of fighting corruption, yet he gave girlfriend, Ali Riza, an exorbitant raise (her salary was larger than Condoleezza Rice’s).

Wolfowitz Shouldn’t Quit

• Wolfowitz gave his girlfriend a raise, to make up for the fact that she had to change jobs.
• Wolfowitz was afraid if he didn’t give Riza a large enough raise he would be sued.
• People are madder about the Iraq War and Wolfowitz’s involvement in the planning of the war than his actual actions at the World Bank.
• Paul Wolfowitz was a successful head of the World Bank.

Final Decision

In fact, Paul Wolfowitz did not break many rules. He gave his girlfriend twice the maximum pay raise, but really that is it. Mr. Wolfowitz has no need to step down. For this blogger, the only reason to be mad at Mr. Wolfowitz is his involvement in the planning of the Iraq War.

Cyber Attacks in Estonia

ComputerOriginally posted at Political Grind.

From Wikinews (but written by worldthoughts-guess who that is):

Recent cyber attacks inn Estonia that have paralyzed the high tech country’s Web sites are a threat to national security, according to the country’s defense minister. This has concerned NATO, seeing that Estonia is a member state of the organization. The attacks have subsided this week.

The defence minister, Jaak Aaviksoo, also mentioned that Russia may have been behind the attacks[1]. Estonia recently removed Soviet-Era statue, which angered many Russians. Riots left 160 injured, and 1 dead.

Both NATO and the European Union views this as an attack on one of their member states. 300 Estonian IT specialist worked day and night to fix the problem [2].

The Estonian government plans to analyze server logs and data to find who orchestrated the attacks.

This is serious. This may be the first massive cyber attack by a government.

Who else would it be besides the Russians? Some 18 year old American bored in his basement? If it wasn’t the Russian government, the only other logical possibilities would be an angered Estonian (unlikely) or angered Russians not involved with the government (likely).

Russia is on the rise. As Putin prepares to step down, Russia will go through a mid life crisis. Cracks in the foundation of democracy are growing larger. Demonstrations by the Other Russia were cracked down on with nothing held back. The brutality was allowed to be captured by a Reuters team. This was deliberate “public relations” event. It was a warning to others.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Why does the U.S. Plan to Tax Its Poorest?

CNN: Bill would give 12 million a path to citizenship

Applicants would also have to pay a $5,000 penalty.

Illegal immigrants usually come to this country for better work and to earn enough money to support themselves or their family. Where are they going to get enough money to pay 5 THOUSAND dollars? That is approximately 12.5% of the average American’s (or illegal immigrant’s, for that matter) salary. Not only this, but illegals “would have to return to their home country”. Where are they going to get the money to do that?

And if somehow those problems are solved, who’s going oversee all the new citizens? The cost of ‘legalizing’ all the immigrants is going to have a huge cost and be a huge headache for the government.

This plan is illogical and implausible. If the immigrants cannot pay the price of amnesty, very few will take the offer. It appears it will pass the House, the Senate, and will not be vetoed. Hopefully someone will realize this will be a failing plan. Illegal immigration should be dealt with on the other side of the border, economically.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

The U.S. Shouldn't Attack Iran

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 4:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations says Iran should be attacked before it gets nuclear weapons. Is he right?

No; coercive diplomacy, not military action. Iran has to be isolated through sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Military pressure in Iraq is a good idea too, but directly attacking Iran would be wrong. We need to slowly isolate them until they give up.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

[POLL] Will China Attempt To Retake Taiwan?

Check out the action from yesterday's post in the comments section. Then, vote!

Will China attempt to retake Taiwan in the next 10 years?
In more than 10 years
pollcode.com free polls

Monday, May 14, 2007

China is Not an Immediate Threat

ABCNews: The China Threat and How to Resolve It


Written by Washington Post columnist Bill Gertz, Gertz seems to be bent on war with China (more on that later). He says we should learn from the 20th century; different ideologies will eventually collide. Looking back at history again, he compares the current Chinese regime to Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. While warning that internal government divisions or arrogance could lead to new war, he comes up with some pretty wild ideas. “China also could collapse and fragment, Soviet-style, raising new dangers about the loss of control of the small but growing strategic nuclear arsenal.” Because of the U.S.’s intended defense of Taiwan we could go to war, he says. In the title of the story it appears Mr. Gertz will not only talk about the threat but also “how to resolve it.” Strangely enough, he never gets into how to settle the situation. Once he says that “the solution is not trade but democracy,” and, “the United States must maintain and build up its military power,” but never really goes any further than that.


One might classify Mr. Gertz as a “fear-monger”; he rambles on and on about the Chinese threat, when none actually exists. China needs us much more than we need them. China is also a nuclear power, as he mentioned. So is the U.S. No direct confrontation could ever materialize. The consequences would be horrendous.


Nothing can realistically be done by outside forces to overthrow the Communist government. Instead, diplomatic pressure should be applied to the Chinese until they topple (as what happened in the U.S.S.R.).

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Mike Gravels Position on Don't Ask, Don't Tell

BONUS ADDITION to Gays in the Military Series:

The Gravel campaign is the second campaign to respond to the question “What is your position on the “Don't ask, don't tell” policy? Should gays be allowed to serve openly in the military?”

Here is his response:

The senator's position is that "Don't ask, don't tell" is unconstitutional as it limits the rights of gay americans. The senator supports gays in the military

Gays in the Military Series:

Mike Gravels Position on Don't Ask, Don't Tell
John Edwards Position on Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Presidential Candidates Views On "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

6 Reasons Gays Should Be Allowed In The Military
[POLL] Should Gays Be Allowed in the Military

Saturday, May 12, 2007

How the U.S. Attorney Purges and Pakistani Judge Firings Are Similar

A controversial leader is coming under fire for the dismissal of one of his legal representatives. Critics say he did it for political reasons. No, this post isn’t about the U.S. attorney purge scandal; it’s about the suspension of Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

From Wikipedia:

Justice Chaudhry was summoned by the President General Pervez Musharraf at his Army residence in Rawalpindi on Friday, 9 March 2007 and asked to explain his position on a list of charges brought against him from several quarters. He was then asked to resign, something which Justice Chaudhry refused to do and was hence forth detained for about five hours while arrangements were made elsewhere in Islamabad for speedy appointment of the Acting-Chief Justice. According to further reports he was only allowed to leave when the Acting-Chief Justice had taken oath of office and proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council had begun. According to legal analysts, the procedure adopted by the President is not only unjust and inappropriate but also unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? In the U.S. it wasn’t legal of course, but there are many similarities. Mr. Chaudhry had some high profile cases coming up this year, two of which involved President Musharraf:

• The case on whether or not the President Pervez Musharraf could run the election for the next Presidency term.
• The Uniform Issue of President Pervez Musharraf.

What Has To Be Done

In both these instances, people complained. In both the U.S. and Pakistan, each President made a mistake. To make up for this, all attorneys or judges involved should be fully reinstated.

Yesterday's Cafferty File / Cafferty File Week Over

There was no response to yesterday's 5:00 and 7:00 Cafferty File questions because they were pointless to answer. The questions were:

5 p.m.: Why do you think the divorce rate in the United States has fallen to its lowest level in more than 30 years?

7 p.m.: Do the cars presidential candidates drive tell you anything about them?

On a separate note, Cafferty File week is now over.

Friday, May 11, 2007

Petraeus Should Continue With His Plan

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 4:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
What does it mean if General Petraeus needs to remind U.S. troops in Iraq to fight by the rules?

It means the military needs an update in ethics. The Iraqi people need to be befriended; we need their trust. The Iraqi government will never learn to walk without the support of their own people. General Petraeus’s heart and mind by heart and mind approach is working beautifully, and should be continued.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

No Response to 7:00 Cafferty File

There will be no post in response to today's 7:00 Cafferty File question because the question is not worth answering.

Does a State Have the Power to Deal with Immigration?

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 5:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
In the absence of enforcement of the nation's immigration laws by the federal government, is Oklahoma right to crack down on its own?

Of course Oklahoma has the power to crack down on illegal immigration. Why wouldn’t they? State’s rights and federalism allows each state to have their own powers: education, health care, etc. If they can deal with education, why’s it such a big deal that Oklahoma is dealing with immigration?

No One Person Has Absolute Control Over the Military in Iraq

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 4:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
Who should ultimately decide how long U.S. troops stay in Iraq?

The president, only with the support of Congress, should decide how long U.S. troops stay in Iraq. The Founding Fathers made a great decision when they put the military under civilian control; it’s prevented coups and military-political confusion. It should stay that way. Congress has power over the military, but so does the president. Action needs to be approved by both. There is no single person who should ‘ultimately decide’ how long the U.S. stays in Iraq; the system of checks and balances prevents that.

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Will a Course Correction be Made?

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 4:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
Will ads featuring retired generals who say President Bush does not listen to commanders on the ground in Iraq have any effect on policy?

As the pressure mounts on the President to change the course, slight course corrections will be made. Bush is stubborn; there will be no drastic changes, but every little thing makes a difference.

Is it or is it Not Worth the Time to Defeat the Insurgency?

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 5:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
Is it worth spending 10 years to defeat the insurgency in Iraq?

Yes. The U.S. liberated Iraq, and we need to finish the job. Imagine a safe haven in Iraq: not for terrorists, but for democracy and lovers of democracy. It will take patience, one thing the American people does not have a great deal of. But we can’t do all the defeating. We have to get the message across to the Iraqi government that THEY have to take the lead in enforcing their laws in their country.

Is John Edwards a Hypocrite?

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 4:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
John Edwards says he worked for a hedge fund primarily to learn more about financial markets and their relationship to poverty. Do you see any contradiction there?

Sure; maybe it is a contradiction, but you’re missing the point. The reason he worked for a hedge fund wasn’t PRIMARILY to learn more about their relationships with poverty, it was to make money.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Bush and Wolfowitz - Politicizing Everything Together

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 7: 00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
Why would President Bush continue to support Paul Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank when the bank has found him guilty of ethics violations?

Wolfowitz was one of his biggest backers during the invasion of Iraq; he helped him plan it. Bush owes him. Besides, it’s not like the President hasn’t done anything politically motivated recently.

Rudy on Abortion; Mitt on Everything

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 5:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
How much of a problem is it for Rudy Giuliani that he contributed to Planned Parenthood and at the same time says he opposes abortion?

Eventually the primaries in the Bible Belt may take him down, but if they get him, they’ll get Romney first. Mitt may well be a charismatic leader, but he’s an opportunist. Giuliani’s position only “evolved” on a single issue, while Romney’s position literally flip-flopped.

Oversight for Overseas Medicine

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 4:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
Should Americans be allowed to buy prescription drugs from abroad?

Americans should be allowed to buy prescription drugs, with oversight. The FDA should set up part of its department to oversee the overseas medicine market. If were not careful, standards will be lost and worthless drugs will be bought. Freedom of trade can't be allowed to exist without supervision.

Monday, May 07, 2007

A Republican, a Woman, or an African-American?

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 7:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
7 p.m.: When it comes down to it, would American voters elect another Republican president before they would elect a woman or a black?

Is the majority of America sexist? No. Is the majority of America racist? No.
99% of people have no problem with electing a woman or a black; the media only portrays it that way, making the situation worse. A woman almost became president in France; why couldn’t one in the U.S.?

Don't Move Troops From Iraq To Afghanistan--Yet

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 5:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
5 p.m.: Two Democratic presidential hopefuls suggest moving U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Is that a good idea?

No. Moving some troops from Iraq to Afghanistan may become a good idea in the future, but not yet. The Iraqi government hasn’t learned to walk and we need to teach it. Afghanistan is a very important front on the War on Terror, but we can’t leave Iraq a mess.

How Will Sarkozy Affect the U.S.?

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 4:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
4 p.m.: How will France's election of a pro-American president affect U.S. relations with Europe?

Not much for George Bush. Sarkozy has not stated he is pro-Bush; he is pro-American. But the next president will have a much easier time dealing with the French and Iraq. Sarkozy has criticized the way the Iraq War has been handled, not by the U.S., but by France. He was not a supporter of the war, but has said the France shouldn’t let her ally down.

Cafferty File Week!

On Thoughts on the World, this week shall be "Cafferty File Week". Monday-Friday all posts will most likely be responses to the Cafferty File.

Sunday, May 06, 2007

Saturday, May 05, 2007

McCain's Campaign Website Hard to Find on Google

It's interesting to note that googling John McCain the first result is not his campaign site, but his senate page (as of 5/05/07). In fact, you have to go back to the FIFTH page to find his campaign site.

Somebody needs some SEO...

Friday, May 04, 2007

Sarkozy for French President

Sarkozy and RoyalThoughts on the World would like to endorse Nicolas Sarkozy to be the next president of France.

Let's start with a profile of both candidates. Ségolène Royal has a lower standing in poll ratings coming in to the election, but to many, she is the more charismatic of the two candidates. She was elected as the 6th sexiest woman by French FHM. She does have a stand on the issues, and policies she plans to enforce based on her stand. Violence on TV is her biggest pet peeve; she is a big supporter of family values. Her domestic plans are her strong point, while her views on foreign policy are lacking. She appears to have few opinions on foreign affairs, and does not wholly understand the topics she does have opinions on.

Royal's disappointing foreign policy opinions are what makes her not worthy of the presidency. For example, when she met with a Hezbollah politician, she had no problem when he compared the Palestinian territories to France under Nazi occupation. A few months later, she demonstrated her confusion of what's going on in the world; after the kidnapping of two French nationals by the Taliban, she called for sanctions to be placed on regimes like the Taliban. Apparently, she doesn't understand that the Taliban no longer rules Afghanistan. Someone who doesn't understand the basic facts of the War on Terrorism should not be president of a world power.

Nicolas SarkozyNicolas Sarkozy is currently leading the polls, though many in the public are undecided. He has been criticized for his work as Interior Minister during the Paris suburb riots. During the riots, he pledged to clean up the rioting areas with a "Karcher." Karcher is brand pressure cleaning appliances. He also called rioters "thugs" and "riff-raff".

While Sarkozy's record at home may not be as clean Royal's, he has a better record with foreign policy. His opinions are also expressed more clearly. He would toughen Iranian sanctions and keep a friendly relationship with the U.S. (not necessarily Bush).

Neither of these candidates is perfect, but it's what we have to choose from. Both have some not so perfect grades on their report cards, but dealing with the choices given, Nicolas Sarkozy should be the next presidential candidate. His foreign policy understanding compared with Royal’s foreign policy misunderstanding makes Sarkozy the better candidate.

UPDATE: GDAEman pointed out this comparison ;-).A comparison can be made between Royal and George Bush. Both were inexperienced with foreign policy, and others were supposed to help them out (Cheney, Rumsfeld).

UPDATE II: Sarkozy elected French president

Thursday, May 03, 2007

[POLL] Who Would You Vote For In The French Elections

Sarkozy and RoyalDon't forget to comment!

Who do you support in the upcoming French elections?
Segolene Royal
Nicolas Sarkozy
pollcode.com free polls

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

What's the Big Deal With The Iraq Wall?

Instead of reading a post from this blog today, read this post from Iraq The Model. It has to do with the 'controversial' wall in Iraq. Omar is completely right; the wall isn't that big of a deal and it is going to be effective. Build it.

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Should Pelosi Have the Power to Decide to Impeach or Not?

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 4:00 question, and a response.
When it comes to impeachment, is it up to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to decide if it's "off the table"?

No, it’s up to the will of the people. We elected her; shouldn’t we decide? But if you were to base off the House of Representatives, no. Not all reps were created equal, but all have the power to put out a bill, of impeachment or not.

Post of the Month:April

The Post of the Month for April is...The Moderate Solution To Iraq!

This blog would like to publicly stand behind President George W. Bush’s expected veto of the Iraq supplemental bill. Please read below to understand. Without further ado, here is how Iraq should be dealt with *drum roll*.


Unless more effort is put forth by the Bush Administration in the realm of diplomacy, a peaceful Iraq is doubtful. The Iraq Study Group really broughtIraqi Flag it front and center, but in reality the idea was passed over by the “decider” before the report was published. Bush needed to show that he was in control, and refuses to listen. He has to learn he can't have everything he wants, especially now that Democrats are in control of Congress. Serious negotiations with Iran and Syria must be immediate and unconditional. Iran announced it will attend a conference with the U.S. this week. Progress is being made, but the President still needs to commit himself to direct talks.


According to military commanders, the surge appears to be working. There may be more American soldiers dying, but that statistic is not necessarily a sign of failure. Other statistics show declining sectarian violence, and a story in today’s New York Times reports increased cooperation between Americans and Sunnis.

The U.S. isn’t going to be, and shouldn’t be in Iraq forever. But we cannot leave until there is a relatively stabile climate in Iraq. The bill in Congress will have troop leave early next year. That is too early. For the U.S. to be successful in Iraq and the Middle East as a whole, we are going to need to be there longer. Here is how the plan should work:

• The earliest the troop pullout could begin would be mid to late 2008.
• Unless very specific conditions arise, the majority of American troops would be out of Iraq by the early 2010.
• Goals would be set my military officials and congressmen and women that, if met, would mean troops are brought home earlier. If the goals are not met, troops would stay later (but no later than 2010).

The above plan is the meat of how the Iraq situation would be handled. As can easily be seen, this plan contrasts with bill passed by Congress. The bill passed by Congress orders the troops home too soon, and therefore Thoughts on the World expresses its support for the expected presidential veto.

Iraq The Model

The single greatest influence of this plan was the blog Iraq the Model and especially this post written by Omar. A blog written by two Iraqis living through the reality of the war, they give their view on what should be happening. As Iraqis, they should be the ones really in control of what’s going on. Their opinion greatly influenced this plan.

The moderate plan

Because this plan pleases everybody, it also pleases nobody. Some will be disappointed that this post calls for a timetable, while other will complain that it doesn’t get troops out fast enough.

4 Plans That WON'T Fix Illegal Immigration

While Congress debates the best way to solve illegal immigration, blogs around the Internet are trying to find ways that will work. Illegal immigration is wrong. It has to be stopped, but there are some ideas that will not work.

1. End ALL immigration for five years
Ending immigration for even five years would be disastrous for the country. They say there is a brain drain in Iraq because of the violence, but imagine how bad it would be here. Not allowing any new minds to enter the U.S. is one of worst things you could do to the economy, especially with China and India on the rise.

2. Send the military to the border to stop the immigrants
“Let's put soldiers on the border to stop the illegals.” Sounds like a good idea, right? It's not. The army is stretched thin. We can barely get enough soldiers to Iraq. Even sending the National Guard wouldn't be right.

3. English only policies, ballots, and schools
English only policies would only alienate illegal immigrants and not encourage them to assimilate and become citizens. America is the melting pot. The fact that it is a combination of so many cultures is what makes it beautiful.

4. Build the fence!
Will the fence really be effective? Maybe it would be, but maybe it would just waste money and valuable congressional time. A fence is just a fence. It can be broken, climbed over, dug under, or be walked around. The proposed fence would supposedly have no holes. That's not even plausible.

For the best way to fix illegal immigration, see this post.