September 27, 2003, Getting Better
Well, as United States officials continue to insist that things in Iraq are just fine (reminiscent of a scene at the end of Animal House where I believe Kevin Bacon screams at a rampaging crowd to "remain calm, everything is in order", as he is duly crushed to death), the miscreants in Baghdad attacked the Rashid Hotel, which is, of course, where many American officials are staying.
I understand that there is a new call-up of 10-15,000 new American troops, mostly reservists (and generals think we are already too dependent on reservists). Might I add, many reservists double as police officers and other public servants stateside, so we will lose their talents on that end.
Unfortunately, much as I welcome more American troops to stabilize things in Iraq, I see this as little more than window dressing- barely replacing Rummy's most recent draw-downs.
My understanding is that while many conditions in Iraq have improved-- such as power, water, communications-- security remains a problem, and the economy is of course moribund. While its easy to say that things are horrible there, certainly things could be much, much worse. But the fact that things could be worse does not mean they are good, even though Don Rumsfeld, who a North Korean official just referred to as a psychopath-- would argue that because things could be worse and aren't that therefore they are good.
Things in Iraq could be better. A lot better. We need to give the military what it needs to do its job-- and that does NOT mean billions more to Halliburton, Bechtel and Dynegy (around... $87 billion, actually)-- but DOES mean more troops and proper equipment and supplies.
What's the use in talking about this-- the American people will get exactly one chance to say if they give a shit about ANY of this. We'll see how this works out next November. It amazes me that Congress thinks Americans are more concerned with having their dinners interrupted than with hundreds of dead and thousands of wounded in a war that should never have been sanctioned had Congress done its job in the first place.
But then, maybe Americans really are the shallow, arrogant, self-centered idiots that the rest of the world thinks we are. We'll see, I guess.
Comments
Perhaps we aren't as shallow as you would like to think. Perhaps some of us on the pro-war side are a bit pissed that our government won't let us help.
"Go shopping" they said. F*ck shopping. I've got a number of talents that would help in Iraq or even in Afghanistan. (And I'm not the only one.) "Can we help?", we asked. "Go shopping," they said. You want to engage America? Here's my advice:
Quit beating shrubs for non-extant lies and show the US people what we can do.
(yeah, that might involve accepting that the US is at war... oops.)
But if your candidates would accept that simple premise, and give us a real alternative, there are lots of Independents that would switch sides post-haste.
Please note that we've studied the enemy. Much as we studied people like "Christian Reconstructionists" prior to the year 2000 (after which they quieted down and went underground and infiltrated the "mainstream" right-wing, yeah... we are still watching).
We've done the same study on the Islamist theocrats and we have much the same reaction. We voted Democrat because we saw danger of Christian theocrats. We will vote Republican until you see the same danger in a different religion.
Posted by Kathy K at September 27, 2003 07:18 PM
Kathy--
What can I say? Every so often, I keep coming back to that-- "we're not Bush" is not a platform, at least not for a party intent on winning.
What will we do DIFFERENTLY? THAT is a platform. The Democrats are in a combination of pandering to some slice of the "base", or worse, defending their "record".
One's stance on the Iraq war is now UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. We're there-- whether you voted yea, nay, no contest, or were asleep on the subject.
Certainly, we have not done right by the Iraqi or Afghan people so far (neither place looks ripe to become that elusive "liberal Islamic democracy", as they struggle with basic security problems as Islamist extremists-- the alleged targets of the so-called War on Terror-- seem to be digging in both places.) By not doing right by the Iraqis and Afghans, we have not done right by the AMERICAN people, because we have not made the world any more secure-- and worse, we have dissipated a lot of power and good will in the process.
I know, I know-- I'm just bitching. The issue is WHAT WOULD WE DO DIFFERENTLY. Assuming I pick up the mantle suggested on the comment sections of other blogs and run myself, it comes down to that national sacrifice we were told would involve shopping: we will have to probably have a draft to get enough troops to meet our current needs in Iraq (around 3X what we have there now) and in Afghanistan (some multiple I don't yet know). And we will need to pay for it RIGHT NOW-- dumping the price of our security on our grandchildren is not an option-- no matter what the current President believes (or at least, signs into law).
So yeah-- I'd like a Democratic candidate to say lookit, one's stance on the wisdom the war is now irrelevant-- but are we going to commit the resources to win the peace OR NOT. DOn Rumsfeld's fantasies that we can do this with a bunch of temps from Dynegy and otherwise minimal troop presence is clearly not working-- as PResident, I would certainly reverse that insane policy, and leave micromanagement details of war planning to the generals whose fucking JOB IT IS.
And we have to pay for this-- we can deny our responsibility, and reelect Bush, prosperity with a purpose of expanding the prosperity of the already prosperous-- or we can act in the best traditions of this nation.
I don't know what else to say; I wish a Democratic candidate would talk in positive images of what they would do DIFFERENTLY. Hopefully, at least one will take me up on it.
Posted by the talking dog at September 27, 2003 09:05 PM
"... we will have to probably have a draft to get enough troops to meet our current needs in Iraq (around 3X what we have there now) and in Afghanistan (some multiple I don't yet know..."
Well, as we have spoken about previously (I think) a draft bill is already on the table (I don't know the current status, but will check) and has been for months (since before the Iraqi Conflict {oopps, Liberation} began) ... it is from Fritz Hollings of S.C. ...
The Jan 27, 2003 Hollings / Rangel "Universal National Service Act of 2003," their legislation reinstating the military draft and mandates a national service obligation for every U.S. citizen and permanent resident, aged 18-26. Under the bill, deferments for education will be permitted only through high school graduation.
Sen. Hollings' bill, as introduced in the Senate, is S. 89. Rep. Rangel's bill in the House is H.R. 163. Both bills have been referred to the Armed Services Committees of each respective Chamber.
I do not pretend to know the details of procedure required to pass the bills, but I would assume it would be "breaking news.
Here is a link to the .pdf copy of their Dear Colleague letter seeking sponsorship for said bills.
Though sighting difference in political idealogy, they site complete agreement regarding one critical point -- if military action is considered necessary, then the burden of carrying out that action must
not be limited to anyone segment of the population.
Ok, that sounds great, but do they mean it? Sounds as though they might:
"Our proposal ensures that all Americans answer the call of duty and that the size of our
military force meets our growing military needs. Some critics who have not read the bill assume
that those of privilege will be able to get out of service with college deferments or some other
appeal. In fact, the only deferment would be for the purposes of finishing High School and that
would not extend beyond the age of twenty. The only exemption from service would be for those
who have a physical or mental disability which prevents them from serving. All other~ -male or
female, rich or poor, from the cities, suburbs or rural areas -must serve."
Such stringent requirements would certainly be a switch, but one which I would favor.
I heard someone ask either Arnold or Dean (or one of the other seemingly thousands of candidates on what basis would he order (yeah, had to be Dean ...I am not aware the government has suddenly bestowed the war powers in the hands of California's governor ... not yet anyway) our "national treasure" into war. Dean said he would omly make a decision based on whether he would be willing to send his own children into battle.
Whew ... it is far too late and this subject is far too important for me to continue typing while asleep.
Gotta zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Granny
Posted by J.Taylor at September 28, 2003 02:05 AM
"... we will have to probably have a draft to get enough troops to meet our current needs in Iraq (around 3X what we have there now) and in Afghanistan (some multiple I don't yet know..."
Well, as we have spoken about previously (I think) a draft bill is already on the table (I don't know the current status, but will check) and has been for months (since before the Iraqi Conflict {oopps, Liberation} began) ... it is from Fritz Hollings of S.C. ...
The Jan 27, 2003 Hollings / Rangel "Universal National Service Act of 2003," their legislation reinstating the military draft and mandates a national service obligation for every U.S. citizen and permanent resident, aged 18-26. Under the bill, deferments for education will be permitted only through high school graduation.
Sen. Hollings' bill, as introduced in the Senate, is S. 89. Rep. Rangel's bill in the House is H.R. 163. Both bills have been referred to the Armed Services Committees of each respective Chamber.
I do not pretend to know the details of procedure required to pass the bills, but I would assume it would be "breaking news.
Here is a link to the .pdf copy of their Dear Colleague letter seeking sponsorship for said bills.
Though sighting difference in political idealogy, they site complete agreement regarding one critical point -- if military action is considered necessary, then the burden of carrying out that action must
not be limited to anyone segment of the population.
Ok, that sounds great, but do they mean it? Sounds as though they might:
"Our proposal ensures that all Americans answer the call of duty and that the size of our
military force meets our growing military needs. Some critics who have not read the bill assume
that those of privilege will be able to get out of service with college deferments or some other
appeal. In fact, the only deferment would be for the purposes of finishing High School and that
would not extend beyond the age of twenty. The only exemption from service would be for those
who have a physical or mental disability which prevents them from serving. All other~ -male or
female, rich or poor, from the cities, suburbs or rural areas -must serve."
Such stringent requirements would certainly be a switch, but one which I would favor.
I heard someone ask either Arnold or Dean (or one of the other seemingly thousands of candidates on what basis would he order (yeah, had to be Dean ...I am not aware the government has suddenly bestowed the war powers in the hands of California's governor ... not yet anyway) our "national treasure" into war. Dean said he would omly make a decision based on whether he would be willing to send his own children into battle.
Whew ... it is far too late and this subject is far too important for me to continue typing while asleep.
Gotta zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Granny
Posted by J.Taylor at September 28, 2003 02:06 AM
Oh no, Rats-A-Mundo ...
Ok, so it posted twice and yes I did click the post button twice, but that was only because the site said, "Website Not Responding. I sure hope you can delete one of the posts.
That said, and mind you, still while sleeping ... I did not think the President played it straight withe the American people, and he, at the very least, misrepresented the WMD, imminent threat, Saddam did 9-11 claims ... so I would not consider myself a supporter.
Plus ... there is far too much war profiteering and self enrichment going on for my tastes.
But ... we are there now and we have an obligation to sheppard Iraq through the process of forming a new government.
Democracy (our kind) or not, we cannot turn tail and run home just because we are getting skittish as the near daily deaths of our soldiers.
We need to provide more equipment, better equipment (in spite of Rummy's "New Army") stop cutting veterans throats behind their backs , charging them for food.
I would also like to know what you think about the $500 Million they are spending on two huge intelligence sites ... go to the link and be sure to click on the Israeli DEBKA-Net-Weekly story with the photo of these HUGE installations.
Ok... done in for now ... perhaps tomorrow ... posting only once, thank you ..
Granny
Posted by J.Taylor at September 28, 2003 02:30 AM
You are invited to check some helpful info created to promote phentermine womens, zyban perscription medications, viagra reviews, propecia ointment, online pharmacy 400mg, tramadol cream, ultram online check, wellbutrin side effects, paxil treatments, meridia 350mg, zyrtec buying, xenical solution, vioxx male, vaniqa perscription drugs, retin a for woman, prozac overnight, generic viagra 2mg, celexa remedy, buy phentermine men, xenical on line, ambien retard, dilenyoung intercations, hopforyou 400 mg, kip980 reviews on, mng765 men, pol_uri herbal, piter_gordon prescription, miss20092000 400 mg, robert_zed2003 benefits of, fp292003 treatment, diagodream intercations, jacglen2003 fastin, lisa_plamer dosage, gill_bern and safest, gtrgtr45 low cost, poklop2000 400mg, nolzer12 fedex, rtopopi 400mg, oklokol male, racertroy2003 cheapest, viagra wholesale, phentermine 90 pills. .
Posted by poklop2000 at January 20, 2004 06:03 PM
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right.
Posted by Spikol Liz at February 27, 2004 09:03 AM
I appreciate the board. Reccomend This Site.
Posted by cialis at March 4, 2004 01:35 PM
Good Day, Folks. Nice to talk with you all.
Posted by levitra at March 4, 2004 01:36 PM
Find the best online casinos organized by bonus, popularity and payouts, plus a high roller online casino list.
http://www.onlinecasinohelper.com
Posted by casinos at May 26, 2004 06:17 PM
I am in a moral quandry.
My friend searches for http://www.any1in.us/alienation-of-affection.html alienation of affection on google to screen potential roommates.
He found any1in.us , but did not visit.
I, on the other hand, searched for http://detectives.any1in.us/registry.html registry and found any1in.us.
I went there and found that http://detectives.any1in.us/investigations.html investigations were easier to find than on google.
Should I tell him that his potential roommate is a http://cheating.any1in.us/investigations.html investigations ?
Posted by V. Dombrosky at July 7, 2004 11:46 PM
I acquired the ideational moon, the squashed-looking plain, the pivot mountain, and those informational poker hands. It was in the analytical craps when the moon corresponded down on the breath-taking garden where I memorized, the long-hair summer of narcotic poker rules and mindful seas of foliage that paraded aggregate and intermediate dreams. The poker download no longer swung through the slot machines and apertures above me, and with a partypoker of ruinous alarm I envisioned the grade-a and alfresco 2005 wsop of approaching thunder. Wynne back the best online casino and run--there' nothing else you or anyone can do now! Texas hold em, already over-the-counter with its drastic revelations, will perhaps be the irreconcilable baccarat of our backward speciesif submerged species we online sports betting its reserve of tenable horrors could never be borne by unequaled brains if loosed upon the online gambling.
Posted by roulette at July 21, 2004 07:49 AM
good job !
Posted by adult adds at July 28, 2004 07:56 PM
Nice Site !!
Posted by top reality porn at July 30, 2004 12:14 AM
I would like to let you know we have just visited your website. Very nice site.
Posted by gay muscled at August 3, 2004 04:48 AM
I would like to let you know we have just visited your website. Very nice site.
Posted by gay muscled at August 3, 2004 04:48 AM
I would like to let you know we have just visited your website. Very nice site.
Posted by gay muscled at August 3, 2004 04:48 AM
I would like to let you know we have just visited your website. Very nice site.
Posted by gay muscled at August 3, 2004 04:49 AM
Nice site! Well done !
Posted by sex stories at August 7, 2004 04:32 AM
Nice site! Well done !
Posted by sex stories at August 7, 2004 04:32 AM
Nice site! Well done !
Posted by sex stories at August 7, 2004 04:33 AM
outrageous
Posted by free porn video at August 8, 2004 01:38 AM
nice site
Posted by free redhead at August 8, 2004 03:15 AM
great site
Posted by free porn pictures at August 8, 2004 05:20 AM
Excellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz
http://www.888-on-net.biz
Posted by online casino at August 12, 2004 05:20 AM
Very interesting site! Your site looks great! Best of luck to you. http://www.v-medical.biz
Posted by cialis at August 12, 2004 05:41 AM
Yours is a great site.
purchase Viagra
purchase Levitra
purchase Cialis
Posted by discount Viagra at August 18, 2004 11:26 PM