Why the whole world detest Bush?

[eastender]

Public Transit

Actually if you live in an area with reasonable public transit you may be able to reduce your annual car expenses by upwards of 60% by just getting rid of the vehicle and using public transit or taxis and short term rentals as need be.

Enjoy Nugie's contribution to the thread as they are solid,provocative and well thought out.

 

[HonestAbe]

Great ideas. Seriously, however...

Hybrid vehicles are awesome on gas! I already have been looking at one but they are so damn expensive compared to the regular models. The Honda Accord cost around $20,000USD while the Hybrid version costs $28,000USD. Then you have to pay sales tax and registration which will bring the total to nearly $30,000USD. Been there done that, making $600 a month car payments sucks and forget about buying a used Hybrid. There are none available, people who buy them do not trade them in or sell them as they are fairly new and the motivation is not there. There is a waiting list at most dealerships for Hybrids, making getting a good deal next to impossible. Not until the major US auto manufacturers start producing mass quantities of Hybrids will prices go down. Still if gas prices go up much more maybe I will sell my house and buy a fuel cell powered BMW. I could sleep in the trunk.

Public Transit is great too. But you must live in a metropolitan area to use it. The average commute in the US to get to work is approximately 45 minutes. For many years the population of the US has expanded more and more away from city centers in what is termed urban sprawl. This leaves most of those people unable to use public transit. At least where I live anyway.

Heres an idea for Bush. Follow through on your administrations promise to pay for the war effort with Iraqi oil. Start backing up those supertankers, fill them up with light sweet crude and bring it back to the US free of charge. After all they were begging us to free them from Saddam and they greeted us with flowers so they won't mind giving us some free oil will they?
Hey Nugie, now I'm being controversial!!

 

[Red Paul]

Shinseki was also concerned more with letting the Army wear black berets then he was with providing troops with proper training and equipment. Whoops, all of a sudden, we're at war, and the Army isn't battle-ready! Hrm....

I can't tell what you're trying to say here. At any rate, whatever Shinseki's views on hatwear, there've been no reasons to doubt the point I raised: he was right when he said a successful occupation would need several times the men that Bush wound up sending.

Full martial law (mandatory curfews, control of all movement, minor infractions result in being shot on sight) was NEVER established. .

U.S. army officers governed the country and order was kept by U.S. tanks stationed in the streets. If you think some double-super-deluxe martial law might have done the trick, you might want to reflect on whether tighter control (for example, "control of all movement") might also require more soldiers, not just more force.

Furthermore, the insurgency had two waves: the disorganized Baath remnants, and then, the foreign fighters from Syria, Iran, and our bestest friends in the universe, Saudi Arabia.

Not relevant to the point being discussed.

I'll be away from the Internet for a while, so you may continue with your discussion.

 

[Nugie]

Currently sans net for awhile... will post something irritating as soon as the box is fixed... sorry!

 

[Nugie]

Curious,

Please note that I've never advocated what some might consider "Martial Law 2.0" (or ML++, whichever you prefer). I was simply stating that without accepting limits on personal freedoms and the prevalence of a police state, no open society can exist in peace when it is confronted with both: 1) Baath remnants and then 2) Foreigners infiltrating across a border comparable to that between Montana and North Dakota.

Also - why do you think Middle Eastern Arabs have any clue as to what it's like to live under a free democracy? If a true police state was enforced (not that I'm advocating it), in what ways do you think it would have been different from daily life in pre-Saddam Iraq, Iran, or <best friends forever> Saudi Arabia?

However, since I have a tendency to play devil's advocate...

I never suggested that adopting draconian policies was prudent. I suggested that it would be impossible to eliminate terrorist violence without doing so.

Red Paul,

The issue of Shinseki's incompetence is clearly relevant. Case in point: Would you EVER trust Bush to babysit your kids? Why not? I haven't read any reports that he's a lousy babysitter. But... his failures in other aspects of leadership weakens his credibility.

If you're the head of the Army and all you can worry about is getting enough black berets for non-combat troops to wear because you think it will improve morale, you have FAILED and need to be held responsible for the fact that thousands of young men and women are being sent into combat that are NOT, by Army standards, ready for action.

Secondly, "governing" a country and controlling the actions of its population are very different activities. I would prefer thinking that as products of western civilization, we don't understand exactly what a police state entails.

But, to focus more specifically upon your original statement: Shinseki, in hindsight, has been proven correct regarding the occupation in Iraq.

I would agree.

I would also say, "Um... so what?"

That is to say, EVERY time the Pentagon makes a decision, they task a bunch of O8+ to come up with a naysaying plan or a worst case scenario, etc, etc. Why is the fact that he was right THIS time any more or less significant?

I don't remember the exact phrasing, but I'll do my best to quote P.J. O'Rourke, describing the NATO efforts to stem the violence in the Balkans. Also please note that I have ZERO recollection about which group did what to whom; therefore, all group names are interchangeable for the context of this post:

"It's easy to tell who did what to whom. If you see entire villages destroyed by artillery fire, that's the Croatians hitting the Serbians. If you see specific neighborhoods burnt to the ground, that's the Serbs hitting the Croats. And if you see giant bomb craters hitting absolutely nothing in the middle of empty fields, that's NATO trying to force the two sides to peace."

CONCLUSION:

Some people really, really hate each other.

Nothing we can do about it will STOP them from hating each other.

 

[HonestAbe]

Great Lyrics!

This is what we need more of from our musical Icons and thank god for the Stones not being afraid to do it. I am a U2 fan myself and was very dissapointed with their last 4 albums because of the lack of outrage in the lyrics as to the continued corruption in our government which was one reason I was attracted to their music in the first place. To be fair to Bono and the boys they have said that it is time for other younger musicians to step up and take the lead as they have done more than their fair share and have decided to stick to lobbying for economic relief for the third world versus butting heads with politicians through their music.

It seems ever since Rattle and Hum came out they have adopted the attitude that they can get more done by making deals with the devil versus speaking out against him. They even changed the lyrics of the music for the single "Vertigo." Vertigo was originally called "Native Son", which was an anti US-Iraq war song, into the bubble gum version you heard on the radio which won several awards. It seems they did not want to offend the Bush Administration which they were lobbying hard for the ONE campaign.

The G8 promised to institute most of the measures they asked for but it remains to be seen whether or not the US and the G8 will remain true to their vows of increased foreign aid and debt relief. Some of the voices we are hearing pick up the slack are unlikely candidates for the job, consider Kanye West, Grammy winning young rapper extraordinaire, who until yesterday when Howard Dean mentioned it, was one of the sole voices that had access to speak on national TV and took the oppurtunity to level criticism at the Bush Administration for not caring enough, if at all about Black people in the devastated areas of New Orleans.

Dean quickly followed and added the poor and aged to that list of forsaken people. Dean I expect that from, Kanye West was a breath of fresh air. Too ditch his prescripted remarks during the telethon he was performing in to help victims and speak out against Emperor Cheney and Darth Bush was a courageous and necessary act. I'm not a fan of West for his music but he just gained my respect along with the Stones for their willingness to speak the truth at peril of being targeted by the Bush smear machine. How long will it take for our true moral leaders, not Pat Robertson, to speak out? To quote Trent Reznor "Will you bite the hand that feeds you? Or will you stay down on your knees?"

 

[eastender]

Dixie Chicks

This is what we need more of from our musical Icons and thank god for the Stones not being afraid to do it.

After what happened with the Dixie Chicks and the backlash unless you control your record company and are beyond retaliation the cost is too great.

 

[Nugie]

After what happened with the Dixie Chicks and the backlash unless you control your record company and are beyond retaliation the cost is too great.

That is, of course, assuming you're thinking from a business perspective.

Which I guess most musicians are, considering how few of them are willing to stick their necks out.

Which, presumably, makes them more capitalist businesspeople then artists.

I guess the loss of the counterculture, critical thinking perspective so vital in the creative spirit can make it hard to objectively see different points of view.

Sean Penn doesn't give a rat's ass what people think about him. He does his own thing and still gets great roles.

But, Abe, since you brought Katrina into this...

If my house burned down, would I expect immediate federal aid? Nope.

If 100,000 houses burned down in random unrelated incidents, should all those residents, individually, expect immediate federal aid? Maybe, if you live in New Orleans. Or are poor. Or don't think much of your community, city, county, and state's "obligations" to provide aid PRIOR to the involvement of the federal government.

What's the difference? 99,999 votes. Nothing makes for instant politicization like tragedy.

It's a well-established rule of law that protection agencies (fire, police) can't be held liable for FAILING to protect. Why, then, should the federal government be considered liable for not working as perfectly as we would all have hoped?

I know the answer is going to be something along the lines of, "The city and state were completely devastated and couldn't provide any aid, the federal government was in the best position to do so and therefore assumes the moral responsibility (and besides, Bush hates poor black old people)."

Which, ideologically, goes against many of the reasons for/against US dominance in global affairs. If you follow the logic to the end, it's therefore OK for the US federal government to muck about internally because they have the power and moral authority to do so... which means it was RIGHT for the federal government to interfere in the Terry Schiavo case debacle? I don't think so. But, when it comes to international affairs, the US needs to respect the rights of sovereign nations that we could squash like insects if we wanted to. What gives?

If you couldn't tell, I'm pretty much a federalist. CA wants to do experiments on embryos? WHO CARES, that's why they're out there and they should be able to decide what they want. MA wants to marry gays? Let 'em. Kentucky wants to outlaw abortions under 18 without parental consent? So what? I didn't vote for it and I wouldn't move there.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying I disagree with the notion that people, as a whole, have a moral responsibility to be concerned with the welfare of their communities, states, and nation. And, as I've said in previous posts, I've already put my money and time where my mouth is. Just thinking, "Hey, I pay taxes... let someone else worry about it" just isn't good enough. Get out of this mindset that people who are PAID PROFESSIONAL LIARS (politicians) are more responsible for your situation then you are.

I had to cancel my next trip to MTL. The trip after that will probably be in a crappy crappy hotel instead of the Place D'Armes. Sucks for me. Put up or shut up.

http://www.redcross.org

 

[eastender]

Jeb Bush

Nugie,

The Dixie Chicks analogy served as an example of picking your battles and
maintaining an audience so that your message would be heard many times
over.The line between business and artist was erased a long time ago.

The real challenge facing the USA is how to prevent Jeb Bush from getting to the White House and continuing the Bush legacy.

 

[HonestAbe]

Different perspective for you.

Which I guess most musicians are, considering how few of them are willing to stick their necks out.

Which, presumably, makes them more capitalist businesspeople then artists.

I guess the loss of the counterculture, critical thinking perspective so vital in the creative spirit can make it hard to objectively see different points of view.

If 100,000 houses burned down in random unrelated incidents, should all those residents, individually, expect immediate federal aid? Maybe, if you live in New Orleans. Or are poor. Or don't think much of your community, city, county, and state's "obligations" to provide aid PRIOR to the involvement of the federal government.

It's a well-established rule of law that protection agencies (fire, police) can't be held liable for FAILING to protect. Why, then, should the federal government be considered liable for not working as perfectly as we would all have hoped?

I know the answer is going to be something along the lines of, "The city and state were completely devastated and couldn't provide any aid, the federal government was in the best position to do so and therefore assumes the moral responsibility (and besides, Bush hates poor black old people)."

Put up or shut up.

http://www.redcross.org

Hey Nug,

I agree with your sentiment that we should all be giving in some way to help our countrymen in the devastated areas. There are many ways to donate, the Red Cross is certainly a good one. Our community held a food drive and sent a truckload of food and water to New Orleans.

I would also agree that many musicians and other cultural icons are slow to jump out and attack the Bush administration and the Dixie Chicks are a perfect example of why. There are millions upon millions of Americans who have bought in to the Bush administrations lies, deceipt, and crooked logic. These people are consumers as well. So anyone who speaks out strongly risks offending them and losing out on a lot of business. Very few artists are financially well off enough to sustain a prolonged period of misguided public hatred against them. The Dixie Chicks were lucky enough to already be well established and have a loyal fanbase who was sympathetic to them but they still took a hit since most of the anger against them was from Southern states since they are by definition a Country&Western act.

The Stones and U2 are two of only a few bands who can afford to take strong stances and not expect to lose sales. Yes, sales are important for anyone who sells something, musicians are no exception. Are they thinking from a purely businesslike standpoint? Maybe so, after all if they are not a big name they become irrelevant and powerless to influence anything because they will lose much of their audience. Sometimes it just takes one person/band to speak out(Kanye or the Stones) and the flood gates will open. There always has to be a leader. In the case of U2, they have become SO influential that they are using that influence to gain access to World leaders and get concessions to their cause. Consider that U2 played a significant role in the defeat of George H. Bush by publicly ridiculing him and his policies while on their Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby tours and coming out in favor of Bill Clinton. They were the hottest band in the world at the time and had a massive audience to play too through all the different media outlets.

It is much harder to do this now since media outlets tape delay most live interviews with people who object to the government so they can whitewash anything they are afraid will hurt their ratings. Kanye Wests' comments were only heard on the East coast since the network airing the event decided to NOT air his comments for the West Coast which was scheduled to see the event tape delayed and he was only heard on the East coast because the telethon was being taped live with no delay. The counterculture still exists but it has to fight off censorship campaigns by the corporate media which is greatly influenced by the government. In addition some of the more powerful voices of the counterculture are now choosing to use the system rather than fight it. It remains to be seen whether this will work effectively since all that is promised can easily be taken away in the bat of an eye.

As far as receiving Federal Aid, that is the precise purpose of FEMA and yes New Orleans is entitled to it just as much as Beverly Hills. Katrina was not "100,000 random unrelated incidents" and your "house burning down" is not a Federal problem. Destruction of a major US city is most definitely a Federal problem and the reason why FEMA was created. The point of Kanyes' comments was that if this disaster happened in Beverly Hills the reponse would have been much quicker and more frantic because rich white people are W's supporters. Deans comments BTW did not refer to "poor black old people" but rather Poor people, Aged people, AND Black people since there are thousands upon thousands of white people who have been hurt by this tragedy. Most of the hardest hit however were poor/aged/black because of the high concentration of them in certain areas of New Orleans and their particular vulnerability to tragedy and the inability to evacuate.

In addition I don't think many people are suggesting that State and Local goverments should escape the microscope in this. However FEMA is a federal agency and W. is Commander in Chief. They, and he, should absolutely be held accountable for failure to perform to a sufficient level of their duties. We have seen to many instances of failure and neglect from W. and his administration already to even think of relieving him of a great deal of blame for the aftermath of this tragedy which could have, and should have been prevented. Lets also not forget that because of Bushes stripping of funds away for levy repair and improvement which was diverted to Iraq this tragedy may have never occurred or could have had much less of an aftermath although we will never know now.

Finally, we absolutely can hold them accountable, albeit not legally, when we take a trip to the ballot box. The most important thing right now is to let our elected officials know that we are outraged by what has gone on and not fall into the trap they are trying to set for us by saying "there will be plenty of time to ask questions later." There has never been a better time to ask those questions than right now before they can orchestrate their next pass the buck initiative!

 

[Nugie]

Hey Nug,

In addition I don't think many people are suggesting that State and Local goverments should escape the microscope in this. However FEMA is a federal agency and W. is Commander in Chief.

Abe,

I would agree with what you've said; my argument isn't so much of an operational one as much as a philosophical one: At what point does "winning the unlucky lottery" become a problem of the national government? HOW much is the national government responsible for? I agree that losing a port like New Orleans is a problem that affects the entire nation and would merit the involvement of the feds. But, how do you separate which part of the problem deserves federal attention and which does not? Or is it such that once the disaster crosses a certain threshold, the entire problem is owned by the feds?

Should the fed pay for health care for people who didn't have health care before?

Should the fed pay for housing and jobs for people who didn't have jobs or homes before?

If we didn't give a crap about them before, why is it a problem now? Did our nation of ADD hypocrites suddenly decide that it's the entire nation's problem simply because it's receiving media attention?

My apparent defense of Bush isn't really a defense of Bush. The guy is marginally more intelligent then your average kitchen appliance. It's more of a wake-up call to those that believe their anger about a terrible situation is best served by redirecting that anger on the most visible professional liar they can find.

And, finally, for those that don't think politics is all a big stinking bag of poop, here's a reminder: It was the Democrats that pushed the anti-sedition act through, which OUTLAWED public speech criticizing the government. I mention this for no reason other than to point out that... well, politicizing things is all a big stinking bag of poop.

 

[HonestAbe]

Fellow citizens in need.

Abe,
Or is it such that once the disaster crosses a certain threshold, the entire problem is owned by the feds?

Should the fed pay for housing and jobs for people who didn't have jobs or homes before?

If we didn't give a crap about them before, why is it a problem now? Did our nation of ADD hypocrites suddenly decide that it's the entire nation's problem simply because it's receiving media attention?

Politics is a big shit sandwich and we all get to take a bite.

Federally provided health care is a good idea, for another thread.

Yes, once the disaster crosses a certain threshold it is owned by the Feds. Situations like this are FEMA's entire reason for existence. If it is going to exist it should do a reasonably good job and make good use of the tax money it is funded with. Professionals who have knowledge in the field of emergency management should be in charge of running it, not friends of the President whose highlight on their resume is "past President of the Arabian Horse Breeders Association." Not good management there on W.'s part.

In addition, this problem was exacerbated by W.'s ill advised scuttling of the budget for maintaining and improving the levy system and shipping of National Guard troops to Iraq which military officials are now saying cost them a day of response time. W has a personal stake in fixing this mess because of his screwups and deserves every bit of criticism which is leveled at him. Telling these people tough luck isn't going to cut it.

Media attention is not the right reason for caring about this tragedy. Media attention has been necessary in showing us how bad it is and how it could have/should have been prevented from being this bad. The fact that these people are all Americans is the reason we should all give a crap. The fact that a majority of those who suffered the most are poor, old, or black should not be a factor in whether or not they receive help. These facts are non issues except in that they show us how this administration has not placed them high on its list of priorities for any number of reasons.

Most of these people did have jobs and housing. They weren't all living in cardboard boxes before the storm and the unemployment rate in New Orleans while high was no where near 50%. I would guess that the unemployment rate was somewhat in line with other large cities, maybe 10%, but even if it was 20% that would mean 4 out of 5 had a job before the storm. Most of these jobs were low paying service sector jobs as well which are totally necessary in any economy. Someone has to pick up trash, sweep streets, drive cabs, wash dishes, serve food, make beds, carry bricks, cut grass, wash windows, play music, answer phones, operate forklifts, stock shelves, take inventory, sell things, SP, etc. etc. These people were the backbone of New Orleans.

The next big problem we will be faced with will be the impact of the relocation of millions of people all across the US. Where will the places they are going come up with the money to provide the services which will be needed? Where will the jobs come from? Where will they be housed? Should it be up to the localities who have taken the refugees in to come up with all the extra resources out of their own pockets? No. Thats what FEMA and the Federal government are here for. Those communities which have opened themselves up to those less fortunate than them have already done more than their fair share by taking these people in, they deserve all the support that the Feds can give them and more.

Perhaps we will see W.'s true priorities now that he is faced with the choice of pulling back from his plans to eliminate the extate tax since money is hemmoraging from the Treasury to fund the endless war in Iraq already and this disaster is going to strain the Nations pocketbook even more. It will be truly hard to make even the dumbest of the dumb believe that spending everything we have, and more that we don't have, is a good thing when shilling for the elimination of the "inheritance tax" which will make the wealthiest 5% of our country even more obscenely wealthy while the rest of us are left behind to fund more and more of the burden of the poorest fiscal policy choices ever made by a President in our lifetime.

 

[Nugie]

Politics is a big shit sandwich and we all get to take a bite.

Most of these people did have jobs and housing.

I can see why it was easy to think I was implying that these people didn't have jobs, housing, or health insurance. My apologies for poor wording.

The point I was trying to get at is this: What, exactly, is the responsibility of the federal government to individuals in these types of situations? Do we provide the basic necessities of life until the victims can get back on their feet again? Or are we required to completely restore them to a certain standard of living, regardless of where they were before?

If you had a home in New Orleans and no home insurance, should the fed buy you a new home? What if you DIDN'T have a home? Should the fed buy you one anyway? How is health care a basic human necessity but shelter not? What about a job? If you only have enough education or experience to have a service sector job and now, you can't get one in your new city, should the fed give you a job? Or give you free education to get a better job? Why is that the fed's problem?

Of course, we COULD just sit here and keep talking about how they knew this was going to happen. I bet you I could find a recommendation by the Association of Highly Intelligent Astrophysicists to build giant space nukes to protect us from an asteroid strike. If that were to happen, and we DIDN'T have either giant space nukes or an expert drilling oil miner/blind vigilante lawyer/WWII pilot/crazy angel/best friend of a math genius, would we then start screaming see I told you so?

I'm not about to start suggesting we build giant space nukes to defend ourselves from killer asteroids. But if it did happen, you can bet I wouldn't be blaming it on politicians. That's because I know FOR A FACT that they are absolutely worthless human beings whose ONLY purpose on this planet is to torment me by using up my valuable oxygen.

 

[ops_com]

Funny googling about Bush...

I foud this on The Register site:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/09/google_bush_search/

Results for failure in google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=failure&btnG=Google+Search

 

[HonestAbe]

Good questions, and lots of them.

Do we provide the basic necessities of life until the victims can get back on their feet again? Or are we required to completely restore them to a certain standard of living, regardless of where they were before?

If you had a home in New Orleans and no home insurance, should the fed buy you a new home? What if you DIDN'T have a home? Should the fed buy you one anyway? How is health care a basic human necessity but shelter not? What about a job? If you only have enough education or experience to have a service sector job and now, you can't get one in your new city, should the fed give you a job? Or give you free education to get a better job? Why is that the fed's problem?

I bet you I could find a recommendation by the Association of Highly Intelligent Astrophysicists to build giant space nukes to protect us from an asteroid strike. If that were to happen, and we DIDN'T have either giant space nukes or an expert drilling oil miner/blind vigilante lawyer/WWII pilot/crazy angel/best friend of a math genius, would we then start screaming see I told you so?

That's because I know FOR A FACT that they are absolutely worthless human beings whose ONLY purpose on this planet is to torment me by using up my valuable oxygen.

Hi Nug,

No apologies necessary as I thought you were merely playing devils advocate. Answer to first question, Yes. Fema and the Feds should provide basic necessities of life til the victims are back on their feet and back in their homes. Second question, No. They are not supposed to "get rich" off of disaster relief but I doubt any of them will, after all were talking about food, water, and shelter, temporarily, while rebuilding their communities so they can get back to their lives and jobs. Third question, No. If you have no insurance you shouldn't get a free home. However I doubt that the vast majority of these people owned a home in New Orleans without insurance. In order to get a mortgage you MUST have homeowners insurance and many of these people rented apartments so their landlords would have had insurance. Fourth question, come on man, really. No one who didn't own a home gets a free home because they lived in New Orleans.

Again, Universal Health care would be a great subject, for a different thread. Jobs? Rebuild the cities infrastructure then move these people home and the same low paying menial service sector jobs will be needed. Education assistance? Almost anyone can get this, disaster or not. Asteroid protection program? Nasa already has a program working on this, yes, it is supposedly underfunded. A particularly miserable way to die if you ask me since all we would be able to do is stick our heads between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye. Feeling absolutely helpless full well knowing that a giant rock is screaming torward you at 100,000 miles an hour would suck big time. No problem from me taking some money from farm subsidies and putting it here. After all why do we pay agribusiness to not grow corn or raise hogs? Oh yeah, Pork.

Yours and my valuable oxygen buddy, absolutely right. Lets use politicians for Asteroid Defense. We'll make a big sling shot and fling them at the oncoming rock. It won't cost much and we'll be cleaning up the environment at the same time because of all the Bullshit we'll be getting rid of!

 

[Nugie]

Curious -

I found it interesting that you decided to place this link under the "hate bush" thread when you've clearly indicated that this is a problem that has plagued militaries under many administrations...

But regardless, the "problem" isn't as easy as it sounds. Yes, the Pentagon have dragged their feet on this issue, just as they traditionally have been whenever legislators dictate military policy. For example, two years ago, congress authorized guard and reserve forces to be allowed to buy into the military health care system - the Pentagon took 18 months to implement it.

It would clearly be a "problem" if we sent airborne out of a plane and only some of them had parachutes. It becomes murky when you realize that the gear you get isn't as great as the gear that is available for civilian purchase.

What if one soldier out of a battalion decides that he wants a different pair of boots then the ones he's issued? Does he buy them at his own expense? You're darn right he does; every troop knows how important it is to be good to your feet. Does that mean he should be reimbursed, when so many others think those boots are fine? What if those boots are custom made and cost $10K? You might think this example is stupid but the point isn't - that is, what is practical and reasonable often contradict with what is desirable.

The expectation that the country will provide you with EVERYTHING possible to protect you and get the job done is simply false. If that were the case, we'd pull all the troops back, launch the nukes, and turn the entire country into glass. That would probably save a lot of American lives.

I'm not suggesting that it doesn't suck when you have to do a job in gear that is second-rate. It absolutely does. Gear doesn't fit right, weapons misfire - there's a reason they say that war sucks. Is there a price tag on human life? Everyone hates to admit it, but absolutely, there is one.

I'm not sure when Americans began believing in the concept of a casualty-less war, but it's a dangerously demoralizing fallacy.

 

[NaughtyMonkey]

The expectation that the country will provide you with EVERYTHING possible to protect you and get the job done is simply false. If that were the case, we'd pull all the troops back, launch the nukes, and turn the entire country into glass. That would probably save a lot of American lives.

Except that levelling the country wasn't the point of the invasion. So that wouldn't get the job done.

 

[HonestAbe]

Democrat, Republican, Independent... doesn't matter

It's enough for a soldier to risk his or her life; he or she should not have to buy his or her own equipment.

No. I am not a Democrat.

Were all Americans and you shouldn't feel compelled to disclose party affiliations to voice your opinion.

I agree with your sentiment completely. It really is disgusting to have to keep reading how our soldiers are being treated like they are worth less than shit. The Bush administration has sought to screw them on other issues as well, see hazard pay, and VA benefits. Rumsfelds' comment about how you "go to war with what you've got" was absurd. If you are attacked then you respond with what you've got. However if you CHOOSE to pre-emptively strike another sovereign nation when at least half of your population is against it then the least you can do is make sure you are prepared to give your troops the best gear available. This is not a complicated thing and it certainly is not a valid reason to not do so because of "unreasonable expense" when there is 238 million dollars of pork in this years budget for a bridge in Ketchikan Alaska which will be built for 50 or so people to have quicker access to town.

The military has absolutely no problem spending money and lots of it. Remember the audits done in the 80's on military spending which revealed the infamous $16,000 ladder and the $600 screwdriver? BILLIONS of dollars are earmarked every year for pork projects all over this country so there is absolutley no excuse in a time of war for this President and his administration to claim financial hardship when it comes to equipping the troops who they expect to give their lives to advance their neo-con agenda. Yet another reason to "detest Bush."

We are just recently seeing his fellow Republicans starting to back away from Bush. His hypocrisy, deceit, and incompetence are finally being acknowledged by many who turned a blind eye to it just a year ago. His agenda has slowed considerably and with the indictment of Tom Delay on criminal charges there is blood in the water for the upcoming mid term elections since GOP candidates will no longer have any Presidential coattails to ride on. Finally some light at the end of the tunnel. It took a couple of real disasters to show just what a disaster Bush has been.

 

[Nugie]

Not a Bush fan, but...

What do other countries promise their soldiers, then, when they have equipment that is below the standard of American gear?

I don't think I made my point clearly enough in the last post. I'm not saying this is an unimportant issue - it always has been and will always continue to be. I'm saying that the issue has been politicized for the overwhelming majority of Americans with no attention span and no long term memory.

There isn't a single soldier I know of who doesn't have some suggestions for how to improve the gear. In fact, if you look at who supplies the military with most of its equipment, those companies are either founded by or largely staffed with - yup, you guessed it, retired troops who found something the military could do better with.

A while back, I posted a link to a globalization theorist, Thomas Barnett. One of his arguments is about how the concept of "MOOTW" (Military Operations Other Than War, pronounced, Moot-wah) marginalized the one aspect of the military which is being increasingly used. As in any bureaucracy, we had to spend as much as possible to justify getting more next year. Therefore, we decided to convince legislators that we should prepare for an enemy that was nearly our equivalent. Great-power war isn't going to happen again, thanks to globalization, but there sure are lots and lots of "MOOTW" keeping us occupied. It's time we restructured our forces for exactly the types of enemies we'll be fighting as opposed to those the video game guys hope we will fight.

It simply isn't sexy to try to convince Congress that we need all our non-combat transports to be uparmored against random attack. It's much more sexy to talk about nuclear submarines that are whisper quiet or torpedoes with supercav ability. But... WHO CARES about supercav torpedoes when there isn't another underwater Navy in the world that we will potentially worry about?

Curious, as you've stated, the problem with always wanting better equipment is one that has gone back thousands of years. The problem of politicians wanting pork has gone back to the founding of this country.

The representative democratic government of the US is the worst ever... except for everything else. If you can think of a system where corruption and pure, stupid, human greed doesn't interfere, I'm all ears.

I live in what is possibly the most corrupt state in the Union and work in what might be one of the most corrupt cities in the country. Do a search on Sharpe James and tell me I don't know about dirty politicians.

I suppose you should be proud of your idealism - maybe you've even been bitten with a case of True Believerism at one point or another. But I don't blame any one politician or another because of two things I've come to realize:

1) No one person can make ANYTHING happen in this country, which means there are LOTS of hands in the pot.
2) They're all lying pieces of monkey poop and their only purpose is to serve themselves. Or be thrown through the bars ar the zoo in a fit of monkey rage.

 

[Red Paul]

Curious,

Please note that I've never advocated what some might consider "Martial Law 2.0" (or ML++, whichever you prefer). I was simply stating that without accepting limits on personal freedoms and the prevalence of a police state, no open society can exist in peace when it is confronted with both: 1) Baath remnants and then 2) Foreigners infiltrating across a border comparable to that between Montana and North Dakota..

The quote above is from a few weeks back. Apologies for dredging up old business, but I've just returned to the Internet and was struck agape by the cited passage. U.S.-occupied Iraq as an "open society" with no "limits on personal freedom"? The Red Cross said 80% of Abu Ghraib inmates were random innocent civilians who got hauled in just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Moqtada al-Sadr's revolt started after Bremer shut down the guy's newspaper. (That's not a defense of Moqtada, just a statement of fact.) Patrick Cockburn says Iraqi motorists get shot dead because they don't understand our MPs' traffic signals and the soldiers figure better safe than sorry.

No limits on personal freedom in AmIraq? Jesus-fucking-Loueezus.