bush speak
 

so, I just watched the latest propaghanda crap being spewed by the powers that be. Am I totally disconected from reality, or am I one of the growing number of Americans that find this totally unacceptable? The bullshit never ends. I know there is not much chance of my complacent fellow citizens taking a break from their playstations to actually pay attention to something as trivial as mine and your fellow citizens dying for a trumped up power play corporate takeover but it´s about time to pull our pants up and get a bit vocal about exactly who is raping our rear ends. Can you and your families tolerate any more ? At this rate it´s gonna be your grandchildren in Baghdad. How much can you take?
do any of you believe this tripe? I´m pleased with our progress.

Sorry, I liked his speech and agreed with a lot of it. Just my opinion though.

I chose not to watch the speech, primarily because it was touted as being a PR campaign to bolster Americans' confidence in his war. I therefore don't have anything to say about how well he spoke. Quite honestly, Bush is the last person to convince me that all is well and that we just need to "stay the course."

If Powell gave a speech regarding an honest appraisal of Iraq, my eyes would be glued to the tv and I would hang on every word.

hope your marine comes home in one piece.

I don't think anything was really addressed during the speech. Nothing new was presented. It was a bunch of salad dressing. Which is fine, I guess. Wish I would've wasted that time doing something else, is all.

I couldn't bare to watch same BS over and over. Anyways, at the same time we simply can't pull out of Iraq and let it become a breeding ground for terrorists. (Something it was not under Saddam.) Whether we should have gone to war or not is irrelevent at this point. We need to be there. We need to stabilize that country. Period.

It's not irrelevent. Bush needs to be held accountable. He lied. People died. Plain and simple. It's bullshit for him to get away with it just because "it was the right thing to do" or "saddam had WMD's" or "we were liberating the Iraqi people".....

i have a simple question


is this what is meant by "Quagmire" ?

seriously, i'm just curious, bc it seems to me that we are stuck in a war with no forseeable end and no easy way out and honestly, we can't really get out w/out causing more problems than there were beforehand...

so, i ask..is this a quagmire yet, or do we have to wait?

although i agree iwth elphaba about bush, id disagree strongly with hima bout powell. the last time i actually sat down and listened to powell talk was the speech he gave to the UN showing positions of WMD and how they were being moved around the country (remember that hoodwink everyone? ). since then he has lost my respect in regards to anything he may say about the iraq war. as for bush..we all know that everthing he spews its just total and utter propaganda used to fuel confidence in a flailing war which seems to not end.

docbungle.. id have to disagree iwth you also... salad dressing is NOT fine. i dont know about you, but but rather have my 'salad' straight without the nonesense people throw in for PR purposes

Wow, this is such a mature and decent response.

Definately makes me want to listen to what you have to say.

I can't help but think about GWB's stained military record...not proven but not proven to have been otherwise.
I could not help but to think about what Nancy Pelosi said afterwards on NBC which was "what about all the veteran's benefits which are cut etc etc".
I could not help but think "when/where" did Bin Laden make this last statement GWB quoted last night?!?!?!
I could not help but think how this war went from Al Queda to Saddam back to Al Queda.
I still cant help but think what a collective BUNCH OF MORONS we the American people are.

I was really dissapointed in that speech. He probably could of just went out and said "Stay the Course."

My favorite part was "If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them."

Good thing they got rid of all the commanders that said we needed 300,000-400,000 troops. At least they have yes men in there now.

i would be curious to see the ratings for the speech last night--my suspicion is that the television audience was not much bigger than that at ft bragg.

so about the speech: first it was vaguely interesting that bush's handlers chose to position george in front of a mlitary audience which was no doubt ordered to appear to believe him.

and which of the various absurd/discredited arguments the administration has floated to justify its misbeggoten debacle in iraq could he have chosen to recycle, really?
it turns out that the bushwriters chose to try the vague association with 911--with the twist of a tacit admission of the self-fulfilling character of the argument:

well, the us occupation seems to have created the conditions that we claimed were there but really werent, so now the argument that we floated before but which was at the time false is now at a certain level true, so stay the course thank you and goodnight.

but before i go, following the same logic of creating self-fulfilling situations that has worked so well for us so far, we refuse to give a timetable for withdrawal because that would send a bad signal. similarly we feel that having an actual stategy for managing this phase of--well what is it--war, notwar featuring alot of accidents, reconstruction no matter stay the course---we feel that having an actual strategy would send the wrong message as well as the arrogant display of imperial power overrides the need for an actual strategy just ask paul wolfowitz we are still waiting for the flower strewn streets i am sure they are there somewhere, maybe with the wmd systems.

but before i go i would like to encourage you all to do what you would probably do anyway on the fourth of july but now because i say so what you would have done anyway is about showing your support for the troops.

but before i go i would like to say ok then, that's about it, nothing to see here folks, move on.

Bush should have came out and said: "You already know if you will agree with what I am going to say or if you will disagree. There is nothing to see here. Whats on cartoon network?"

I also liked his speach, although If I had some input in writing it it probably would have come out better. When he spoke of the fight against the terrorists he should have included the iraqi public just as he addressed the US public; they, for sure, are victims of terrorism everyday as carbombs and suicide missions are exploding on their streets. and how did he end his speach, something about 'a great chapter in the history of freedom'? I don't remember exactly, but I know I said "what!?" He could have substituted "humanity" for "freedom" - would have sounded better, had more of an impact.

But overall I think he did a good job in explaining our mission in iraq.

/I should be in his cabinet.

it appears that no-one who is not already a committed far right person found last night's example of bushspeak compelling.

the following is an editorial from the ny times this morning that says what i take to be a moderate response to this latest offering of self-justification and delusion from george w. bush.

last night's speech did nothing to clarify the situation in iraq.
it did nothing to explain what the americans either have been are or will do there, except in the vaguest and most reaganesque way.
it did nothing to alter international criticism of the iraq debacle.
it did nothing to staunch the collpse back into minority of conservative ideology, of conservative views, both on iraq and in general.
it did nothing.
but it did show that the administration still thinks the fake, misleading and insulting linkage between the iraq debacle and 911 remains a strong selling point.



source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/opinion/29wed1.html?

Try to be a little more respectful, huh? :rolleyes:

The problem with Bush is it's usually ranch dressing. I'd prefer to get some vinegrette.
God be with your marine, as he is in a kind of danger that most people on this board, myself included, could never comprehend. I think that what pedro was trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it might be in your marines best interest for you to support those who want to bring him home from somewhere he probably doesn't want to be. Most of my friends in Iraq (3 in the Army, 2 in the Marines) are seriously considering becoming conscientious objectors because they feel like they are the invaders instead of the protectors. They want to be with their family and friends and they are afraid that they aren't doing the right thing.

interesting willravel:

i had not considered the extent to which last night's little talk might have in fact been aimed primarily at the military. this is an interesting angle to consider--i think i underestimated it because of the aesthetic preference the bush crowd seems to have for surrounding themselves with people in uniform in general, as if that is the a priori support base for their policies.

given the lunacy, the non-planning of the iraq escapade, and given that the most direct result of that--and a whole series of other rumsfeld-specific decisions regarding how the military would be deployed--it is the soldiers who obviously stand to pay directly and most severely, i would not be surprised if there were real problems relative to this occupation developing from within the military.

i have seen lots of isolated stories about crumbling support for bushpolicies within the military, but frankly have no idea of how widespread that kind of drift is, what its motors are--or even how one would go about finding out about this--whether it is tracked in any way, where the results of such tracking might be found, etc. i mean, given the nature of the military as a top-down structure owing its obedience to the commander in chief (no matter what level of nitwit that commander might be) i wonder if there is even any interest in tracking shifts in the general attitudes within the military vis-a-vis an action.

does anyone know whether data like this is either produced or available, and if so where one might find it?

a conjecture: it would seem to me that the bush squad might be realizing they have fucked up, based on dissent that is coming from all sides. consider the timing of the attempts to enlist eu assistance in the "reconstruction"--or the transition away from occupation toward actual reconstruction--it would make sense that there is significant discontent within the military over the nature and goals of this operation..and that this might be a significant factor in the decision to approach the eu.

it would seem to me that the most logical way out of this mess woudl be for the bushpeople to go, hat in hand, to the countries they blew off in 2002 and seek to internationalize the reconstruction and for the americans in general to take their leave of longterm dreams of controlling iraqi oil...which was pushed from the outset as the way this action would pay for itself.

but i doubt seriously that this administration is capable of that kind of reflection, much less this kind of action--my sense is that they are far too arrogant to be able to force themselves to submit to what they would see as humiliation.
but the consequences of not doing it would seem to be chaos in the short and longer run.
so it would seem to me that the wages of shortsighted arrogance will be many many more people killed, maimed, etc.

all this because i do not see how, at this point, the americans could possibly not find themselves cast as occupiers. which would mean that i do not see how the americans could possibly run a reconstruction that would not be undercut from the start because it would be seen as another mode of occupation.

Reminicent of the Bush fighter landing on the aircraft carrier. Isn't propoganda fun?
Right now information on that is sketchy at best,probably completly skewed no matter where you get it from. Honestly, the best way to find out is to speak one-on-one to military officers over there. I get to chat on AIM with my buddies pretty often. I've also gotten a few letters from them (they were obviously opened, isn't that illegal?). 5 of 6 people I know over there are considering the C.O. discharge so much that they'd mention it on AIM, which is hardly secure. The best thing we can do for them right now is to remind them that you don't have to fight an illegal war, and you don't have to follow illegal or immoral orders. If your C.O. tells you to go send a few shells into an orphanage or synagogue that is clearly filled with children and civilians, you can ask to be relieved. If you are afraid of a draft, you can even fill out a C.O. claim now.

To those over there right now, or those who are about to go: A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles. This person may either be assigned to Alternative Service, or not be assigned training or duties that include using weapons.It depends on what your objection is based on. Know that you're claim will have to be presented and decided by a board. You will have to explain yourself. You can appeal the boards decision.
I don't see that kind of reflection or action in the future. The last thing this administration wants to communicate is remorse. If they show remorse, they show weakness (in their twisted minds), and also open the possibility that they were wrong. We should outsource the reconstruction to companies from countries where we've ruined the economy, but we rarely do what we should.

What I think will happen is simply for this administration to continue in it's terrible reconstruction. The death toles will rise for American and English soldiers, rebels, and innocent non-combatent Iraqi civilians. Bush will finish his term as his popularity continues dropping, as it has been. When he leaves his office, the United States will still be in this horrific polarization that threatens to cause further civil unrest, and Iraq will still be a terrible place to be for soldiers and Iraqis alike.

Our only possible way out is if the Democrats, the Beowolf to the Republicans Grendel, can muster it's strength and really fight back. We need to call BS every time a FOX news anchor opens his or her mouth. We need to call the President on every speech in which he tells us the 'war' is going well. If the war is going so well, why is terrorism so high compared to where it was a year ago, two years ago, 5 years ago? If the war is going so well, why haven't the Iraqis accepted us with open arms? Why do we need greater privacy-invading acts for our own safety?

http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm for consientious objectors

I should have clarified in my earlier post I suppose. He is not overseas at the moment, but is preparing to be later on (he's already been on one tour). Regardless, it could have been said for ANY soldier over there, and I would love nothing more than to see them all come home. But I'm understanding that they've been given a duty to follow through on, whether they want to do it or not, and I support them in that also.

Sounds good to me. :thumbsup:

Be sure that he gets the equiptment that he needs. He can get info from wherever he is stationed right now on what equipt he needs and will be given on his tour. If he needs a vest, get it. If he needs a helmet, get it. If he needs more clips, get them. My marriage present to my cousin and her new husband was $2k for military expenses. He is more likely to come home now.

Tell your marine that he's in the prayers of a lot of people.

Why can't the US Armed forces equip our boys over there? That doesn't make sense that you have to "bring your own equipment". I don't care who's in charge (non-partisan thank you very much), this is just wrong. Or maybe I'm wrong. I assumed the US military provides their soldiers that they claim to support with equipment. Is this the case or not? If so, where is all the money going to?

Check out David Grimm's story, where he exsplains about his parent's having to send him supplys from Wal-mart. Also this CBS News article about GIS lacking armor, radios, bullets, etc. It's an excelent article that paints a frightening picture of how our soldiers are ill-equipped. I guess Bush forgot to explain why soldiers were going through this in his speech.

David Hackworth's widow is keeping his web page alive which was a place for military personnel to speak out. (hackworth.com)

Soldiers for the Truth is another excellent web site (sftt.org)

I don't think you will find polls there for military attitudes. A soldier's ass is in deep doodoo if he or she is critical of the CiC or other superiors.

Hope that's a help.

Thanks will, it's much appreciated and I'll pass on the message :) :icare:

To address the speech: 9/11 was mentioned 5 times, and terror was mentioned 34 times in the speech. I thought we already determined that 9/11 had no connections to Iraq. This is getting annoying.

"We will defend our freedom" is not a valid argument for invading a country that never attacked us.

Things have gotten aggesively worse in the last year in Iraq. One year ago the interem government was given 'power'. That governmnent is usually vacant. At any given time, there are many governmental leaders that are in other countries. At one time last year, every governmental leader was out of the country. Assasinations are up since the handover of power. The 'insurgency' (actually a rebelion by definition) has grown. All provinces of Iraq are seeing consistant attacks.

The best way to honor lives who have been lost in this struggle is to serve? Well, Mr. President, I guess we aren't above placing a millitary add in your speech. Too bad you didn't have that philosophy during the time when you were farting around when Americans were overseas fighting.

I think one explanation might be that Rummy et.al. truly believed that the Iraqi's would be tossing flowers at our soldiers, rather than explosives. Our soldiers were sent in without the necessary gear to protect them, nor in sufficient numbers in the case where we find ourselves now. This doesn't explain why the problem has yet to be corrected.

Second question: Halliburton.

What's truly sad is we have people who are ok with the fact they have to give money to the military to pay for their weapons.

If that's the case and we are going to have our underpaid troops buy their own materials..... then we should give them the right to choose whether they wish to go to Iraq and for how long.

It's only fair. We pay them very low wages for what they do and we expect them to pay for their gear? Fuck that.

We need to find out why we are doing that to these fine young men and women.

Just because we pay does not mean we're okay with it. I'd personally like to see Bush wearing a wicker vest protecting a gas tanker leaving Baghdad headed for one of our military instalation. I pay for my cousin in law's supplies because I don't want him to die, not because I accept the fact that the military won't buy what they should for their own soldier.

So very true, but lately the cartoon network sucks. Way to many prefab Japanamation marketing cartoons.

I did not see his speech as I am still taking a politics break but friends I saw last night (who are mild Republicans) saw it and both liked it. I'm sure my liberal friend will be making wise cracks about it tonight if I happen to talk to him.

I used to think that political differences were just due to lack of information or some self serving interest. Many times this is true, but occasionally I have run into people who are as informed as I am, with the same facts, who come to totally different conclusions. How two intelligent people with the same data could come to different conclusions used to puzzle me. I came to realize it was the paradigm from which they view the world that was fundamentally different, and paradigms will never change based on one case or one event. I have seen them change in people, but it takes years. This is in general why arguing politics with most people is just pissing in the wind.

Will, that was not aimed at you. I feel what you did for your cousin-in-law is above admirable and I am sure he is very grateful.

I just find it disgusting how these Right wingers claim the war is going well and yet this bullshit is going on and they either approve of it or are blind and don't fucking care.

Never in the history of modern American warfare (1917- today) has a soldier been expected to pay for their gear. I truly am incensed and have no respect for any son of a bitch that tells me how great the war is going and says nothing about this or defends it. THAT INCLUDES BUSH AND HIS CRONIES.

I truly hope someday Haliburton gets investigated and every executive that cashed in on this war goes to prison in Gitmo.

Very well said. Thank you.

Sorry, it was a quagmire before we went in in the first place. Well, at least according to the minority party. The first Republican President had this to say: "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."

He also had the balls to enforce it. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), Dubya is no Abraham Lincoln...

Boy thats a lot of vitriol.

I'm sure that in no war in modern history have US soldiers ever had shortages of material or thought they should have more than they were alloted.

Note the date... June 8.....04. The armor issue WAS a big issue, in 2003.

This is OLD news people, but it is another reason to bitch about Bush and us blind uncaring right wingers.

Give me a break.

As a Marine myself, who served under Powell and Cheney in and around country during the first gulf war, I can assure you that while tensions run high, and doubts resound, they DO want to do it. 100%. And they do it for selfless reasons.

Don't let the hate-bush crowd ever convince you other wise.

Semper Fi to he who has your heart...and to all our brothers.

-bear

Could I have your link for that Ustwo? It would be good to know the source, and a likely candidate for PowerClown's good news topic.

I just wanted to add that since we have the technology now to actually replace soldiers with robots, this would eliminate all battle field casualties.

Barring that, Bush not encasing every soldier in rebar reinforced concrete is just further evidence that he doesn't care about the troops and sent them to war ill-equipped to resoundingly defeat an enemy.


:rolleyes:

-bear

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...060804,00.html

Its an AP story.

Umm...It's a Military.com story.

No its an AP story posted on military.com.

You can also semi-verify this as all the main stream news sites stories about lack of armor are from 2003.

Now the cynical side in me had a feeling you were hoping to attack the source, and the logical side in me would assume you didn't check the link, but the hopeful side in me will assume you just didn't read the full article.

For more documentation, here is the link on the AP web site.

ACK edited out link, its a huge string and makes bad things happen to the formating.

Just search the ap web page for Iraq Troops in the title and the year 2004

AP....placed on Military.com

This is good news....why question the source if not to cause a reaction

Damn ustwo beat me by like 0.2 seconds....heh

i have been sitting here for a few minutes in amazement that ustwo has posted something in politics i actually agree with and which i understand as a reasonable position.
i would call hell to see if it has frozen if i thought it existed.

on another note--i find it curious that folk who are not and have not been invovled with operations in iraq are contradicting information from folk who are there about equipment problems. i find it particularly curious that in one case at least the contradiction is based on experience in an unrelated, much different war. nor do i understand how citing the date a report first appeared makes the content of that report "old news" when he presents not even a scrap of information to show that the problem had been addressed.

but whatever--how did the link get set up that if you support the administration then it follows that that administration can do absolutely nothing wrong? that support requires a complete abdication of anything approaching critical thinking? why is it such a problem to acknowledge ANYTHING that even might be problematic about the administration, its policies, its actions in or around iraq, no matter how much information piles up to the contrary?
is there any possible critical mass of information that would cause such blind allegiance to shake even a little?
or is the security that comes from the absolute refusal to think critically part of what explains adherence to conservative precepts for this new, extreme right variant of conservatism.

i know quite a few old-school conservative types, more mandarin sorts, for whom this kind of blind allegiance was NEVER an aspect of being conservative. when and how did this redefinition occur?

the mode of argument particular to contemporary far-right ideology has nothing in common whatsoever with previous types of conservative thinking.

this has two points--one is contained in the above--the other is apparently general paradigm can and do change, and often quite fast--in this case, the new right has managed to redefine the notion of conservative in a quite fundamental ways in the space of less that 20 years. i would imagine that many of the folk who support the bush administration to the complete exclusion of critique--and there are several who have posted above--would nearly come to blows with older-school conservatives, if their written self-presentation meshed with who they are in real life.

From three months ago from Soldiers for the Truth:


03.03.2005

The Armor Scandal

Bureaucrats’ Inertia Cost the Lives of Our Troops

By Roger Charles

If you want to read a depressing, pathetic indictment of the Perfumed Princes of the Pentagon (those in and out of uniform), read the latest major investigative article in The New York Times today ("Many Missteps Tied to Delay in Armor for Troops in Iraq," March 7, 2005).

According to article, the Pentagon's "difficulties in shielding troops and their vehicles with armor have been far more extensive and intractable than officials have acknowledged."

Here is but one example of the bureaucracy at work, according to the Times investigation:

"In the case of body armor, the Pentagon gave a contract for thousands of the ceramic plate inserts that make the vests bulletproof to a former Army researcher who had never mass-produced anything. He struggled for a year, then gave up entirely. At the same time, in shipping plates from other companies, the Army's equipment manager effectively reduced the armor's priority to the status of socks, a confidential report by the Army's inspector general shows. Some 10,000 plates were lost along the way, and the rest arrived [in Iraq] late."

"In all, with additional paperwork delays, the Defense Department took 167 days just to start getting the bulletproof vests to soldiers in Iraq once General [Richard] Cody placed the order. But for thousands of soldiers, it took weeks and even months more, records show, at a time when the Iraqi insurgency was intensifying and American casualties were mounting."

"By contrast, when the United States' allies in Iraq also realized they needed more bulletproof vests, they bypassed the Pentagon and ordered directly from a manufacturer in Michigan. They began getting armor in just 12 days."

At the end of the article's too-long litany of incompetence, piss-poor judgment and lethal bureaucratic inertia, this reader bowed his head and fought twin temptations. One, to scream in frustration that Pentagon apparatchiks saw only business as usual while great young Americans were being killed and maimed in Iraq with increasing severity and frequency. And, two, to cry in grief for the lives that were lost or maimed when so many of these deaths and horrible injuries could have – and should have – been prevented.

Unfortunately, preventing a goodly number of these casualties would have required that some senior Army or DoD official – just one – truly cared more for the welfare of the troops than for the proper staffing of some piece of paper. It's brutally obvious that proper staffing "within" the DoD acquisition system was the be-all and end-all that overrode every other consideration.

It did not and does not have to be this way. During the Falklands War in the spring of 1982, then-Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger faced the same bureaucracy while trying to support our British allies in their fight to prevent the Argentine junta from annexing their islands in the South Atlantic following the invasion.

Weinberger's response to the "most-urgent" British requests for U.S. materiel assistance was instructive: He ignored the DoD acquisition system altogether! Over the strong protests of the bureaucrats, Weinberger short-circuited the materiel mafia that continues to force U.S. troops to rely on "process and procedure" to the detriment of getting their hands on live-saving equipment in a timely fashion.

Weinberger's solution was brilliantly simple. At least once a day, he and his British counterpart in the Ministry of Defense had a secure telephone call. The British "SecDef" told his American counterpart what the Brit forces needed, and Weinberger issued an order for the DoD acquisition system to provide the specified items. The only "staffing" was the execute order!

For example, the Brits most urgently needed the best air-to-air missiles that the United States had – the AIM-9L Sidewinder.

To no surprise, our own admirals protested, and may have actually succeeded in "hiding" some of the requested Sidewinders. In spite of this obstructionism, enough AIM-9Ls were transferred to U.K. forces to enable the British Harrier jump-jets to protect their fleet with minimal losses.

Please note that no U.S. troops were at risk in this British-Argentine shoot 'em up. Nonetheless, Weinberger ignored the bureaucratic niceties (and maybe a legal stricture or two in the Federal Acquisition Regulations).

The moral of this too-long sea story, is that if SecDef Donald Rumsfeld and the closed circle of high-level hand puppets that surround him had truly given even half of a damn about the welfare of our troops in harm's way, he and his lackeys had both the Weinberger precedent and power at their disposal to have ensured that body armor and up-armored vehicles got to our troops in Iraq in sufficient amounts and in time to have saved lives and limbs.

That this did not happen is a major indictment of the Pentagon's current leadership.

To date, no one has been fired, or even reprimanded for the armor-shortage scandal. No doubt, many of the uniformed and civilian leaders on whose watch this disgrace occurred have subsequently been promoted (and the higher-level career civilians inside the acquisition machine have I'm sure received their annual performance bonuses for "exceptional" performance in both 2003 and 2004.

The ugly truth is that they all chose by inaction and failure to use all the tools available to them, to let stout-hearted Americans needlessly die and be maimed for life. How they as individuals can live with the consequences of their dereliction of duty is a matter for them and their consciences.

For what it's worth, they have earned my complete and utter contempt.

Tacoyah, I read the source that Ustwo gave me after my request for it. There was no mention of an AP source in the article that I saw. I have since posted that the issue of providing adequate protection to our troups is not at all dead or old news.

Have I responded adequately to your yellow warning? If not, please advise me for there was no hidden agenda on my part for asking Ustwo to provide a link.

Yes....you did respond adequately....quite well in fact

Thank you.

Elphaba I notice your responce article seems to be covering the exact same issue mine did, based on past problems over a year old.

It seems you posted what has already been posted and resolved. There are issues which need to be addressed of course but it is still news over a year old.

I will note this as well...

It makes me wonder if the armor was supplied by a 'low' bid contract instead of working directly from the company best suited to deliver.

Fresh indignation over this is nothing but a smokescreen.

Sigh... Our allies were able to get protective vests through suppliers in the US before our own soldiers could through the Pentagon. It is there in the article I posted if anyone chooses to read it. Halliburton is not a supplier of protective gear; they do lunches and laundry and gas from what I can tell, at premium prices.

I don't intend a "smokescreen," as you suggest, nor am I experiencing "fresh" indignation. What a foolish statement from you, when I have only been a member of TFP for a short time. You know nothing about me.

From the above article, it is clear that another Sec Def might have done a better job of protecting our troups even in a "minor" war.

It makes you wonder why Bush is so popular with the military and won 4/5ths of the military vote. Must just be a fluke eh?

It takes time, yes, but one can have an effect on people. Believe it or not you had an effect on my political views.

However it is important to judge yourself as you judge others.

i stand by that statement. I hope they all come home in one piece. i don´t understand how this can be in any way disrespectful or unworthy. I sincerely hope my friend serving over there makes it home safely. As I do for anyone elses friends or family. How can you twist that into something ugly?

If...by chance...the sarcasm I (amongst others here) read into this statement is a figment of my imagination, I aplogize. Taken in the context of this thread, and your general tone in this debate, it seemed a valid assumption.

no sarcasm intended. I would like nothing more than to see an end to this fiasco and for everyone to come home in one piece. period.

I know of one undergrad anthropologist who managed to get herself into basic training and conduct her research on glory-based killing, or something along those lines. I watched her present at Santa Clara's anual soc/anth undergrad conference. Tasty stuff for a budding anth student. She's since traveled on to some school in England.

With the activation of basically entire small-towns into combat duty, we can hope that some of them were sociology/anthropology students. Hopefully their professors had the foresight to keep in contact and lead them through valid ethnographic data collection.

Officially, yet unobtainable I would imagine, would be psych evals. It will likely be a long while before their observations hit the journals, what say you, like 20 years given that the war won't even be simmering down for a decade? But if you could somehow tap those records early...that would be your treasure trove, roachboy.