bush speak - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pedro padilla · 06-28-2005, 07:18 PM

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.

Sue · 06-28-2005, 07:20 PM

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

Elphaba · 06-28-2005, 07:31 PM

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.

pedro padilla · 06-28-2005, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sue

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

hope your marine comes home in one piece.

docbungle · 06-28-2005, 09:16 PM

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.

theusername · 06-28-2005, 09:19 PM

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.

Hardknock · 06-28-2005, 10:18 PM

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".....

Paq · 06-29-2005, 12:56 AM

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?

dlish · 06-29-2005, 01:59 AM

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

djtestudo · 06-29-2005, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedro padilla

hope your marine comes home in one piece.

Wow, this is such a mature and decent response.

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

tecoyah · 06-29-2005, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedro padilla

hope your marine comes home in one piece.

This is uncalled for.....unacceptable....and not worthy of these boards

Bookman · 06-29-2005, 04:59 AM

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.

samcol · 06-29-2005, 05:20 AM

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.

roachboy · 06-29-2005, 05:39 AM

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.

stevo · 06-29-2005, 06:24 AM

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.

roachboy · 06-29-2005, 07:36 AM

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.

Quote:

President Bush's Speech About Iraq

President Bush told the nation last night that the war in Iraq was difficult but winnable. Only the first is clearly true. Despite buoyant cheerleading by administration officials, the military situation is at best unimproved. The Iraqi Army, despite Mr. Bush's optimistic descriptions, shows no signs of being able to control the country without American help for years to come. There are not enough American soldiers to carry out the job they have been sent to do, yet the strain of maintaining even this inadequate force is taking a terrible toll on the ability of the United States to defend its security on other fronts around the world.

We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks. We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal - beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion.

Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking. He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq.

Given the way this war was planned and executed, the president does not have any good options available, and if American forces were withdrawn, Iraq would probably sink into a civil war that would create large stretches of no man's land where private militias and stateless terrorists could operate with impunity. But if Mr. Bush is intent on staying the course, it will take years before the Iraqi government and its military are able to stand on their own. Most important of all - despite his lofty assurance last night that in the end the insurgents "cannot stop the advance of freedom" - all those years of effort and suffering could still end with the Iraqis turning on each other, or deciding that the American troops were the ultimate enemy after all. The critical challenge is to gauge, with a clear head, exactly when and if the tipping point arrives and the American presence is only making a terrible situation worse.

Mr. Bush has been under pressure, even from some Republicans, to come up with a timeline for an exit. It makes no sense to encourage the insurrectionists by telling them that if their suicide bombers continue to blow themselves up at the current rate, the Americans will be leaving in six months or a year. It is Iraq's elected officials, who desperately need an American presence, who have to be told that Washington's support isn't open-ended.

The elected government is the only hope, but its current performance is far from promising. While the support of the Shiite's powerful Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani for the democratic elections was heartening, the Shiite majority in Parliament is mainly composed of religious parties competing to demonstrate that they have the ayatollah's ear. The Kurds continue to put broader national interests behind their own goal of an autonomous ministate that would include the oil fields of Kirkuk. The Sunnis, who boycotted the election, are only now being brought into the constitution-writing effort and so far have made no real effort to mobilize against the terrorists in their midst.

Pressure from the Bush administration for the government to do better has increased since the State Department took control of Iraq policy from the Pentagon. But there is much more to do, and the president needed to show the American people that he is not giving the Iraqi politicians a blank check to fritter away their opportunities.

Listening to Mr. Bush offer the usual emotional rhetoric about the advance of freedom and the sacrifice of American soldiers, our thoughts went back to some of the letters we received in anticipation of the speech. One was from the brother of a fallen Marine, who said he did not want Mr. Bush to say the war should continue in order to keep faith with the men and women who have died fighting it. "We do not need more justifications for the war. We need an effective strategy to win it," he wrote. Another letter came from an opponent of the invasion who urged the American left to "get over its anger over President Bush's catastrophic blunder" and start trying to figure out how to win the conflict that exists.

No one wants a disaster in Iraq, and Mr. Bush's critics can put aside, at least temporarily, their anger at the administration for its hubris, its terrible planning and its inept conduct of the war in return for a frank discussion of where to go from here. The president, who is going to be in office for another three and a half years, cannot continue to obsess about self-justification and the need to color Iraq with the memory of 9/11. The nation does not want it and cannot afford it.

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

Sue · 06-29-2005, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedro padilla

hope your marine comes home in one piece.

Try to be a little more respectful, huh?

Willravel · 06-29-2005, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

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.

The problem with Bush is it's usually ranch dressing. I'd prefer to get some vinegrette.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sue

Try to be a little more respectful, heh?

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.

roachboy · 06-29-2005, 01:05 PM

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.

Willravel · 06-29-2005, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

Reminicent of the Bush fighter landing on the aircraft carrier. Isn't propoganda fun?

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

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

Sue · 06-29-2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Willravel · 06-29-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sue

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.

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.

jorgelito · 06-29-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Sounds good to me.

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?

Willravel · 06-29-2005, 02:00 PM

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.

Elphaba · 06-29-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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

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.

Sue · 06-29-2005, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Sounds good to me.

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.

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

Willravel · 06-29-2005, 02:35 PM

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.

Elphaba · 06-29-2005, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

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?

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.

pan6467 · 06-29-2005, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

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.

Willravel · 06-29-2005, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

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.

Ustwo · 06-29-2005, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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?"

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.

pan6467 · 06-29-2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Elphaba · 06-29-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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.

Very well said. Thank you.

moosenose · 06-29-2005, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

is this what is meant by "Quagmire" ?

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...

Ustwo · 06-29-2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

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.

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.

Quote:

June 8, 2004

COLONIAL HEIGHTS, Va. - The Army's top supply commander said Monday that all American troops in Iraq are now equipped with bullet-resistant vests, after a shortage that led many soldiers to pay for costly body armor themselves.

As late as March, some soldiers headed for Iraq were still buying their own body armor, despite assurances from the military that the equipment would be available before they were in harm's way.

Gen. Paul Kern, commander of the Army Material Command, said the shortage eased after manufacturers stepped up production of the lifesaving vests.

Kern spoke at a news conference where Honeywell Specialty Materials announced it would increase production of Spectra fiber, a key component of the vests. He said the vests had saved dozens of soldiers who were shot at close range.

Kern recalled that troops in Vietnam had to be ordered to wear cumbersome flak jackets. "You don't have to discipline them to put on protective gear today," he said. "They are looking for it."

Last October, it was reported that nearly one-quarter of American troops serving in Iraq did not have ceramic-plated body armor, which uses four-pound armor plates to stop bullets and shrapnel.

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.

j8ear · 06-29-2005, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sue

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.

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

Elphaba · 06-29-2005, 04:32 PM

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.

j8ear · 06-29-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Give me a break.

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.

-bear

Ustwo · 06-29-2005, 04:35 PM

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

Its an AP story.

Elphaba · 06-29-2005, 04:41 PM

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

06-28-2005, 07:18 PM	#1 (permalink)
pedro padilla Insane	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.

06-28-2005, 07:20 PM	#2 (permalink)
Sue Teufel Hunden's Freundin Location: Westminster, CO	Sorry, I liked his speech and agreed with a lot of it. Just my opinion though. __________________ Teg yw edrych tuag adref.

06-28-2005, 09:16 PM	#5 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	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. __________________ Bad Luck City

06-28-2005, 09:19 PM	#6 (permalink)
theusername Insane	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. __________________ ?

06-29-2005, 12:56 AM	#8 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	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? __________________ Live. Chris

06-28-2005, 07:31 PM	#3 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	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.

06-28-2005, 10:18 PM	#7 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	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".....

06-29-2005, 01:59 AM	#9 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	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 __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

06-29-2005, 04:59 AM	#12 (permalink)
Bookman Insane	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.

06-29-2005, 05:20 AM	#13 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	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.

06-29-2005, 05:39 AM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 06-29-2005 at 05:42 AM..

06-29-2005, 06:24 AM	#15 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	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. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

06-29-2005, 01:05 PM	#19 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 06-29-2005 at 01:09 PM..

06-29-2005, 02:00 PM	#24 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

06-29-2005, 02:35 PM	#27 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

06-29-2005, 04:32 PM	#37 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	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.

06-29-2005, 04:35 PM	#39 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...060804,00.html Its an AP story. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-29-2005, 04:41 PM	#40 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Umm...It's a Military.com story.