As the "last combat troops leave Iraq", I think it's high time we politically rehabilitated Saddam Hussein. I know what you're saying, he was a monster who murdered thousands, why would I, as a leftist, feel the need to defend this man and to attempt to rebuild his image as something more than a threat to our very American way of life.
I do so because I am an American and in this country, everyone has the right for a second chance. Besides that, oh big whoop, thousands. Just think about how that number is dwarfed by the number killed by sanctions and the over one million deaths as a result of the invasion of Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was basically a Manual Noriega with rabies on steroids, but we have to assume a lot of the horror stores we hear about him are simply political propaganda. No one is arguing that he was the product of a highly tribal society that favored violence and brutality, but we also have to consider that if most of what got us to invade and destroy Iraq were falsehoods, there were probably a few thrown in there about Saddam as well.
Come on, you can't tell me that everything about him is true when we know for a fact that he didn't have any WMD's and that was the justification in invading them. Besides, for all the "bad" he did - and of course he wasn't perfect - he also provided the Iraqi people with a standard of living and education not seen since in the Arab world. Saddam Hussein wanted to bring the Iraqi people into the forefront of the modern world, and like other heroes we worship (Stalin, Mao), he had to do a lot of it through brute force. At the end of the day, Iraq had the best educational system in the Middle East, the highest standards of medical care, the most egalitarian attitudes towards women, minorities, and class, and a great social welfare system.
While taking the time to do all this, he also presented the Arab world with a lovable father figure who didn't make you feel like a sorry piece of shit. For instance, when no one else helped the Palestinians, he did. Ask any Palestinian and they will sing his praises all day long. Besides the SCUDS in the 90's, he also provided the families of those who were killed by Israel with a nominal pension. Even the Iraqis miss him. He was also not afraid to stand up to anybody or anything, including the United States. This, like so many other Noriegas before him, was his ultimate downfall. Everyone had a job, everyone had an education, and everyone had enough to eat. It took a concentrated effort of over three decades of punitive sanctions and orchestrated total war to smash the iron spine of the Iraqi people.
Saddam was always cool and in control and kept his pride about him, which was where the United States tried to focus the majority of their firepower. Whether it was at his kangaroo-court or during a national address, Saddam made sure everyone knew he was in charge. Even standing on the gallows (or was it a body double, eh? We'll never know!), Saddam calmly chided his executioners for being cowards and apostates.
Anyway, the one thing I still have a ton of questions about is how much the C.I.A. had him under their thumb. After all, it's science fact that Saddam wasn't captured at the bottom of a hole and we have to assume by the length of his beard that the debrief was long and painful.
I remember watching an American documentary in early 2003 that ran through Saddam Hussen's life and, deciding that he was a diabolically evil compulsive liar, concluded that he must be hiding WMDs without any means of proof. Just because.
Saddam was basically the Tito of Iraq. Saddam basically united everyone under the Iraqi, I don't see why anyone would call him sectarian when all of the ethnic cleansing happened pretty clearly after he was deposed. It's only a question on how much he was or wasn't a puppet of foreign governments.
Even the kurds and shia' he "massacred" were bought and paid for by the United States and Britain. Arabs who aren't Khaleeji collaborators will pretty much unaimously agree these were "internal problems" (Mushekel dakhalive) And really, if killing Kurds is a good reason to get rid of a leader then why don't we invade Turkey or something.
Kurds are notorious trouble makers and will sell their own mother for a homeland. I'm just sayin', is all.
Did You Remember? This Is Going To Be The Best 9/11 Yet!
It sort of has to be. Look at what's going on in the world. There's a big money swindle in Afghanistan, Massive amounts of daily attacks in flooded, nuclear-armed Pakistan, a ground zero mosque that's getting protested and scheduled Qu'ran burnings that are off again, on again are being protested in Kabul when it was just first announced earlier in the week. Today is also Eid ul-Fitr, which marks the last day of Ramadan.
I should probably warn you ahead of time that I'm hardly tasteful when it comes to this most sacred high holiday of our nation. So if you get offended by me being curious as to if hallmark is selling cards for this annual event yet. You should probably sway away as I do think they really should get on that. It could be a major money maker. "Sorry terrorist killed your daddy. Best regards"
I'm no fun. I always tell people on 9/11 to remember the six digit death count of noncombatants in Afghanistan and Iraq. How could I not be jaded? There's school districts where parents are protesting the school because the board of education didn't go above and beyond the governor's executive order, which calls for half-mast flags and simply suggests a moment of silence.
You hear that? He simply suggested it, he didn't make it mandatory! How dare he not make it mandatory! Doesn't he know that you need to honor the sacrifice of those 3,000 people who died for America's freedom by requiring a minute of silence.
Never mind the fact that a mandatory guideline enforceable by some form of punishment sort of takes away a sense of freedom of what those people were claimed to have died for. Then again, taking away freedoms to retaliate against people who hate our freedom is nothing new.
I guess the question left unanswered is what is everyone doing for 9/11? I'm going to go down to the bar and order a 9/11. How do you make that? Well, you drop two kamikazes in a Manhattan and knock it down.
You have to admit that those terrorist that carried out the attack on 9/11 were either tactically brilliant or extremely lucky in the way they nearly destroyed the head of our military, decapitated our government, and successfully destroyed one of the headquarters of our global economic hegemony all with about 20 dudes and some box cutters.
Perhaps that sounds like I support these terrorist, and it's stupid that I have to say I don't, because who in their fucking right mind would? But you have to admit, historically speaking, they're going to be mentioned alongside the Spartans from 300. And I'm sure that just got me put on some government watch list.
To further dig myself into a hole, I should remind you that if we executed a similar attack with bombers on an enemy of the state, or for that matter an unsuspecting nation, we would consider the 3000 dead to be well within acceptable losses and our public would cheer on the destruction.
If you need examples of this, please see Iraq.
And before you get too sad about all the 3,000 victims of the tragedy you have to think, weren't most of the tenants financial firms who, at the time, were most likely creating the financial bubble that is destroying our economy? Or perhaps that when the tower came down it only left the inexperienced parasites that didn't understand not to kill the host alive to run the ship. You have to wonder what the ratio of capitalists and war mongers to working class in those buildings.
But hey, let's just ignore all the chaos they caused, not to mention that the violence we are causing around the world and let's focus on how much of a violent manuscript those towel head's have for a bible and burn it on this high holy holiday.
A Florida pastor's plan to burn Qurans at his church on Sept. 11 ignited a protest today by hundreds of Afghans, who burned American flags and shouted "Death to America," and the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said the preacher could be increasing the threat to his troops.
Have people who say stuff like "Have you read the Koran? They are violent!" actually read the bible? The book is filled with violence. One dude got killed for cumming on the floor and not in his dead brother's wife.
God himself drowned the entire world! How much more violent can you get? Oh, I see. It's because the Koran is making a bid and has become a converting religion and is attempting to spread itself? Yeah, Christianity doesn't want to face competition. It's not like they don't have their holy book in every god damn hotel and motel across this country.
I guess we should just see what other books we could burn. Anyone have some suggestions? I personally don't approve of burning books, but I guess there are probably way more copies of Atlas Shrugged in the world than anyone will ever possibly need. Especially with the way our economy is going. Let's also toss in Michael Crichton's State of Fear and as well as Max Barry's Jennifer Government
Then came the BREAKING NEWS that Jones canceled the burning because he met some random Florida Muslim who said that he personally would prefer the mosque moved, and took that as a Islamic promise that it would be and was then outraged that he's been lied to. Because obviously all Muslims are linked by a hive mind like brain. But then the news got a whole lot more entertaining.
However, those behind the cultural centre denied that they ever spoken to the local imam or Mr Jones.
Mr Jones then said Imam Muhammad Musri had "clearly, clearly lied to us".
"Given what we are now hearing, we are forced to rethink our decision," Mr Jones said. "So as of right now, we are not cancelling the event, but we are suspending it."
Mr Musri, from the Islamic Society of Central Florida, said Mr Jones had "stretched his words", and that he had only agreed to fly to New York with Mr Jones on Saturday and speak with the leaders of the Islamic centre project.
Mr Musri said he had told the pastor "that I personally believe the mosque should not be there, and I will do everything in my power to make sure it is moved", but denied ever mentioning any offer to move it.
If the administration had ignored this idiots insane rantings about potentially burning a book that is no more violent than his own holy book, then perhaps people wouldn't have died in the riots protesting the proposed on/off burning. Not to mention the copy cats. Even if mister Jones decides not to do it, you know tons of other right-wing idiots are going to take his place and be the edgy one to burn the Koran.
Did you see the smug look on that asshole's face? You don't need to watch the whole thing, it gets really annoying after the 40th "What's your name" and "Watch your step" as the police lead him out. But there you go, Pastor Jones. Isn't that what you wanted? I should also put some blame on the news medias for making such an epic news piece out of some loser in Florida.
It's as if they'll do anything to make sure to troll anyone who lives in a sand country. People are actually writing "Koran" on pieces of paper, CD's of the downloaded document files of the Koran and burning that. Then there's this very stab at thy heart act..
I'm still amazed that people actually think that bacon and pig's blood is like kryptonite for Muslims. It's pretty hilarious. What next? You going to put slabs of meat and a piece of cheese on a Torah and then spill on it wine handled by a gentile?
There was that news going around that troops were putting pig's blood on their bullets, as if getting shot with something they don't consider clean would hurt anymore than the fact that they just got fucking shot. More than likely for doing nothing but being Hajji.
Besides that, why is it news now that someone is messing with their holy book? It's not like there hasn't been reports going all the way back to 2002 of US soldiers ripping pages out of prisoners' Korans and flushing them down the toilet and no one gave a shit about all that until now. It took you, Terry Jones, and your 30 followers to bring this to the global level.
So then we just got to the bottom of all this. To get the proposed Mosque near* ground zero to move. I'm not sure if threatening to burn their holy book is anymore tasteless than what the right wing news medias do on a daily basis in encouraging the morons of this nation to become even more bigoted towards other religions.
But it's not like Fox or the New York Post are defining a zone of Muslim exclusion by where 9/11 victims' remains were found...
Oh fuck. Well now. touche. Fox news is literally using deaths of innocents as talking points for their political agenda. I'm curious as to how many bodies it takes to make sure you're both fair and balanced. Maybe Fox should be pushing for the center's construction to be on top of the ancient American patriot burial ground so that the inevitable haunting can drive Muslims away forever.
But let's just take a look at how Fox news is trying to spin this shit now....
Oh no! A second right wing biased media format has hit the stupid topic in the form of the New York Post;
wow, what the fuck is this. I find myself wondering where the line that The Onion ends on and Fox News/ NY Post begins. But then you factor that even with this spin in the no spin zone, it's not much of a defense when you think about it. The community center isn't in the remains-cluster on that map, so it should be fine.
We keep this day holy and sacred for some reason. I'm not exactly sure why, either. When you think about it, the terrorist won. Every time you go to the airport and you have to suffer airport security going through your shit, which in the situation of your laptop has been ruled unconstitutional, you should realize that the terrorist won.
That's the way terrorism works and how we let them win. It's not the attack that hurts the most people, given this one did hurt a lot of people and every death is tragic, especially of the FDNY, since they had little communications thanks to congress not giving them funding, but the real tragedy is of the loss of freedoms for the survivors.
When you look at the laundry list of freedoms that our country has lost, you should see every little victory by those who hate our lifestyle. Basically what I'm saying is that when the planes hit and Bush just sat there stupedfied reading ma chèvre de compagnie it was over. the terrorists won and everyone knew it.
I like to believe that Bush would have been a one term useless president without 9/11 happening. And that we would be a totally different country today otherwise. Historians are going to look back and this is going to be one of those 'what if Germany won the war" of the 21st century type of things.
Then again, 9/11 just provided the administration with the excuse to do openly what it had always been planning to do in Afghanistan as well as getting payback on Saddam for dear ol' Daddy.
The government policies that came out of 9/11 still sicken me. We're in two full out wars attempting to reconstruct countries that never even thought about attacking us. It wasn't even preemptive, we just straight up attacked two countries unprovoked.
There's many organizations that recognize these military operations as war crimes. It's only a matter of time before enemies of the U.S., like Syria and Iran, start issuing official statements acknowledging the war crimes committed by the U.S. military and the various security firms it hired against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Opening up the flood gates for other nations to follow suit.
You have to wonder why we're even in Afghanistan.. Okay, well you don't have to really considering we just found a giant amount of lithium that those "sand people" have been living on. But long before we hit flatscreen pay dirt the Bush administration was all gung-ho and trying to find a reason to go in there for the obvious reason of oil. It's really a tragic tale that more people don't realize it or want to admit to it.
The Bush administration was looking to take advantage of the situation to get a pipeline through from the Caspian for some time before it. In fact, look at this administration memo.
"May 15, 2001 Regarding the placement of the Unocal Pipeline, a US Official delivered this ultimatum to the Taliban (via the Pakistani delegation acting as their interlocutors): "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." (Ref: Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie in "Forbidden Truth" (31) (Book's Preface online-pdf format (32) )" found it here
They were already planning on going into Afghanistan long before those towers came down. To add even more fuel to the fire, Karzai was an adviser to the company that was going to do the pipeline. So we were even dealing with that fucker. The bonus for him? His brother runs the drug game in Afghanistan.
And if you want to pin it on ourselves as an inside job or not, that's your own doing. I may be very opinionated on other subjects, but the topic of if we destroyed the WTC just doesn't cross my mind. Maybe I just can't accept that we could do that. And for the record, it was a tragedy no matter who did it or why.
Be thankful I didn't put in Tribute.wmv
Also, I may be crass with some of the things said or the images posted here, but for my money what I find far more offensive than any number of 9/11 jokes I could tell here is when Politicians pull out the 9/11 card out of their asses to justify anything they want, but then won't approve a health care fund for first responders.
It's really embarrassing.
The fact that we can't get the medical care for those first responders and for all of those people who now suffer lung illnesses because they were shoveling around in the muck and debris of the collapsed towers searching as it went from a rescue mission to one of recovery. So maybe I joke around about this or roll my eyes at the "patriotic" songs simply because if I stopped and took any of that seriously for a second, I would be too ashamed of my fellow man.
So is paying a little respect and decency, even once a year, for thousands of murdered fellow human beings too much to ask for? I say yes, it is. Not to be mean and say get over it, but we should move on. I'm not being edgy or ironic. There is a difference between private grieving and a public holiday designed to pick at old wounds and rile up the masses thirst for Arab blood.
Americans love watching shock and awe on their TV, but when someone does it to us we get whiny about it. The use of 9/11 to portray the US as a victim needs to be done away with and de-legitimized. It needs to be mocked at every opportunity. No one should be able to invoke that day without feeling like a complete hypocrite.
So with that I say God bless you, God bless the United States of America. Good night, good luck.. Never forget, as if you could somehow.
U.S. spending on weapons through 2016 likely will grow faster than the overall defense budget, which will have annual increases of only about 1 percent above inflation, according to Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale.
“Our goal would be to get forces and modernization to grow by 2 or 3 percent,” Hale said in an interview, while saying that “it’s not a given.”
An increase in weapons spending will include greater purchases of Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F- 35 fighter, new ground vehicles, ship construction, satellite systems and unmanned drones, according to the Pentagon’s long- range plan. Northrop Grumman Corp., of Los Angeles, and Chicago- based Boeing Co. also stand to benefit.
Some money may be shifted into equipment and personnel accounts from an effort to cut $100 billion of overhead costs over five years, announced by Defense Secretary Robert Gates on June 28, Hale said.
“Procurement and research are in the ‘gaining’ portion of the budget,” Hale said. “The goal would be to move money from support-type activities -- operations and maintenance, military construction -- into acquisition.”
Hale’s remarks are good news for defense contractors, said Todd Harrison, a defense analyst with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
“It sounds like they are trying to do everything they can now to avoid major program cuts in the next few years,” Harrison said. Yet, if the Pentagon goal of cutting overhead and support costs isn’t achieved, “they will have no choice but to cut” programs, he said.
‘Gusher’ Turned Off
Gates has announced plans to revamp Pentagon spending, saying in a May 8 speech that future budgets will see little real growth because a defense-spending “gusher” that opened after the Sept. 11 attacks “has been turned off and will stay off for a good period of time.”
In April 2009, Gates proposed to cut and truncate programs worth as much as $330 billion over their service lives.
The Pentagon’s $549 billion base budget request for fiscal 2011 represents an increase of about 1.8 percent over fiscal 2010, when defense spending rose 2.1 percent. Those budgets follow eight years of 4 percent average annual growth.
Hale said there still may be more cuts in store for some weapons programs after a Pentagon review later this year for the fiscal 2012 budget.
Weapons Spending
Congress approved $104.8 billion for weapons buying this year and is considering proposed procurement spending of $111.2 billion for fiscal 2011, which begins Oct. 1. The Pentagon may request $120 billion in 2012, rising to $137 billion in 2015, according to comptroller’s office projections that Hale said are, at this time, only for planning purposes.
Estimates about how much money may become available from the cost-cutting efforts are “going to get squishier” as projections move further into the future, Hale said. “That’s just inevitable.”
The Pentagon plan calls for $7 billion in savings in 2012, increasing to $11 billion in 2013 and $18.9 billion in 2014, according to a Pentagon fact sheet. The largest savings are projected at $37 billion in 2016.
While it will be a “significant challenge” to achieve those goals, Hale said that Gates wants “to push the process a little bit. Let’s see how far we can get.”
Clearly the article restored my hope in solving the budget crisis, restoring America to a peaceful democracy, and eventually bringing about peace for all mankind. Oh wait.. this is the opposite of that.
So what's this feeling? My impotent rage is changing, becoming something new, a sort of dull sadness... I'm finally crossing over! Goodbye my friends, I'll see you on the other side!
The way we're running this country, the US spends more on bullets, and only bullets, than it spends on the entirety of the Peace Corps. We piss away 10.5 billion for C4 systems. We're literally blowing money away. Let's, for a moment, think about all the things we could do with this amount spent on military weapons
-Free health care for every American ever -We could feed the entire world instead of killing brown people
There's seriously no words to explain my contempt for this country. Just look at the conversation going on between the Pentagon and the senate.
"We don't want this shit" ~ the Pentagon, 2010 "Yes you do" ~ Congress, 2010
I just love the mentality of our government over this. "We can't afford to keep unemployment extensions around, nor can we give a better stimulus to the people who are one paycheck away from being homeless, but shit, let's buy a whole bunch of weapons that even the Pentagon doesn't want."
THE FUCKING PENTAGON DOES NOT WANT THE FUCKING WEAPONS, AND YET WE'RE STILL GOING TO MAKE THEM! FUCK!
Now I can feel safe again as I go to sleep at night. Thank you America.
Actually, the thing we're all forgetting about this is that military spending is the one form of stimulus spending that Obama hasflksjdfljsalfkjalkfjalfj FUCK! This is the only form of stimulus that Obama can get past these mother fuckers in the senate. Disband that shit already.
But.. but... but... now that democrats are in power, we have to find funding for things before we can do them. Oh wait, it is for bombs. And why do we need to keep pumping money into weapons making? Well good thing you asked...
"The defense-industrial sector used its clout to deliver more weapons than the armed services asked for and even to build new weapons systems that the operational military did not want." An "internal arms race" developed in which design bureaus produced a variety of ICBMs with the same missions. When some called for a reduction of missiles, defense industry officials objected, because it would cause unemployment problems. [I: 61-63; II: 92 (Kalashnikov)]
So it's pretty simple to see why we keep pumping money into weapons making. It's because this is like 99% of everything still manufactured in the US anymore. Please stop America.
Wait, I didn't put an apostrophe there. I know. Maybe I'm asking for some foreign country to come in and stop America. Because Jesus fuck, this is just fucking nuts!
I shall call this the "Shadow Stimulus." I'm having a little bit of a hard time understanding the logic here.If government spending on non-defense jobs = Socialism, doesn't government spending on defense jobs necessarily = National Socialism? This is pretty much the case, but it's been going on since the end of WWII, so what are we to do about it?
Even though the Senate isn't completely full of morons. There's some voice of reason in the madness of stupidity that is the Senate floor..
“The Senate has unfortunately failed once again to put the taxpayers’ interests ahead of its own,” Feingold said. “We are now going to spend $2.5 billion on a military aircraft our own Defense Department doesn’t want. Congress should not be wasting taxpayer dollars on lawmakers’ pet projects, especially in the face of record deficits. We need to get our defense spending priorities right so we can adequately address the real world threats we face today, and not waste taxpayer dollars on unnecessary projects.”
The Senate went on to pass the Defense Appropriations bill. Senator Feingold was one of seven senators to vote against it. Earlier this year, Feingold was part of a successful, bipartisan effort to save billions of taxpayer dollars by stopping the purchase of seven additional F-22 Raptor aircraft, a Cold War relic that had never flown a mission in Iraq or Afghanistan and the Department of Defense said it did not want.
Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.. One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot..
Fadlallah was well known for a number of relatively liberal views, such as his support for women’s rights and fatwas against the brutal practices of female circumcision and honor killings. But Nasr’s comment was enough to spark fierce outrage from the variousprecincts of the neoconblog/twittersphere, who went after Nasr for her egregious failure to reduce Fadlallah to an anti-Israel, anti-American terrorist bogeyman.
Then again, it is pretty standard practice to fire reporters who don't agree with America.
Fuck it. Let's run this ship into the motherfucking ground. That's really the only way to be an optimist, to be perfectly honest. It's only when you truly lost everything that you have everything to gain.
The basic thing you need to know is that this is how we got ourselves out of the depression. It was arms and airplane manufacturing for WWII. Afterward they realized that reducing government spending would cause problems, so the department of war became the Pentagon and the cold war began because we constantly needed to manufacture weapons to keep that money flowing and jobs filled.
Frankly, the Great Depression was the nail in the coffin for Laissez Faire capitalism, it removed any credibility it had left as a functioning economic system. This is readily visible by the fact that every country experimenting with solutions ended up coming up with the same one, massive public spending. In fact if you take a look at all the industrialized countries today, you'll see that they all have a huge state sector.
What is the economic rationale for weapons production? I just don't understand how a non-consumer, non-utility producing product is able to improve our economies problem.
What really happened in WWII was all the fertile farmland in Europe got turned into battlefields and it took the Marshall Plan to rejuvenate the landscape after it was devastated by war. This is basically what has happened in Afghanistan except the climate is harsher and no one is proposing a recovery plan, so it's going to take even longer for the land to become fertile again. Is it any wonder these people don't grow anything but poppy when their farmland is always getting shelled and bombed?
Maybe these words should be taken to heart by a very smart man.
Why not put the money into research and development to help build things that make all of humanity better off as a whole? Oh wait, then we won't get free oil from it, right. But then again, I guess that does make humanity better. By reducing the proportion of undesirable human beings in the population, the lot of humanity as a whole is improved.
It's all some big circle anyway. Military spending secures the supply of oil, which secures our food production. It also secures the supply of other material that secures our financial system. What did we just find in Afghanistan, after all.
It is one of the greatest ironies of the war in Iraq that we ended up losing much of the oil. The infrastructure breakdown that we caused slowed down Iraqi oil drilling to a near halt, and during the first gulf war, Saddam ordered an oil spill that rivals the current BP Deepwater Horizon. It's going to be a run-off as to which one is actually going to be bigger.
It's just a great example of how social conflict, when brought to the level of industrial war, wastes more resources than you can imagine. Not to mention the funny fact that nothing in existence takes more oil to produce, maintain, and transport than tanks, planes, ships and troops.
Yesterday Obama announced that he was going to send in 30,000 troops and I'm sure an unknown amount of mercenaries to Afghanistan and Pakistan for 18 months to see if he can wrap this mofo up.
His claim is that we can't just ignore the level of terrorism that could potentially come from those locations if we do leave it alone. Hey, do you guys remember when he tried to appeal to the independent voters and was really hawkish about Afghanistan and Pakistan when trying to outflank McCain? Ha. yeah, that was some time ago...
And at what cost will this run us up in the total? That's the real kicker. It seems the estimate is about a billion-dollars-a-day and that really pisses me off almost as much as the inevitable loss of lives. Considering Medicare-for-all would cost roughly $63 billion/year. Congrats! With one month's funding for two wars on terrorism, you could have provided the entire country with affordable and comprehensive medical care for a year!
Then again, let's be realistic here, the stat is roughly one million/Troop/year. So with 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, that's $100 Million a day. So the rough estimate is Iraq + Afghanistan = Universal Health Care.
Commentator David Sirota wrote a really great piece asking some tough questions about this plane. They're really simple questions and should be addressed or at least some thinking behind them should take place.
Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 20:41 Just a few quick questions to ponder after President Obama's speech announcing a massive escalation in Afghanistan - the very first being shouldn't we be able to honestly answer these queries before mindlessly cheering on a deployment of more troops to a Central Asian war zone?
Here they are in no particular order:
- What percentage of those kids in the West Point audience will die because of this decision?
I would be literally shitting my pants if he just was addressing me, as a soldier and saying that I'm looking to the next 18 months of digging in the trenches and spread thin in these two locations.
- Would you be OK sending yourself or a loved one over to face combat and potentially death for the mission Obama articulated in Afghanistan? If not, how could you support sending other people?
- Why do so many pundits and pro-Obama activists continue to focus on how "hard" and "difficult" and "trying" this decision is for President Obama, rather than on how "hard" and "difficult" and "trying" this will be for the soldiers who are killed? Doesn't Obama get to make this decision, and then go home to the comfortable confines of a butlered White House, while thousands of Americans will be sent 7,000 miles from home to face their potential deaths? Isn't the latter "harder" than the former?
As much as I usually sound like I hate the troops, this is really an important question. How much positive are we really doing in these areas? Afghanistan is corrupt as all hell, do you really think our efforts will be matched?
- Where's the antiwar movement and the marches and the organizing and the protesting? Where's all those well-funded groups that protested George W. Bush's war policy? Or was all that really just about hating George Bush and embracing blind Partisan War Syndrome?
As much as I support Obama and voted for him, I really think that there should be some outrage to this. Yeah, it was a campaign promise, but now is not the time, especially when you have high unemployment rates and trying to work on UHC, to spend money so easily on an overseas war.
- In the days and weeks after this speech, will the White House's cynical new spin get ever more desperate and become, hey - at least an Afghanistan escalation holds out the possibility of making sure military combat casualties start outpacing military suicides?
- Simple budget question: Should we now believe that escalating the Afghanistan War at the same annual cost of universal health care will save more than 45,000 Americans a year (ie. the number of Americans who die every year for lack of health insurance)?
- Did CNN really turn a move to send thousands of Americans to potentially die in Central Asia into an over-stylized, hyper-marketed television show called "Decision Afghanistan?" Is the media really that soulless, or did my eyes betray me? Because it's really hard for me to believe that even in this cynical age, a television network tried to make a cheap reality-TV show out of life-and-death decision that could affect tens of thousands of people.
- Which is worse - a stupid person like George W. Bush starting a dumb occupation, or a smart person like Barack Obama following the lead of that stupid person, but actually escalating that occupation?
Bush got us into this mess and instead of getting out, it looks like we're painting the walls red and making an even bigger mess. How are we going to really pull out in 18 months if it's in bad shape?
- The "we're going to escalate war to end war" refrain throughout the speech - have we heard that before somewhere? It sounds sorta like "we'll burn down the Vietnam villages to save them." Just curious if that's what we're talking about here - because, ya know, that worked out really well.
- Are we really expected to believe that massively escalating a war is the way to end a war? I mean, really? Like, is the public really looked at like we're that stupid? And a follow-up question: Are we really that stupid?
- If Obama's Afghan War strategy about escalating a war to end a war was a self-help strategy for, say, alcoholics, wouldn't it prescribe drinking more whiskey to stop drinking - and wouldn't we all laugh at that?
This really does seem like not the case to feed a cough. Instead we should be starving that flu.
- How many pundits will insist that bowing down to the Military-Industrial complex and escalating this missionless war somehow shows "resolve" and "strength" and "toughness" and "leadership" and not embarrassing weakness?
- Would the Obamaphiles now telling us to "give President Obama a chance" with this decision and/or defending Obama's escalation - would these same people be saying we should "give President McCain a chance" and/or defending President McCain's escalation if he was the one in office making this decision?
- I'm confused: Is this hope or change?
I guess we can't really be angry at him. The dude said he was going to do this shit before the election. It literally is one of his campaign promises to go after Osama. Look at what Obama said in July of 2008;
"The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism," Obama said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq," he said.
Obama said troop levels must increase in Afghanistan.
"For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three," he told CBS. "I think it's very important that we unify command more effectively to coordinate our military activities. But military alone is not going to be enough."
I mean, at least Bush and Cheney stood to directly profit from the wholesale slaughter of brown people using weapons Cheney sold us and recovering oil for Bush. But I'm all out of ideas on why Obama would be interested in this whole situation as he owns neither sorts of corporations.
It is just a matter of being re-elected in 2012, and you know that 18 month pull out plan is going to be delayed. Just look at Gitmo still up and running and with a hiring McDonalds. Polls aren't necessarily favoring this war, so obviously he has to be directly profiting from it somehow. Or perhaps he just doesn't give a shit. I mean, what's the chances of catching Osama? Really now.
While I realize that these were in his election promises. I do think that now that we see how bad this situation is, that we get something different. It really does seem odd that for all this CHANGE that we are hoping for, this sort of stuff sounds like more of the same. In fact, all the real change that happened was the President's speeches sound a bit more intelligent. But it still sounds like a Bush speech.
I'm not calling on the birth certificate nor am I going to jump on the teabaggers side on this, but really, It just seems Obama's plan to send in more troops to solve the issue is like burning money when we need it on more important, in house expenses.
It's bad enough that the number of suicides by our troops outnumbers the amount of deaths in Iraq so far this year. Do we really want to make sure that those numbers start inverting here? Maybe he's just sending those troops out to weed out the numbers a little and get that jobs available/ workers to fill them quote to balance out a little more?
Oh, it's not anyone's actual birthday. Then we'd be having cake and punch. Today is the 8th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan
The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001 as the U.S. military's Operation Enduring Freedom and the British military's Operation Herrick, was launched in response to the September 11 attacks.
The stated aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to Al-Qaeda. The United States' Bush Doctrine stated that, as policy, it would not distinguish between terrorist organisations and nations or governments that harbor them.
So, who do we give the gift to? I mean, do we even know who we are fighting? Not Osama Bin Laden. They are guys on the hills that refuse to face us head-on
And are we at least winning over the hearts and minds of the Afghani people? Nah...
How is the Centrist-in-Chief handling the war?
Welp,
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday ruled out shrinking the Afghanistan war to a counterterrorism campaign.
Apparently after several years of ignoring this war in favor of Iraq, the media attention of America is shifting to Afghanistan. Democrats in Congress are not looking forward to an escalation but Democrats in the Executive Branch are being pussyfoots. Republicans are <>. It is our anniversary, so perhaps there will be presents.. oh wait, there are!
What is the solution?
A) Pull out from Afghanistan and the country becomes a Warlord run shithole that probably will allow terrorist training camps to pop up B) Do nothing while more troops die C) Send in an additional 40,000 troops, increase bombing campaigns and UAV missions
It's like a Choose Your Own Adventure where nobody wins. I'm just wondering if there's a way to send more troops, but decrease their funding so they die faster and we just realize how much of a pointless war this is.
Yes, I understand that pulling out never works. Just ask your parents, but we do need a plan that doesn't make us look like complete assholes to the rest of the world. I mean, does your average American even know where Afghanistan is? How about some random Afghan facts.
- 40% unemployment – nearly 80% in some parts of the country. - A third of children under five are malnourished. - Life expectancy is 43 – one of only three countries in the world where women die earlier than men.
It's a pointless war that is nothing more than a quagmire and has been terrain that is impossible to win on. It's the ultimate home field advantage.
Yup, that's right. Iraq has so much freedom and is living in a democracy now that they're about to impose controls on Internet content. Which of course sparks the whole freedom of speech debate.
SINAN SALAHEDDIN
The Iraqi government has decided to crack down on Internet service providers and ban sites that incite violence or carry pornography, officials said Tuesday, a move that has been strongly criticized by freedom of speech advocates as a dangerous first step toward political censorship.
The plan to strengthen government control of content and usage will require Internet cafes — and later the service providers as well — to obtain licenses that are subject to government review and cancellation if compliance requirements are not met.
"All Web sites that glorify terrorism and incite violence and sectarianism, or those that violate social morals with content such as pornography will be banned," communications ministry spokesman Sameer al-Hasoon told The Associated Press by phone Tuesday.
Al-Hasoon refused to divulge further details of the committee's recommendations, but said he expected them to be approved by the Cabinet next week. The next step would be for the government to send the draft legislation to parliament.
Another official said the ministry is planning to license five of the 10 wireless Internet service providers currently operating in Iraq. He refused to say why the five were chosen, but said the tightened restrictions will implemented in coordination with the Interior Ministry's anti-Internet crimes directorate.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to make statements to the media.
Why I never! I didn't die face down in the sand for them to censor the internets! Let's invade them again!!!! Wait a second, I didn't die in Iraq. In fact you wouldn't find me anywhere near the war zone. Fuck that shit. But I'm sure we could all comically state that we should turn that place to a glass parking lot.
Clearly the whole point of the war was to give the people of Iraq freedom. Have it be to look at boobies and to click on ads to increase their penis size. How ever will we overcome this act of terrorism. This act of censorship.. We shall overcome with IMPACT FONT!
Though I guess it's pretty funny that the U.S. Criticizes Iraq over Rights Violations. I already lost count on how many times my rights have been violated this year alone. Besides that, the U.S. censors boobs in network television every day. Release the boobies, U.S. Television!
Do we need to get Bill Clinton on that one as well? Cause it seems like he's the only one who is able to restore sanity and get things done. He's a go getter. I'm just surprised that the country isn't a liberal land of democracy by now. We set up a government for them and everything. Didn't they like what we gave them?!?!
The American internet must invade Iraqi cyberspace to protect their internet freedoms. Give me LOLcats or give me death!
(AP) BAGHDAD - Iraqi forces assumed formal control of Baghdad and other cities Tuesday after American troops handed over security in urban areas in a defining step toward ending the U.S. combat role in the country. A countdown clock broadcast on Iraqi TV ticked to zero as the midnight deadline passed for U.S. combat troops to finish their pullback to bases outside cities.
"The withdrawal of American troops is completed now from all cities after everything they sacrificed for the sake of security," said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "We are now celebrating the restoration of sovereignty."
The Pentagon did not offer any comment to mark the passing of the deadline.
Fireworks, not bombings, colored the Baghdad skyline late Monday, and thousands attended a party in a park where singers performed patriotic songs. Loudspeakers at police stations and military checkpoints played recordings of similar tunes throughout the day, as Iraqi military vehicles decorated with flowers and national flags patrolled the capital.
"All of us are happy — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds on this day," Waleed al-Bahadili said as he celebrated at the park. "The Americans harmed and insulted us too much."
Al-Maliki declared a public holiday and proclaimed June 30 as "National Sovereignty Day."
Midnight's handover to Iraqi forces filled many citizens with pride but also trepidation that government forces are not ready and that violence will rise. Shiites fear more bombings by Sunni militants; Sunnis fear that the Shiite-dominated Iraqi security forces will give them little protection.
Yeah. Don't you remember those good ol' days when Bush said that we'll be greeted with flowers and they will cheer us as liberators..... yeah. Ok, so many they'll at least cheer when we leave.
I wouldn't be surprised if the fireworks was mistaken for anti-aircraft fire and the celebrations were bombed. I mean, I'm sure all of middle America is thinking that we lost our boys, over there, and this is how we get repaid? With fireworks and celebration in the streets? SEND IN MORE TROOPS!
I love how Cheney is only feeding these fears by saying that Withdrawing will "Waste" the sacrifice by the U.S. troops. Much the same, Vampires worry that blood donation may cause food shortages. But it's especially annoying because IT WAS BUSH WHO PUT THIS PLAN INTO MOTION!
Not to mention that we're not really leaving Iraq. We're just leaving the major cities. We'll still have troops in Iraq. Hell, I'm sure that anyone in Baghdad is celebrating because they just had six years of occupation by foreign forces and they're finally the fuck out of the cities. So yeah, it has to feel pretty damn good.
We'll still be providing close air support, still be providing logistics, still be offering advisers, and the influx of multinational corporations for oil will require even more PMC's who will no doubt continue to terrorize the population, and the only thing that will change is that American soldiers won't be taking pot shots in the streets any more. Mission accomplished....
Morning Edition, June 30, 2009 · Foreign companies could soon be pumping Iraqi oil for the first time in nearly 40 years.
On Tuesday, the government of Iraq opened bids from oil companies interested in helping the country realize its oil production potential.
The oil companies are so eager for a crack at Iraq's vast oil wealth that they are willing to overlook some big negatives: It's a country still at war. There's a lot of political opposition to foreign oil companies. There's no guarantee the contracts awarded at this auction will even be honored. And yet, more than 30 companies submitted bids.
On the other hand, Big Oil has not had an opportunity like this for decades.
No one knows for sure how much oil Iraq has. "It's been poorly explored because of all the political turmoil there," says Roger Diwan, a partner at the consulting firm PFC Energy. "With the Iraq-Iran war, the embargo, sanctions and the second gulf war here, we really haven't had a good look at what's in Iraq since the late 1960s."
Diwan says Iraq is probably just behind Saudi Arabia in its oil reserves. Plus, Iraqi oil can be extracted at a relatively low cost.
"They're large, shallow, relatively high-quality fields with relatively high pressure," says Peter Zeihan, vice president for strategic intelligence at Stratfor, a global intelligence firm. "You don't have to be an Exxon Mobil or a Royal Dutch Shell in order to work in Iraq."
But you may need good government contacts. When Saddam Hussein kicked the foreign oil companies out of Iraq in 1972, many Iraqis supported the move, and there is still strong opposition to any sharing of the country's oil wealth with foreign companies. The withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraqi cities and towns this week has only reinforced Iraqi nationalism. In the coming weeks or months, Iraqi parliamentarians may even move to overturn oil contracts awarded through Tuesday's auction.
"There's still a lot of political risk involved in Iraq in the energy sector," says David Gordon, head of global research at the Eurasia Group, a risk analysis firm. "On the other hand, it is this enormous opportunity. So companies want to get in the game without making a big investment, [while] Iraq as a country wants to force them to put some money on the table."
Oil is being pumped in Iraq right now, but production is far below its potential because the country has not invested in its oil infrastructure.
For Tuesday's auction, oil companies selected which fields they're interested in and specified how much they'd want to be paid for increasing production at the fields. The oil itself would still belong to the Iraqis, and the Iraqi government set a maximum on what fees it would pay.
By mid-morning, only one deal had been struck.
Such deals won't necessarily be highly profitable for the oil companies. In the next phase of the competition, however, the Iraqi government is expected to open fields that have not yet been explored or developed. The companies that win the right to search for oil might then be able to take a share of what they find. It's that competition — not this one — that would mean big money for the companies.
"This is just everybody kind of wanting to get their foot in the door for the bigger prizes that will be here in a year or two," says Stratfor's Zeihan. No one wants to be left out.
"What makes Iraq special," says Diwan, "is [that] there is room for all the big oil companies at the same time, and for all them to have sizable projects. Everybody will get something fairly large."
Iraq is currently pumping about 2.5 million barrels a day. With modern technology and foreign expertise, experts say, the country could produce four times as much. That would be a bonanza for Iraqis, even if they have to share the wealth with foreign companies.
Again, Iraq is currently pumping 2.5 million barrels a day. Sure, they'll still get a ton of cash from it, but do we really need to rape them some more on the way out? Just makes you wonder if it was worth the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians to remove one dude who had mostly settled down anyway.
But hey, at least we're finally out of there... well, mostly out of there. So in a couple of days when you're grilling up the dogs and blowing shit up, just remember that we're just as bad as those who we got our independence so long ago. So I guess we really did bring the people of Iraq to a level that is much like our own nation. Not with democracy.. well, not so much. But with a Holiday to celebrate at the beginning of July.
Iraq is a scary place. The locals hate you for bringing down their status quo, dropping bombs on their innocent and generally wrecking shit up. Of course they're going to lash out in the form of shooting our troops. Today the shit got real...
BAGHDAD — His legacy forever linked to an unpopular war, President George W. Bush visited Iraq under intense security Sunday and declared that a long, hard conflict is necessary to protect the United States and give Iraqis hope. "The war is not over," he said.
Bush got a size-10 reminder of the fervent opposition to his policies when a man threw two shoes at him _ one after another _ during a news conference with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "This is the end!" shouted the man, later identified as Muntadar al-Zeidi, a correspondent for Al-Baghdadia television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo, Egypt.
Before you start with anything about how it was only a shoe remember that this was the president that almost was taken out by a pretzel. So there is reason to definitely be some concerned with what a shoe could do to him.
While "I threw a shoe at him." wont get you out of being raped in prison, it may have some credibility when you say you threw it at Bush's head. What will not get you any street cred though is that you not only missed the toss -but you missed a second attempt!
Bush wasn't the only thing lame duck at the top. How the hell did he get the chance to go down, get his second shoe and make another toss before secret service took him down? One thing for sure, this dude is going to disappear forever. This does explain why they check your shoes at the airport.
Who throws a shoe?
The president comes under attack... be it by shoes being flung at his head, and he is grinning like a schoolboy as he ducks out of the way. Really does show off his lame duck powers. On closer inspection, at least the guy hit the American flag. TAKE THAT, AMERICA! These colors don't duck. I love how the news sites are all like "In arab culture, throwing your shoe is a grave insult!" as if there were any culture anywhere where that wouldn't be taken as some sort of insult. Is there some obscure central-asian country where a boot to the head is a sign of respect?
But what am I doing actually writing a real report here. We know I can't be serious for more than five minutes and really, if you're coming to me for your latest news... well, that's two steps below getting all your actual news from Comedy Central.... and five steps below getting it from FoxNews.
No, no. You know me as the guy who mocks things. It should be common knowledge that I make terrible puns. I do so because I grew up on the Muppets. You know, they weren't exactly puppets and nor were they mops. My favorite Muppets are actually two that many don't even know their name. Statler and Waldorf. They were the two old Muppets in the balcony that always heckled everyone.
In times like this I just wonder what they would say to these sorts of news pieces.
Looks like his trip got off on the wrong foot!
He's a SHOE IN for worst president ever!!!!!
Well no one can ever accuse bush of being a LOAFER!!!!
I think there was a 2nd SHOE-ter on the grassy knoll!!!
That's what he gets for being such a HEEL
He's certainly not IN STEP with the times!
Obviously the guy knew Bush didn't have a sole.
Bush is a bad president, we should give him the BOOT.
They should make a game, Hit the president with a shoe and win a free ringtone.
what's with all the SHOEpid puns
That's what you get for destroying Sole-shoe security!
HA HA HA HA HA HAH A HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA... They dropped my blue shield coverage....
My medicine cost so much I can't afford these balcony seats anymore.
Fuck you bush!
Bush really does show that he's out of touch with the American people. He blew a perfect opportunity for an Austin Powers reference. He hasn't been anywhere near a decent president. I mean, his foreign policy hasn't been inspiring in the slightest.
But as bad as Bush has been, do you really want Cheney as the president for the next month?
Once was a writer, tho, you see words to your left, so I guess I'm still that to some degree.
You can find my scribbles and mind ranting on this and various other places as a means to keep the creative, satirical and costco talk muscles worked out.
Was once apart of the tv industry, but I'm sure the NDA's are still in effect so let's move on from that. Now I spend my time slinging beer and keeping a building in one piece.
Posts
