Don't tell me ....... you've got a video ....
Inversertion is a great word. People will nod and pretend they understand. Yes, yes, thank you for complimenting Our Glorious Leader, Liberal Comrade! Yes, yes, Bush is very good at inversertion! So glad you like him too! (Sound of clicking heels!)
I thought I was scoring on perc .... whoa .... flashback
You were, of course, Gel -- but I thought it appropriate to extend the concept to his heroes, and beyond...
PDid, The point about keeping us ignorant of the temperature in Iraq is rather glaring, because before the war started, most news report were telling us the difficulty of engaging a war during the summer months. Those news have suddenly disappeared. c.i.
Ge said:
"inversertion"
LOL, LOL, LOL
Scary indeed, Ge. Only the moderates can make the pendulum swing back.
But conflict and anarchy on the scale that the US has imposed upon Iraq drive moderates into hiding. When survival is the overwhelming concern, there is no time for reason. I am continually amazed at how the administration ahs managed to accomplish the exact oposite of what its stated goals were. No one I know, no matter the extent of their familiarity with the situation in the ME, believed that this invasion would bring stability. How can we believe that our leaders really believed this, and that they were not actually looking to bring more chaos and war? And then the next question arises... why would they wish for this? What possible advantage can come from increaded instablity? Who let the psych patients out and put them in charge?
How much longer will people continue to support GWBush and his criminals? c.i.
cicerone imposter wrote:How much longer will people continue to support GWBush and his criminals? c.i.
Probably throught the next election, unfortunately. He seems to cater to the lowest common denominator. I think that this is an act. I think that he is actually quite calculating and shrewd. The other possibility is that he is a fool and a pawn. I don't really like either option.
There is no way to look at this other than to believe the mess was intended. I know many people George W. is really stupid, but (even if he were) not everyone in the administration is really stupid. Nor is America without resources or people who know how to plan. The only reasonable conclusion is that they're getting what they wished for.
There are people among the participants here who bridle and sharpen claws at the suggestion of "conspiracy." You can call it what you want. But you'd have to be awfully stupid not to wonder how and why the administration screwed things up. Or whether they did so intentionally.
Hobit -- you put your finger on the core issue: "But conflict and anarchy on the scale that the US has imposed upon Iraq drive moderates into hiding." The US didn't emerge from the invasion battered; there was no reason to be disorganized, no reason to expect it would be a walkover, no reason to expect that there wouldn't be post-invasion protest and conflict.
And you say: "...managed to accomplish the exact oposite of what its stated goals were" : When we review the statements and relevant actions of the admin from its campaign onward, you'd see that they state what they want us to think, they do the opposite and then repeat the original statement, expecting it to be believed. And then what happens? Many believe them! (Some members of A2K still believe them.) But now we know that many more are no longer believing them. As someone wrote this morning: Bush is on a roll.... and it's all downhill!
A follow-up to PDiddie's post:
Quote:Pentagon proposes pay cut for troops in Iraq
By GLENDA ANDERSON/The Daily Journal
Thursday, August 21, 2003 -
Hot on the heels of learning their sons and daughters will be staying in Iraq another year, soldiers' mothers are none too pleased to learn their children also may be hit with pay cuts.
"It's incomprehensible they would think about cutting their pay," said Gail Shahbaghlian, a therapist who works with a soldiers' mothers support group.
The mothers did not want their names used, but said they thought the Pentagon's proposal to cut the troops' imminent danger pay by $75 and the family separation allowance by $150 a month, can only hurt already ailing morale in the Middle East. The cuts would effectively remove a pay increase approved by Congress in April.
"They don't really make anything now," said one mother. And "the Army has not even come up with the basics."
The mothers said they've been told the soldiers get only two bottles of water a day, despite 140-degree temperatures. They also have to forage for things like toilet paper, bargain with Iraqis for meat and buy their own uniforms.
Shahbaghlian noted the soldiers work 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Should they want a few days off, they have to pay $70 for a hotel room.
"The guarantee is they won't get shot at for three days," Shahbaghlian said. She called the hours and conditions a recipe for post traumatic stress syndrome.
Sen. Mike Thompson also opposes the pay cuts.
"To call this misguided would be a gross understatement," he said in a letter to President Bush. "This is an outrageous and hypocritical affront to our soldiers in the Middle East who are being killed on a daily basis and to their families."
The Army Times also has been critical of the president's administration for the proposal.
Congress raised the monthly danger pay for troops from $150 to $225 in April. At the same time, it increased the family separation pay from $100 to $250. The pay was retroactive to Oct. 1, 2002.
The raises were due to expire at the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30, unless Congress votes to reauthorize them.
On the supplies front, soldiers' mothers, in conjunction with the Veterans of Foreign War, will be holding a spaghetti dinner fund-raiser from 4 to 7 p.m. Sept. 6 at the Veterans Memorial Building in Ukiah. With the proceeds, they'll buy and ship items to Iraq that will make their, and other parents', children's lives more comfortable.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/Stories/0,1413,91%257E3089%257E1583815,00.html#
Let them go ahead and do it. They've shot themselves in the foot so many times now, they only have one toe left.
Yeah, They gotta do that to pay for the tax breaks they gave the rich and famous.
Tartarin,
There are things in that quoted article from Ukiah article that I just don't believe. Buy there own uniforms? Work 24/7? Cut in allowances and other associated pay items? I don't think that Congress would stand for that. They wouldn't dare.
"you'd see that they state what they want us to think, they do the opposite and then repeat the original statement, expecting it to be believed."
On the surface, and with a cursory glance, that certainly appears to be the case in some instances - but not across the board. I am not trying to be an apologist for that crowd - they have committed impeachable sins, IMHO. War crimes? I don't know. I would have to think long and hard about that one.
But, short-term instability may not have been anticipated, but would be logical. Long-term instability - I doubt it. The moderates going into hiding? As soon as communication improves in Iraq, and the moderates realize that they are the majority, I can't see them willing to replace one form of tyrannical dictatorship for another, this one cloaked in clerical garb. Surely there is some knowledge of recent history as to what happens to a society when the clerics have ascended to position of supreme power - witness both Iran and Afghanistan. While I realize that access to truth and reality were severely curtailed during Saddam's tenure in power, I have to believe that there is a core moderate center that was, and is, aware.
And as to conspiracy, Occam's Razor suggests that we stay with the simplest possible explanation - that of lack of planning in the non-military arena, and pure incompetence. Did they know that the electricity infrastructure was in such bad shape? Could they have predicted sabotage of electrical and oil distribution lines? Not if we assume that such events might occur in the absence of organized Saddam-supporters resistance. Independents, venting their frustration against non-military targets in any and every way they can think of, with the aim of hurting American occupation even though they shoot themselves,
and their fellow Iraqis in the foot , is that foreseeable? I don't know, but obviously inadequate thought, and contingency planning, are quite obvious. Now.
Here's another article that supports the pay cut issue.
http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/70170.html
c.i.
Just gotta add this: this administration has cut back on veteran's benefits, and now has the gall to consider pay cuts for our military in Iraq. Why this ball with GW and his gang isn't going downhill faster is the big mystery. c.ii.
Well, as for buying their own uniforms, members of the US military are required to buy their own uniforms. In addition, if you are receiving seperate rations (BAS) or sperate quarters (BAQ), those payments stop when you are deployed, so the average soldier's family loses about $1000.00 per month off teh bat when he is deployed. The hazardous duty pay, etc... is suposed to help make up for this, but it usually doesn't.
As for congress "not standing for it," it was the Republican led congress that intorudced the time-limited legislation, and had no intention of extending it. The WH put up no resistance until the outcry began.
The average junior enlisted soldier lives well below the poverty level. The number of families I knew on active duty who were receiving food stamps was incredible. Joe Average private, who is around 18-20,and his bride, who is about the same age, and their (usually) two infants usually live off post in substandard apartment complexes, because on-post housing is scarce, or in bad repair. Usually both the servicemember and his spouse have little education beyond compulsory high school education,and the wife works a low paying job. There is little hope for her to advance, since she knows she is likely to move every two-four years. With cuts in benefits for dependents that originated in the Bush I administration, even minor illnesses of the wife or children can wreak havoc on the family's budget.
In additon, when the service member deploys, his pay is transferred from direct deposit to his bank account to a fund that goes to the theatre, where it is disbursed in cash, so he will be able to function whilst on deployment. If the service member hasn't set up allottments from his pay to ensure the majority goes to his account, or, if as usually happens, there is some screw-up in the financial branch, the wife is left unable to access the SM's paycheck.
If, as often happens, due to the mix up in pay the wife bounces a check or two, the SM is responsible,and will likely receive an Article 15 (non-jusidical punishment. ) and forfeit pay (usually one half to one full month's pay) and be reduced in rank, therefore also reducing pay.
As to the "work 24/7," it was often reinforced to us: "You are a soldier, 24 hours a day, seven days a week." Even in garrison (in the peacetime post-cold war 1990s) we often worked seven days/week, 16 hours a day, especially if we had recently had a change in command, or had an IG inspection coming. In GulfWar I, I worked straight through for three months straight at the refugee camp, with an average of three-four hours sleep caught in ten-fifteen minute cat naps. In Somalia the same schedule applied.
For all of its "support the troops" rehtoric, this administration has done more damage to the military as far as readiness and morale is concerend than any other exept for perhaps Bush I. I think that there is a lesson in there somewhere.
