State Of The Union Address

[Ryan1405241476 0]

After hearing bush's state of the union adreess I cannot see how anyone could question why we are in iraq, after hearing the stories of the iraqi's, glad that we are there and because of which can choose their leader, plus violence in iraq has gone down.

[kraizii88z 0]

Yes i agree, i didn't whatch the st.union address, but i think mediation in Iraq is a good thing for us american''s

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Well, speaking from a viewpoint that most would consider 'liberal', I just want to set the record straight. I felt that going in was a bad idea. HOWEVER, once we were there, I felt we needed to stay there, because leaving prematurely was a worse idea than going in the first place. At that point, my criticism was mainly that things were being badly handled/that certain processes were corrupt. Once again, NOT that we should just up and leave (though I recognize that there were those on the left who advocated exactly that: I am not them. They are stupid. Thank you.)The other main complaint is that the justification for war has been ever changing, and that to me seemed very dishonest. I felt Bush should have been taken to task for the whole WMD BS. Now, with that off my chest, let me say the following: The war, at this point is really not what concerns me. What concerns me is Bush's privatization of social security. That strikes me as a bad idea, for reasons that anyone who has had to work with HMOs will immediately understand.

[banjosforpeace 0]

Much of what I have to say about the war can be summed up in a brief post of mine from a different thread: War Is A Racket

 

Every reason given for any war is purely marketing. The main reason is for private corporations to make a lot of money. Think that's just your standard anti-war line? As one small example, think of how supplies get to soldiers in the field. Do you think tents, cots, food, paper, pens, batteries, water bottles, toothbrushes, etc., are all moved by armed forces? They are not. A contractor estimates how much it will cost to ship all of those things and bids (or is handed the job) on a contract to transport the items. Then, to maximize their profit, the contractor finds the lowest price on the items and hires a shipping company to use private carriers to move them. These are subcontractors. Subcontractors purchase their items from cheap manufacturers and wholesalers to maximize their profits. Now start adding up the profits just in moving those specific supplies from one place to another and multiply it by several thousand times. Even uniforms are contracted out and are no longer made in the USA in order to maximize the contractors profit. Think of the weapons manufacturers. Think of how much FUEL it takes to run planes, ships, trucks, tanks and jeeps. Think of the cost of mandatory vaccinations given to over a million armed personnel. That old line about war being good for the economy is partially true. It really is good for some. But really bad for most. And these contractors or in both Republican AND Democrat districts.

 

And very quickly to finish my point about profiteering as the sole purpose of war, the estimated cost of carrying out the war in Iraq and continued presence in Afghanistan is $4.5 Billion per month. An estimated total of pay that has gone directly to the military combat personnel and uniformed support since November 2001 is less than $5 Billion TOTAL. So it is surely not the soldiers that are making the big bucks.

 

Justifying ANY war is a process of setting rhetorical traps. One of them, even the most logical thinkers easily fall into:

 

Well, speaking from a viewpoint that most would consider 'liberal', I just want to set the record straight.  I felt that going in was a bad idea.  HOWEVER, once we were there, I felt we needed to stay there, because leaving prematurely was a worse idea than going in the first place.  At that point, my criticism was mainly that things were being badly handled/that certain processes were corrupt.  Once again, NOT that we should just up and leave (though I recognize that there were those on the left who advocated exactly that: I am not them.  They are stupid. Thank you.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The "now that we're there we have to stay there" trap is one that opponents of the concept of war should never get to. That's how 58,000 men died in Vietnam, more than half of which followed the "now that we're there we have to stay" chorus after Nixon took office. Look at the history of US armed intervention. You will not find a single conflict in which US soldiers were on the ground for any less than SEVEN years in the aftermath of initial battle. The idea that things would happen quickly is a marketing fallacy perpetrated by warhawks of every generation because THEY ALREADY KNOW it will be much longer than that. But AHA, you say. What about the Gulf War? That was fairly quick, right? US troops and bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia - the launching points built and maintained by American companies - were already well established for the current conflict BECAUSE of the Gulf War. That was 14 years ago. US jets were boming every week in the north and south of Iraq for twelve years to keep their defenses soft after pushing Saddam's men out of Kuwait. If bombs were being dropped every week in your country, would you think there was still a war going on? Young American men and women have been on the ground in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia continually protecting US interests and profits in those countries. The longer any war goes, the larger the profits.

 

Another trap is the "I agree he was a bad man that should be removed from power" device. We put him there. We armed and supported him. We are doing that in Uzbekistan, Pakistan and about ten other countries that not only have miserable bastards running the governments, but known and visible dangerous weaponry. Some of our best friends are the worst of the worst. If and when they turn on us, hey, more contracts! More bullets! More bombs! More fuel for all of it!

 

If you got anything from the State of the Union make a note about Syria. The weapons manufacturers are making notes... on their fiscal year 2006 projections.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

And very quickly to finish my point about profiteering as the sole purpose of war, the estimated cost of carrying out the war in Iraq and continued presence in Afghanistan is $4.5 Billion per month. An estimated total of pay that has gone directly to the military combat personnel and uniformed support since November 2001 is less than $5 Billion TOTAL. So it is surely not the soldiers that are making the big bucks.

 

 

Another trap is the "I agree he was a bad man that should be removed from power" device. We put him there. We armed and supported him. We are doing that in Uzbekistan, Pakistan and about ten other countries that not only have miserable bastards running the governments, but known and visible dangerous weaponry. Some of our best friends are the worst of the worst. If and when they turn on us, hey, more contracts! More bullets! More bombs! More fuel for all of it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, it is full of BS, which falls under my 'war being conducted incorrectly' criticisms. That being said, pulling out, in terms of iraq, would put violent terrorist groups in charge of the country, unlike the more organized communists in vietnam. The two situations are different.

 

And yes, we put sadam in power, another mistake. However, now that we, the USA have toppled their government and completely destroyed peace in their country, don't you think we owe it to THEM not to make things WORSE by pulling out foolishly?

 

You may care about the loss of US troops, I care about the loss of EVERYONE.

 

So, once more, for the record:

 

Bush should be held accountable for invading a country without cause.

 

Weapons manufacturers should be sued and put out of business for war profittering. Their execs and anyone who knew about what was going on should be tried and held accountable.

 

Laws should be passed making all weapons/equipment manufacturing be done in the US.

 

Any research, for weapons or otherwise, paid for by the US government should belong to the government and not the firm it hired.

[tattoopunk 0]

Anyone else catch the daily show last night?Therewas a piece on the supposed american soldier captured and threatened with execution. Upon closer examination of the tape it was discovered that there was no soldier captured, just a giant G.I. Joe type sex doll!

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Anyone else catch the daily show last night?

Therewas a piece on the supposed american soldier captured and threatened with execution.  Upon closer examination of the tape it was discovered that there was no soldier captured, just a giant G.I. Joe type sex doll!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It wasn't a sex doll. It was just a 12 inch tall action figure.

[tattoopunk 0]

oh, sorry, things get confused when you watch the daily show, still funny. It is some what a moral boost for us, the fact that they are resorting to cheap tricks in order to get us out. I oppose the war and current occupation 100%, but I gust gave it a little more respect.

[Ryan1405241476 0]

...the whole WMD BS. 
...

that in itself is BS, the inte;llegence said their were WMD's, saddam had the ability to make them, he was planning on starting up pa necular weapons program, even liberals thought their were WMD, thats what intellegence said, but intellegence isn't always right, thats a fact of life, but lets say they were right and we did nothing, or even if they were still wrong and saddam started up his nucular weapons program, and attacked us, then you all would be bithing bush did nothing to stop this.

[Xeon 0]

The other main complaint is that the justification for war has been ever changing, and that to me seemed very dishonest.  I felt Bush should have been taken to task for the whole WMD BS. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The war wasn't really about WMD. You should take a deeper look at the war if you think WMD was the only reason for the war. WMD was just a reason Bush sold to the public. Most likely his main goal was to establish a democracy in the Mideast and provide long term security to America from fundamentalism. If Bush said to the public "I want to invade Iraq because I want to establish a democracy there" it wouldn't go well with the public. You can't offer that reason to the public even if it might be the real reason for the war. Instead, what he did was offer the WMD reason as a security threat, but also try to make his vision of democracy and freedom known as much as possible through the various speeches that he gives, one such example being the State of the Union address where he talked about defeating terrorism with freedom and democracy.

 

I personally think Bush's idea is excellent. Democracy is long overdue in the Mideast. Its unbelievable that Iraq would be the first real democracy in the Mideast if it succeeds. The rest are all autocratic regimes with very little personal freedoms, many without even the right to assemble or have freedom of speech. Iraq is also a pretty capable and secular nation which makes democracy very viable in the nation.

[Brian1405241474 0]

I said a lot about the war in another post so I wouldn't go into it except to say that I think it is amazing that the Iraqis are free, have the ability to vote, and are setting up there own democracy.

 

But about Social Security: I don't know enough about how it all works to be able to say if the presidents plan is good or not. What I do know is that something has to be done about SS. Not just higher costs and lower benefits, because thats only going to make younger Americans loose out. I think we need some serious reform. Private accounts sound good to me, but that could just be because I don't know enough about the issue. I just want to see some kind of reform because I'm paying a lot of my income right now to SS and I don't want to see it all gone by the time I'm ready to retire.