Why Kerry doesn't deserve your vote

[Pure]

Cant,
In the June Atlantic is a nice graph of each year of the last several, with size of attack and ratio of infidels to islamists, etc.
In general, as you say, the pace is stepping up.

 

[cantdog]

Thank you.

I do wish the War on Terror had been an Investigation Into Terror, and that both sides would quit trying to make political capital out of it.

 

[Pure]

Very interesting article on clash of worldviews. Can't decide if it's truly deep or unduly salted with BS. General systems theory.

Errorism vs. Terrorism, by Anthony Judge.

http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs00s/encroach.php

(this is not the article i referred to recently, indicting Bush's 'errorism')

 

[shereads]

I don't have the time, nor inclination to examine all the estimates and see if they are working on real and fairly considered figures, or cooked figures. I simply assume it's a lot of money, but the monetary cost pales in comaprrison to the human cost.

There is a human cost connected with the monetary cost: the reduction and elimination of essential services to children, the eldery, and the poor, as we enrich Bechtel and friends. The salaries of troops are small potatoes compared to the no-bid rebuilding contracts and other giveaways that are a key component of this war.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

There is a human cost connected with the monetary cost: the reduction and elimination of essential services to children, the eldery, and the poor, as we enrich Bechtel and friends. The salaries of troops are small potatoes compared to the no-bid rebuilding contracts and other giveaways that are a key component of this war.

I am sure some estimates of the "cost" of the war include domestic services that have been slashed. TV money spent trying to convince people it's a good thing etc. etc. It all depends on how you wish to spin it. It's a totally irrelevant figure, actually, it's a totally political figure and as such it has no relavence to me. 80 billion. 8 billion. 800 billion. I can't even wrap my head around numbers that big.

The human cost I can count, in the lives of soldiers killed in action or severely wounded. And that is one that is not a political toy.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

I am sure some estimates of the "cost" of the war include domestic services that have been slashed. TV money spent trying to convince people it's a good thing etc. etc. It all depends on how you wish to spin it. It's a totally irrelevant figure, actually, it's a totally political figure and as such it has no relavence to me. 80 billion. 8 billion. 800 billion. I can't even wrap my head around numbers that big.

The human cost I can count, in the lives of soldiers killed in action or severely wounded. And that is one that is not a political toy.

-Colly

I don't consider the numbers as a toy, and the fact that they are "political" is also meaningless. So is every line item in the federal budget, including the lack of spending to care for those severely wounded veterans when they come home.

I was responding to the debate over whether we are overextended in Iraq. Financially, I can't see any way to refute that we not only extended, but so deep in the hole that the children of the soldiers killed in action will be paying off the debt when they are adults. Their quality of life and their security will be affected by the fact that we spent more than we could afford. More immediately evident will be the number of badly wounded survivors who may need lifetime care. I can't expect that it will be any better than what Vietnam vets have received, which is precious little. It would interfere with the retirement fund of some CEO in the defense industry if we changed the sheets at VA hospitals too frequently.
Is it "political" to want the assholes who created this fiasco held accountable? Is it harmful to provide a reality check about the cost of the war? If that's the worst thing that ever results from a political discussion, I'll be thrilled.

 

[Somme]

Very interesting article on clash of worldviews. Can't decide if it's truly deep or unduly salted with BS. General systems theory.

Errorism vs. Terrorism, by Anthony Judge.

http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs00s/encroach.php

(this is not the article i referred to recently, indicting Bush's 'errorism')

Nor I, and it's a big read. There is, however, an evocative air to many of the quotes. This may just be me pushing my own wagon, but I've a niggling suspicion that it's not too far from the truth. I found much to be an eloquent 'explanation/translation' of my own thoughts; I find it an 'honest' work. If there is an element of propaganda in there, I havn't found it...(or wanted to find it?)

 

[Victoria45]

Thank you...You said it much better than I could, Wildcard KY. I'm with ya on this one.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't consider the numbers as a toy, and the fact that they are "political" is also meaningless. So is every line item in the federal budget, including the lack of spending to care for those severely wounded veterans when they come home.

I was responding to the debate over whether we are overextended in Iraq. Financially, I can't see any way to refute that we not only extended, but so deep in the hole that the children of the soldiers killed in action will be paying off the debt when they are adults. Their quality of life and their security will be affected by the fact that we spent more than we could afford. More immediately evident will be the number of badly wounded survivors who may need lifetime care. I can't expect that it will be any better than what Vietnam vets have received, which is precious little. It would interfere with the retirement fund of some CEO in the defense industry if we changed the sheets at VA hospitals too frequently.
Is it "political" to want the assholes who created this fiasco held accountable? Is it harmful to provide a reality check about the cost of the war? If that's the worst thing that ever results from a political discussion, I'll be thrilled.

I don't understand you Sher. I really don't.

You seem to have a burr under your saddle and to be taking it out on me.

My point, was simply that I don't look at cost of the war figures as being relevant because the manner in which they are calculated depends entierly upon the agenda of the person doing the calculating. I know you are a very passionate person, and intelligent, but I seriously doubt you have sat down with a calculator and the federal budget figures and tallied the cost of the war as a separate budgetary figure. Even if you have, your figures would reflect your bias as would anyone elses, includingmyself if I sat down and did the math.

You accept figures thrown out by someone that you have faith in. That's fine, but I seriously doubt those figures are the only ones, and I doubt too that they were put out there by someone with no agenda. Everyone who calculates the "cost of the war" does so with their own bias in what figures are to be used. Since the entire concept of deciding what a war is costing is an artificial construct, by it's very nature it's open to interpretation of the figures in the way the person constructing it sees fit.

At no point in this disucssion of us being over extended have I defended the administration's fiscal policy. I have never called it prudent or well thought out. In the narrow context of that discussion, I simply said "cost of the war" figures are politcal & meaningless.

-Colly

 

[KenJames]

Thank you...You said it much better than I could, Wildcard KY. I'm with ya on this one.

Welcome to the Author's Hangout. Maybe you've been lurking, but it's always good to see someone start posting.

Wildcard appears to have decided to vote against Kerry long before the Republican-mainipulated incident he describes and is just using that for an excuse. If you've read the whole thread, you'll see that's been extensively discussed.

I'd be more impressed with Wildcard's position if he'd compared Bush's and Kerry's positions on issues and actions, both as office-holders and in private life, and reached his conclusion from that.

 

[smutpen]

Hell, I never vote for anybody, I always vote against.

- W. C. Fields



Whether or not Kerry deserves my vote is the wrong question.

Bush certainly deserves to be voted against.

As an ex-military officer, I respect the opinions of seasoned warriors more than those of chicken-hawks like Bush and Rumsfeld, who are ready to send others to fight and die, but managed to avoid real military service themselves.

I noticed early on how Schwarzkopf objected, how Zinni predicted the likely outcome (now the right-wing demagogues say he's a traitor, for saying publically -- and truthfully -- that his predictions were right on the money). I noticed how Colin Powell was marginalized because of his misgivings.

I spoke with my brother, then assigned at the Pentagon (he went off shift two hours before the plane struck on 9/11), when the war started.

I objected to the war, but he pointed out certain facts which caused me to agree that it could be justifiable IF certain conditions were met.

If we had a clear and practical exit strategy, if we could prevent a takeover by Shi'ite extremists (ironically, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Rumsfeld were all involved in supporting Saddam -- with money, materiel, and biological and chemical warfare agents -- as a bulwark against the Shi'ite extremists in Iran), or by some other dangerous group.

I thought it was highly doubtful that Bush had the understanding to craft such a strategy, but I hoped, for a while, that his advisers might.

Nope.


Bush has betrayed our troops, with his arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence. They are dying because he did not understand the situation in Iraq, and had no workable plan for the aftermath of the war.

The fact that he cut their combat pay -- in the midst of the conflict -- to help fund tax breaks for his ultra-rich pals just adds insult to injury (and death).

Kerry may or may not deserve my vote. But Bush has got to go.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

-The fact that he cut their combat pay -- in the midst of the conflict -- to help fund tax breaks for his ultra-rich pals just adds insult to injury (and death).

I han't heard about this. What happened?

And maybe you could tell me, but I thought I heard something about the military refusing to give out Iraq campaign ribbons? Or was that for Desert Storm? Or was it just about the reservists in the current war?

---dr.M.

 

[smutpen]

I han't heard about this. What happened?

And maybe you could tell me, but I thought I heard something about the military refusing to give out Iraq campaign ribbons? Or was that for Desert Storm? Or was it just about the reservists in the current war?

---dr.M.

Here's a link to an editorial from a source nobody can claim has a liberal bias...

Army Times


I hadn't heard about the other item, but you've certainly aroused my curiosity; I'll have to research that.

 

[smutpen]

And maybe you could tell me, but I thought I heard something about the military refusing to give out Iraq campaign ribbons? Or was that for Desert Storm? Or was it just about the reservists in the current war?

---dr.M.

Brookings Institute

This is all I could find on the subject; I'm not sure if it's the basis of what you heard.

The military tradition of unique ribbons for every campaign may not arouse great emotion among the public, but traditions are important in the military, and campaign ribbons are a matter of pride.

The administration's move to give the same ribbon for Iraq and Afghanistan discards that tradition for no purpose but spin-doctoring.

Just one more reason to be disgusted with this president.

 

[KarenAM]

This administration's mistreatment of our military personel and veterans makes me sick.

 

[smutpen]

This administration's mistreatment of our military personel and veterans makes me sick.

I can obviously appreciate your reaction.

And yet I wonder...

Where are all the patriotic, troop-supporting Bush fans?

If anyone has a rebuttal for the Army Times editorial I referenced, I'd like to see it.

In the highly unlikely event that the reference actually shook the quasi-religious faith so many people seem to have in Mr. Bush, I'd be interested in seeing that, too.