Why Is It.....? (Iraq war Related)
Rockadelic
Out Digging 13,993 Posts
that for years we saw endless posts about the Iraqi War here.Motown's weekly updates.Iraqui Names Project.But now.....nothing.I went to the Iraqi Names Project website and it seems to have died in '09.Is the war over?? Do people just not care anymore??Was it all in the name of Bush/Cheney bashing??Instigating minds want to know.
Comments
I quit posting here about the Iraq Names Project because I got sick and tired of you insulting my wife and misrepresenting the project.
Nancy continues to write the names of soldiers who have died every week, as she has been since Memorial Day 2007.
I will try to update the blog this week so you can have something to insult.
Until then you can insult the pictures on the flickr page which is a little more current. http://www.flickr.com/photos/iraqnamesproject/
when i left the service, i wanted a "mission accomplished" banner, but i was informed we hadn't won yet and all i would get is a lousy syndrome 15 years from now.
I certainly questioned the integrity of using peoples names without their permission, especially in light of some families voicing their opinions opposing such use. I still think it's a sleazy move.
But my post above was not in reference to you....it was in reference to this, which I obviously would not know about without your posts.
Last update, 10/09:
http://iraqnamesproject.wordpress.com/
And of course the general lack of critical posts that were very plentiful pre-Obama. Very conspicuous in their absence.
I pay a boatload of taxes.
I don't believe I have ever bitched about them being used in any way.
What I did say was that I paid X amount of money for Health Insurance and if Universal Healthcare would lower my cost I would happily give the savings to pay for others.
But I didn't want to pay more or lower the of quality of what I currently have.
Outrageous, I know.
And if Obama wants to end the war and use that $$$ for Universal Health Care....I'm all for it.
Result: Consternation and discussion on the strut
Administration position since 2009 - The war was an unnecessary mistake, lets wrap it up as quickly as we responsibly can.
Result:
I don't understand why the drop off in discussion shocks you. People here weren't doing the play-by-play, they were arguing against a policy that was roundly defeated in the '08 election.
Now you could argue that Obama is paying lip-service, but I think at this point, 15 months in, many people here are still giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. And as far as I know, he hasn't done anything in Iraq overtly at odds with what he campaigned on, or what many on here agree with. I'm interested to hear if theres something I missed tho.
What you said was...
"If the government wants me to subsidize someone else's poor choices...count me out.
My neighbor who now has lung cancer and no insurance after smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 30 years.....nope, not paying for him.
If the government wants to make healthcare cheaper and promise me the same level of care I get now for the same price, and use the excess money(savings) to provide health care to those who CAN'T afford it....cool."
But I look forward to you writing your state representative letting them know you would rather your taxes going to help pay for universal health care instead of the Iraq war.
After 3 years of chalking thousands of names you are still 100% of the all the people who have voiced their opinions opposing using names in the memorial.I still think that is a sleazy move.
The last update has the winter hours. She is still chalking on the winter hours. When you come to Portland you can stop by and verbally abuse my wife.
And of course your posts supporting the President and the war were very plentiful pre-Obama. Very conspicuous in their absence.
The Iraq war was an incredibly stupid move made by one of the worst presidents in US history. No one with a brain is holding the cleanup against Obama, as far as I can see. That's how it should be.
I know people sometimes get pissed when actual facts are used in these arguments but it's not true that Democrats "pretty much all voted in favor of the war." In the House the Reps voted 215-6 in favor, the Dems voted 82-126 AGAINST. In other words if it had been up to the Dems, no war. In the Senate it was Reps 48-1 in favor, Dems 29-21 in favor. Shame on the Senate Dems, but still a vast difference, and most Dems overall voted against if you look at the combined totals.
Your facts are wrong. You should at least consider the possibility that your conclusions are also wrong. Your move.
If you want to know about Iraq there is plenty on the web. It's just not a leading issue anymore with the economy, health care, Afghanistan, etc. The Media follows whatever Washington is talking about.
I have a blog on Iraq and post stories everyday
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/
The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad just offered me a job as an analyst because of my writing.
Basically, the civil war in Iraq is over. It is now becoming a typical struggling and rather poor developing country despite the great oil wealth, with a big terrorist problem. Probably in 5-10 years Al Qaeda will have moved on to some other country and the nationalist insurgents will be either defeated or reconciled with so Iraqis can at least not have to worry about getting blown up.
My conclusion is that people are still dying in Iraq over a bullshit premise and a "change in regime" here has done little to stop that and if it has, that exact same degree of overall death merchanting has merely been shifted to Afghanistan.
The Obama administration is committed to getting out. The withdrawal is already slightly ahead of schedule. By the end of August they're due to drop troops from roughly 90,000 now to 50,000, and then all out by 2011. Afterward there will be advisers, an air base because Iraq can't protect itself from external threats right now, but it'll only be a few thousand.
Shhh! You'll just piss off the "they're all the same" crowd.
They hate facts.
I'm not happy with Obama's decisions on Afghanistan, but pretending there's no difference between him and Bush in these matters is Palin supporter level stupid.
Partisanship is like B.O.
When the guy next to you has it it's really obvious and offensive.
When you have it you're always the last to know.
You could say the same for a lot of traits. Like comical ignorance, for example.
His conclusions are right, you have just forgotten a few things - like the fact that the democrats were clearly gearing up to go to war against Iraq before Bush was elected.
For example, I'm sure you don't recall this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
It was signed into law by Clinton and requires (by law) that the President of the United States bring about regime change in Iraq - by force if necessary. The reason? Weapons of mass destruction, of course. Shortly after signing this Clinton gave a speech stating that it was beyond dispute that Iraq possessed such weapons and that it was only a matter of time before he used them on the U.S.
Now people act like that was a lie Bush invented, but that lie predates him and that's a fact.
And shortly after signing the ILA Clinton carpet bombed Iraq for four days.
The myth that the Iraq war was just a Republican or 'neo-con' agenda just shows how easily folks are brainwashed by the media.
The only reason the Democrats didn't support the Iraq war when it finally started is because a Republican was president. If Gore had won he would have gone to war also and the Dems would have been all for it.
Harvey VINDICATED!!!
His conclusion is akin to saying silver and feces are alike, because neither is gold. Is that really what you're trying to co-sign?
Obviously not, which you would know if you had read past the first sentence.
The U.S. was going to war against Iraq regardless of who the President was, if you don't want to believe this and choose partisan ignorance over fact, that's your business.
My thinking is closer to yours and Harvey's than most on here, I'm guessing. I just part ways when he brings up his "They're exactly the same!" argument. They're not the same at all, and he can call the advances in social programs promoted by Dems a smokescreen all he wants, but the end result is that things tend to be better for everyone when Republicans are not in charge.
For what it's worth, I remember well when Clinton bombed Iraq to distract the public from his sex scandal. I lost pretty much all respect for him at that point.
Where do I sign up to get these superpowers? I too would like to be omniscient in all possible timelines.
The problem with this analogy is that its conclusions don't hold when the model is scaled down. I agree that voting Democrat often amounts to choosing the lesser of two evils, but the same "good cop/bad cop" situations you're observing occur in politics on nearly every level, from national to local. Are you suggesting that a mayoral election winner in some small town in bumfuck, USA is immediately briefed on protocol relating to the vast political conspiracy that renders partisanship an illusion?
Not to mention that such a conspiracy, being passed down from generation to generation while still maintaining its general integrity, would seem to defy human nature. Conceptualizing such a long-running conspiracy, on such a grand scale, is beyond our abilities.
I know what you're thinking too, the whole plan was actually hatched by aliens!
Conspiracy theorists are the secular version of creationists. Fuckin' politics, how do they work?