4,000 dead Americans

[snuffbox 0]

snuffbox, if you were a contractor in Iraq, you could have probably just driven to one of the stockpiles of wrapped up hundred dollar bills, offered to build an abstinence education office, and made off with more than enough to rebuild any town in the US affected by recent flooding.

 

That's about the only way some of these towns/areas could ever get assistance.

 

My hometown, Viola, was hit by the recent flood though not nearly as bad as many others in this region. I, and many others, just thought back to August/2005 when we got minimal FEMA help for the tornado because 'the townspeople had much of it cleaned up themselves.' Of course, that didnt take into account the expenses or lost wages of those of us that helped out immediately & afterwards. It wouldnt be such a problem if we didnt already pay so much taxes & no, the cuts for the incredibly wealthy dont count as tax-cuts for everyone.

 

Another $50 billion for Iraq should be authorized and spent quickly, though.

[Jingus 0]

Well, Jingus, by all means, continue your rah-rah'ing of this, Bush's Debacle.

 

How many of current Congressmen have kids in Iraq? Is it up to two or three now?

soldiers are gonna get irreperably damaged.

You could argue about the ever-lengthening tours and how some people are being kept there too long to maintain their effectiveness, and then you'd have a point

No, Saddam wasn't much of a threat to us.

we blew up a LOT of shit taking out his government

What, you missed the Haliburton scandal? War profiteering happens in pretty much every war, unfortunately. This is just the latest crummy example.

I've said since day one that the bullshit "They have WMDS RIGHT NOW" and "Saddam Al Quaeda" justifications were indeed that, bullshit.

I think the manner in which it has been fought is clumsy and inefficient to say the least.

Anyway, I'm not a republican, or a conservative. Hell, I voted for Nader

 

Oh boy, how I love me some mindless Bush cheerleading!

 

Please try to pay attention here, Eric.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

snuffbox, if you were a contractor in Iraq, you could have probably just driven to one of the stockpiles of wrapped up hundred dollar bills, offered to build an abstinence education office, and made off with more than enough to rebuild any town in the US affected by recent flooding.

Another $50 billion for Iraq should be authorized and spent quickly, though.

Well, they could toss a bunch of money at your area. With a little bit of luck they could build something a bit better than a pile of shit. That should cover about 50 Billion just fine.

[snuffbox 0]

I don't even know what that meant.

 

Anyway, the whole problem is that the entire area hit by the recent flooding (Wisco, Minnesota, Ohio, Illinois, Oklahoma, etc) could ALL be taken care of for the cost of about one week in Iraq. Instead, there will presumabley nothing or too close to it, just like with the '05 tornadoes, and America will continue to be ignored in lieu of Iraq. See also: crumbling infrastructure, Katrina/NOLA, etc.

[NoCalMike 0]

I was watching Bill Mahr's show, and they said in Norway I believe it was, that they have levees that can handle a 1 in 10000 year event, and when they originally built it, they came to america to get the technology and knowledge. Well, supposedly Louisiana is aiming for a 1 in 100 year event protection system by 2020......yeah, I don't care how much money was supposedly sent down there, it obviously ended up in the wrong hands.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Well, Jingus, by all means, continue your rah-rah'ing of this, Bush's Debacle.

 

How many of current Congressmen have kids in Iraq? Is it up to two or three now?

soldiers are gonna get irreperably damaged.

You could argue about the ever-lengthening tours and how some people are being kept there too long to maintain their effectiveness, and then you'd have a point

No, Saddam wasn't much of a threat to us.

we blew up a LOT of shit taking out his government

What, you missed the Haliburton scandal? War profiteering happens in pretty much every war, unfortunately. This is just the latest crummy example.

I've said since day one that the bullshit "They have WMDS RIGHT NOW" and "Saddam Al Quaeda" justifications were indeed that, bullshit.

I think the manner in which it has been fought is clumsy and inefficient to say the least.

Anyway, I'm not a republican, or a conservative. Hell, I voted for Nader

 

Oh boy, how I love me some mindless Bush cheerleading!

 

Please try to pay attention here, Eric.

And yet despite all that you still think we did a good thing going there? That's the really mindless part.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Of course the handling of the occupation has been clumsily done. Of course the contractors make a lot of money in their no-bid contracts. (When they're not getting beheaded.) Of course civil war sucks. But I can't believe any of you would seriously say that Iraq was better under Saddam. That's like saying East Germany was better off back when Adolph was in charge.

Congratulations, you pulled a Godwin!

 

Look Jingus, nobody liked Saddam. That's no excuse for the war. We've fucked up, civilian and soldier deaths continue to rise, we may have made an eventual Iraqi civil war worse (as Edwin said), and the list goes on. So yeah, you aren't convincing anybody.

 

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

bigolsmitty's Leo X avatar was so rocking that I had to copy his idea.

 

I see your Clement VII and raise you a Francis II, boy king of France.

[snuffbox 0]

Playing the role of General Westmoreland will be David Petraeus.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

the question isn't, was Iraq better off, the real question, was America and its military better off? With this never-ending mess in place, I think its safe to say we're not better off.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

 

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

 

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Exactly...America has a lot of problems right now. Can't we have leadership that takes care of America first, and then worries about the rest of the world? Let the Middle East take care of their own problems from now on.

[NoCalMike 0]

It seems like the media is really spinning the Petraeus report as the gosphel, even though they reported beforehand that the Whitehouse was basically writing the report and he was just reporting it.

 

I hate how the headlines are so misleading like "Bush will approve troop level cuts" It makes it sound like a drawback when all it really is, is approving pre-surge levels, in a year from now, and even that is ONLY if they feel conditions on the ground have improved. Of course this is all before Bush changes his mind once again what "victory" means.

[snuffbox 0]

The media approves of all this because they're in Al Qaeda if they don't. Nobody wants to be in Al Qaeda.

[snuffbox 0]

That was not one of the President's better speeches.

[NoCalMike 0]

36 Nations fighting with us in Iraq.............seriously WTF?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Stankonia is coming.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Africa Bambata & the Zulu Nation.

[snuffbox 0]

I would mention something about a 'credibility gap' but Iraq can not be compared to Vietnam in any way, ever.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

From what I caught of it, it was more of the same. If you support the war, you probably still do, and if you're opposed to it, Bush really gave nothing to win you over, or presented any kind of solid plan for gradual withdrawal, even if that's what they're claiming.

[NoCalMike 0]

From what I caught of it, it was more of the same. If you support the war, you probably still do, and if you're opposed to it, Bush really gave nothing to win you over, or presented any kind of solid plan for gradual withdrawal, even if that's what they're claiming.

 

Well he left the term "victory" wide open again, not clearly defining it, or giving any type of timetable for how long it takes, but he had hinted that this will be a "long term" mission that will likely be dropped on the doortstep of the next Prez.

[EricMM 0]

"likely" isn't even a chance...

 

"definitely"

[NoCalMike 0]

So now Maliki and other Iraqi officials want to de-certify Blackwater and send them packing. Well they reportedly have over 100,000 members currently serving in Iraq and supposedly this mercenary force is being relied on for security convey couriers and other similar missions. Of course Blackwater is denying any wrong doing and claiming the "well a gunshot came from over there, so we just lit up the place in that direction" defense....and somehow I think this is the part where Maliki is about to become privy to the fact that he holds no real power, as there is no way Bush is about to expel his buddies in Blackwater and/or their billions in contract money.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Mike, your figures are way off. Blackwater has probably about 1000 guys in Iraq total; that's it. They have maybe 400 doing personnel security details for the state department based out of the US embassy, and the rest spread across the country.

 

supposedly this mercenary force is being relied on for security convey couriers and other similar missions.

Yep. They're knuckleheaded shooters, but they have a sizable contract doing all the protection and escorting for state department throughout the country. The reason Blackwater won't ultimately get kicked out is that no one else can do the work; Blackwater has more resources and better equipment than the U.S. military at this point and is a huge part of the daily operations of any state department personnel. The only way Blackwater could get removed from the country would be if another company came in, bought all their resources, hired all their grunts, and took over the job.

[NoCalMike 0]

Mike, your figures are way off. Blackwater has probably about 1000 guys in Iraq total; that's it. They have maybe 400 doing personnel security details for the state department based out of the US embassy, and the rest spread across the country.

 

supposedly this mercenary force is being relied on for security convey couriers and other similar missions.

Yep. They're knuckleheaded shooters, but they have a sizable contract doing all the protection and escorting for state department throughout the country. The reason Blackwater won't ultimately get kicked out is that no one else can do the work; Blackwater has more resources and better equipment than the U.S. military at this point and is a huge part of the daily operations of any state department personnel. The only way Blackwater could get removed from the country would be if another company came in, bought all their resources, hired all their grunts, and took over the job.

 

Yep, sorry my figures were way off. What I read and reported erroneously(sp?) was the total number of Security Contractors in Iraq....Blackwater ITSELF only has about 1000. My bad.

 

My main problem with Blackwater and other companies of the like, is that they are not held to the same rules and regulations as the military. You read the story about the Blackwater employee who was drunk and accidently shot a security officer....so he takes off and runs to the american embassy and they fly him back to America where he has yet to stand trial for his crime. There needs to be some type of oversight on contractors like these that are carrying around automatic weapons and have access to heavily armed machinery including helicopters. This afterall was the same company sent down to New Orleans after Katrina to stop people who just lost their homes from going into abandoned grocery stores to grab some food.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Yeah, oversight is a huge issue. It really doesn't help that most of them are actually extremely excited to be shooting and killing people. Getting $600-700/day is the main reason they're there, but the chance to light some people up is a very, very close second for way too many of them. Having worked with and observed far too many of these guys, I'd say that on the whole they're absolutely despicable and terrifyingly debased people.

[snuffbox 0]

Lindsay Graham cares about the troops!

[theintensifier 0]

Do we as a nation, have to rebuild a country after we've completely decimated it? Is that in some law/statue/convention somewhere?

 

I've never understood why we do that.

[snuffbox 0]

The Senate continues to tongue the Presidential perineum.

[At Home 0]

We should start a pool. How long will it take before the whole Iraq shit is over and done with? I think I can safely say that we're no longer paying for Vietnam or anything like that, and that was, what, 17 years?