= The Song Fight Bulletin Board

by **jack** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:05 pm

i'll be the first to applaud and acknowledge the brave soldiers stuck over there fighting in a war they shouldn't be in, but i'm FINALLY glad that someone showed some real testicular fortitude and put that asshole rumsfeld on the spot with the question about the body armor. it's about time these kids stood up for their own lives and safety, as it's obvious that the bureaucrats in washington couldn't give a rats ass about it. if you can't reason with them, embarrass the hell out of them.

god damned photo op. served him right. the truth hurts. kills even.

by **Hoblit** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:30 pm

Actually, it's rumored that the soldier(s) who asked the questions were planted with the questions by certain members of the media. However, that question was picked because of it's relative nature and it's nagging nature. So either way it's relevant.

Rumsfeild only proved what a rooster he is within that press conference. Basically by saying that tanks can blow up no matter how safe you try to make them only illustrates his blame game as he points back at the soldiers for not being able to manuver the tank better.

They wouldn't be rumaging through junkyards for used bulletproof glass if they didn't honestly think it would help their humvees and jeeps keep them safer. I mean, why bother if it's just because you can't drive faster than the bullets right?

(yeah, I'm burnt up by that whole dealeo too)

by **jack** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:43 pm

i like when he deflected the question by blaming the lag time in production and manufacturing. like "it takes awhile to get the new, better armored, vehicles made....". yeah. and the checks in the mail. and i won't come in your mouth.

i know no such statistic probably exists but i'd love to know just how many US soldiers have died protecting oil truck convoys. that would be a sobering statistic.

by **Lunkhead** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:58 pm

From the journalist:
http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=8447

From his editors:
http://poynter.org/forum/?id=32365

I guess the spin on this is that "some liberal journalist conspired to get the soldier to ask that question". Regardless of how/why the question was asked, the journalist had nothing to do with the huge applause it got, applause demonstrating that the other soldiers also wanted the question answered. Here's a journalist "supporting the troops" by trying to help them point out a situation that is putting their lives at risk, to a person who theoretically could resolve the situation. Rumsfeld, of course, couldn't give a straight answer, or even much reassurance that something would be done. Call me a crazy liberal, but that sure makes it seem to me that Rumsfeld doesn't really give a rat's ass about the soldiers.

by **Poor June** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:41 pm

that's some pretty fucked up shit...
but that's the government...
sucks, but that's how they work
they don't care about us, our the soldiers,
or anyone... who's life is at risk
until it is there own...

but that'd happen wether or not it was a liberal or conservative... it doesn't really matter... if there is somethin' that will make them more money... they will most likely go for it...
cause that is what a 'soldier' signs up for...
you sign your life over when you sign that shit
and i hate it for 'em...

things suck... life is life... and i don't really think it's gonna change anything

by **Lunkhead** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:18 pm

But think about for a minute how life has actually gotten a lot better for a lot of people over the centuries. It is possible for things to change for the better on the whole. It just happens slowly, and it takes lots of effort on the part of lots of people. The first thing you can do is stop believing "things suck, that's life".

by **Poor June** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:20 pm

yea true... have a good point... it is just goin' take a lot.... to overcome... 'the man with the money rules'... kinda thing...

by **jack** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:19 am

life is just soooooo much better for your average iraqi these days.

they don't have to live under a repressive leader anymore. of course, the cost for this freedom is that the majority of them no longer have a roof over their heads, potable water, employment, any control over their government or their destiny, or any positive outlook for the forseeable future.

but that saddam fella. he's gone.

by **Poor June** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:22 am

yea but at the sametime... if you look at it like that... it may help them in the long run...
even though things are shit right now... someday they might actually have more freedom and there shit back... that's saying if we let 'em have it back...

good and bad in all things... we're a lucky nation no matter the suckiness we don't really have a clue what it's like over there... we only see what we're shown...

by **jack** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:27 am

it's THE BIG LIE. the middle east (and specifically iraq) will never be stable until the people that live there make it that way. it's not our culture and we've proven that we really don't understand it on a diplomatic level. it's not our business to tell these people what is "best" for them. and it's certainly not going to achieve stability because the US says it will.

by **Poor June** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:33 am

yea... i think it's complete and utter bs that we're still over there... i mean honestly there seems to be no other reason other then oil...
it does sound sketchy...
but at the sametime i don't really know what the long term effect may be... and i really do hope they get out soon...
i think it could be nice if they took it back, kinda hard to say...

but you're right... we really don't understand their culture... and maybe we are forcing ours onto theres... but i'm sure a lot of people in that country... don't wanna be told what they have to do... as far as appearance... and shit of that sort... i mean i guess it's all in what you base your values in...

but i guess it comes down to no country is ever really a free country... nor will it ever... US is probably close to that... but it's still fails where a lot of countries don't... so i don't know...
tough argument...

by **Caravan Ray** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 6:41 am

It is also difficult to know what is right for Iraq since "Iraq" as a country really has no reason for existing in the first place. It is simply the result of some random borders drawn by the British and French back after WWI, lumping a whole lot of Arabs, Persians, Kurds and Turks together and calling it a country.

Perhaps its time to take an eraser to the map of the Middle East - rub out all the arbitrary borders that have been drawn over the years, stop supplying military equipment to dodgy entities such as the Saud family, the Israeli government and the regime of Saddam Hussein (OK - he's not on Washington's Xmas card list any more - but he used to be) and let them sort it out for themselves.

What's the worst that can happen? It can't be any worse than what's happened over the past 50 years already.

by **c hack** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:32 am

jack shite wrote:life is just soooooo much better for your average iraqi these days.

they don't have to live under a repressive leader anymore. of course, the cost for this freedom is that the majority of them no longer have a roof over their heads, potable water, employment, any control over their government or their destiny, or any positive outlook for the forseeable future.

Of course, they didn't have these things under Saddam either...

by **Caravan Ray** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 10:03 am

c hack wrote:
jack shite wrote:life is just soooooo much better for your average iraqi these days.

they don't have to live under a repressive leader anymore. of course, the cost for this freedom is that the majority of them no longer have a roof over their heads, potable water, employment, any control over their government or their destiny, or any positive outlook for the forseeable future.

Of course, they didn't have these things under Saddam either...

Acually they did have most of those things under Saddam

by **Hoblit** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:10 am

Caravan Ray wrote:
c hack wrote:
jack shite wrote:life is just soooooo much better for your average iraqi these days.

they don't have to live under a repressive leader anymore. of course, the cost for this freedom is that the majority of them no longer have a roof over their heads, potable water, employment, any control over their government or their destiny, or any positive outlook for the forseeable future.

Of course, they didn't have these things under Saddam either...

Acually they did have most of those things under Saddam

Well, things weren't peachy everywhere in the country. The larger cities had all the accomodations of most large cities of the world. Right now, most of them still do. There are problems but there are contractors out there trying to work on those as fast as they can...while dodging kidnapping.

I love ya Jack, but you can't necessarily rule out the big picture. The collateral damage completely sucks and I am not for the way things are being handled currently. However, there was plenty bad going on there before and like it or not, there are some people benifitting from the lack of oppressive rule even now.

I know you hate whats going on over there now. I agree that it's a mess and should have been handled better. But I think it's slightly unfair to look at it one sided.

It's not that 'nobody cares' about our soldiers or the people of Iraq. It's that there isn't <b>enough effort</b> or emphesis on the well being of the people there. (including soldiers) I agree that there is too much penny pinching where it counts...but at the same time as I watch fellow liberals complain about the cost of the war in billions. The situation sucks. We need to finish up the job and set things right. Bottom line. The sooner the better and then maybe the place will be restored to a better place in time.

by **jack** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:36 am

ok. explain to me why it was so important to push for a tax cut in the country (a politically motivated move in an election year) while our young men and women ARE DYING because they don't have adequate enough equipment. it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that tax cuts in war time don't make any fucking sense.

i watched a segment of 60 minutes last night where they interviewed fritz hollings, a senator from south carolina, who i now have the greatest newfound respect for. he's retiring from the senate and he said it best (as he has nothing to lose now). in washington, it's all about the money. never have we needed campaign finance reform more than we need it now. the senate is losing a wise man.

by **Eric Y.** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 12:12 pm

jack shite wrote:it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that tax cuts in war time don't make any fucking sense.

absolutely. i mean, obviously both the tax cuts and the war are both for political reasons, but they are totally non-complementary. whatever happened to "victory gardens" and stuff?

by **Hoblit** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:22 pm

tviyh wrote:
jack shite wrote:it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that tax cuts in war time don't make any fucking sense.

absolutely. i mean, obviously both the tax cuts and the war are both for political reasons, but they are totally non-complementary. whatever happened to "victory gardens" and stuff?

Yeah, I'm not going to argue with that. I agree that it makes no sense at all. It lacks sense. It's benifits do not factor correctly. I totally agree.

by **Hoblit** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:18 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... nterview_3

OMG!!!! did he just say that out loud?????

by **Caravan Ray** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:02 pm

Hoblit wrote:... The situation sucks. We need to finish up the job and set things right. Bottom line. The sooner the better and then maybe the place will be restored to a better place in time.

The situation sucks because the USA always seems to think that it's their role to "finish up the job and set things right". Unfortunately, the USA's idea of what 'set right' means is usually very different to what the rest of the world thinks.

How can the USA restore Iraq to a better place? Prop up another bastard dictator like they did with Saddam in the 70's and 80'? Then use this puppet to continue with Part 2 of the Iran/Iraq war (just like they did with Saddam)?

The USA has caused enough mess. Remove the military. Save the lives of your own young men. Spend the billions on restoration of the countries services. Allow the restoration to be overseen by a UN police force made up of troops from other Arab nations.

by **Eric Y.** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:33 pm

Caravan Ray wrote:a bunch of stuff

ok you got my vote

by **Sober** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:03 pm

I have always loved John McCain. If he runs in '08, I am voting for him, even if his running mate is Satan, and they run against God and Jesus.

He's a double-agent, I tell you.

= The Song Fight Bulletin Board

rumsfeld in iraq

rumsfeld in iraq

Who is online