[quote=“BroonAle”][quote=“gao_bo_han”]
That’s an interesting idea. I agree we should be paying policeman and soldiers generous salaries…discourages them from working part-time for militias for extra money. Problem is, lots of militia fighters are ideologically motivated. Still, it may win over some of them.[/quote]
Totally agree but the problem is that American businesses looting Iraq (US$8,800,000,000 unaccounted for I read yesterday) for all it is worth simply won’t do it. Their motive is profit, not altruism or an inate desire to help Iraq or the Iraqi people. Labour in many businesses is a significant portion of operational expenditure which of course eats into the bottom line for the corporate vultures. Interesting however, that some are willing to pay more to western workers in Iraq because of the danger and yet reward Iraqis with sod all.
I wonder how Bush’s US$1,000,000,000 job-creation programme for Iraqis will go down with America’s underclass/unemployed/under-priveleged or the still homeless down there in Louisiana?
What a genius ol’ Georgie Boy is. My goldfish shits greater intelligence than that presidential retard.
Broon Ale is quoting something rather correct. Bush is propsing or going to put $1,000,000,000 dollars into restructing Iraq via American contractors. Problem is -what’s being reported on the news is that the insurgents, are preventing any type of work to be done, started, or completed.
Perhaps Bush’s idea of more troops could have been sold under a softer idea of “Home for Humanity via a gun”.
Broon Ale is a pompous bloviating fool of doubtful parentage. I would question anything he says and preface it with a word that would underline my skepticism far better than “rather.” Broon Ale would not, in Rascal’s word, “know a true fact” if it came and bit him on the leg, though I live in hope that such a day will occur. I shall then play “Dog Bite on My Leg” by the Dead Kennedy’s loudly while laughing uproariously. Picture it.
Broon Ale is a pompous bloviating fool of doubtful parentage. I would question anything he says and preface it with a word that would underline my skepticism far better than “rather.” Broon Ale would not, in Rascal’s word, “know a true fact” if it came and bit him on the leg, though I live in hope that such a day will occur. I shall then play “Dog Bite on My Leg” by the Dead Kennedy’s loudly while laughing uproariously. Picture it.[/quote]
Here’s what I’m picturing… I was thinking that, as a strong proponent of the Iraq War and other future conflicts, you might want to suit up – if you do so fast, then their “surge” will gain one more enthusiastic supporter. Or do you feel, as those young 20-somethings did in New York, that this forum qualifies as “service”?
I can just picture you there … yelling at the vets of prior rotations through Iraq, to help them understand that they are going to keep doing push-ups until they like this war and love their president:
I can also picture how Fred might handle body armor for the troops:
[quote]The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in
Iraq.
…
Until now, the Pentagon’s policy on the Guard or Reserve was that members’ cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That cumulative limit is now lifted; the remaining limit is on the length of any single mobilization, which may not exceed 24 consecutive months, Pace said.
In other words, a citizen-soldier could be mobilized for a 24-month stretch in Iraq or
Afghanistan, then demobilized and allowed to return to civilian life, only to be mobilized a second time for as much as an additional 24 months. In practice, Pace said, the Pentagon intends to limit all future mobilizations to 12 months.
Members of the Guard combat brigades that have served in Iraq in recent years spent 18 months on active duty — about six months in pre-deployment training in the United States, followed by about 12 months in Iraq. Under the old policy, they could not be sent back to Iraq because their cumulative time on active duty would exceed 24 months. Now that cumulative limit has been lifted, giving the Pentagon more flexibility.[/quote]
That thundering sound you hear is Young Republicans heading for the rear, in the honourable tradition of George “Shotgun in the Ear” Bush, Dick “Other Priorities” Cheney (aka “9 months and a day”), Tom “No Room for a White Boy” Delay, Rush “Pimple on the Butt” Limbaugh, Bill “Culture (not Real ) Warrior” O’Reilly etc. etc.
[quote][url=In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equivalent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a ?Southern military tradition? in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population.
The household income of recruits generally matches the income distribution of the American population. There are slightly higher proportions of recruits from the middle class and slightly lower proportions from low-income brackets. However, the proportion of high-income recruits rose to a disproportionately high level after the war on terrorism began, as did the proportion of highly educated enlistees. All of the demographic evidence that we analyzed contradicts the pro-draft case.
]In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equivalent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a ?Southern military tradition? in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population.
The household income of recruits generally matches the income distribution of the American population. There are slightly higher proportions of recruits from the middle class and slightly lower proportions from low-income brackets. However, the proportion of high-income recruits rose to a disproportionately high level after the war on terrorism began, as did the proportion of highly educated enlistees. All of the demographic evidence that we analyzed contradicts the pro-draft case.[/[/url]quote]
Firstly, consider the source - the Heritage Foundation. They’re research will support the guys on the GOP-leaning side. Will try to find other sources as well.
We all serve in different ways. Each according to his ability, each according to his need, right? And I am most able to serve by fighting with you on this forum rather than suiting up. My needs are to be recognized for my glorious bravery in shouting down voices of “reason” such as yours… and Broon Ale’s… that pompous, bloviating sack of shit…
Where in the hell did you get that photo? Have you broken into my office or apartment? Have you looted that from my old high school yearbook?
Not that is just unkind… Really… How undignified… Now, that you have hurt my feelings, I think I need to have a good cry. I will not be back on this thread for the next day or so. I have to build up my confidence to come back in again to take more of this scurrilous abuse.
But on a side note… do you have any photos of how you think that Broon Ale might look in the same situations? Any help that you could provide would be greatly appreciated…
[quote=“mofangongren”]$50/day is a ton of money to the average Iraqi these days – we could employ 5 million Iraqis (about a fifth of the entire Iraqi population) on reconstruction work with that money. With police recruits getting only about $280/month and militias outbidding them in the market for men with guns, a boost in pay might well be enough to get Iraqis working on productive instead of destructive tasks.
Reconstruction is way behind, and it was flatly dumb to figure Halliburton was going to fix all the roads, schools and hospitals…[/quote]
Nice post. NOT!
You assume money can solve problems of being hundreds of years behind the United States in terms of development. Nothing gets built while you teach someone how to operate a buldozzer and assure he is not going to run over people who do not match his ethnic preference at the construction site rather than move dirt with it.
[quote=“Quirky”][quote=“mofangongren”]$50/day is a ton of money to the average Iraqi these days – we could employ 5 million Iraqis (about a fifth of the entire Iraqi population) on reconstruction work with that money. With police recruits getting only about $280/month and militias outbidding them in the market for men with guns, a boost in pay might well be enough to get Iraqis working on productive instead of destructive tasks.
Reconstruction is way behind, and it was flatly dumb to figure Halliburton was going to fix all the roads, schools and hospitals…[/quote]
Nice post. NOT!
You assume money can solve problems of being hundreds of years behind the United States in terms of development. Nothing gets built while you teach someone how to operate a buldozzer and assure he is not going to run over people who do not match his ethnic preference at the construction site rather than move dirt with it.[/quote]
You imply that contractors in Iraq teach people how to do construction work. If this had been true, by this time, there could have been hundreds of thousands of people with the skills necessary to do construction work there right now. It only takes a few months to learn how to do construction work, and the war has been going for longer than that.
So we were dumb to assume that with the billions of dollars they were granted for reconstruction, contractors like Halliburton would try to teach construction skills to more than tens of locals.
[quote=“Quirky”]Nice post. NOT!
You assume money can solve problems of being hundreds of years behind the United States in terms of development. Nothing gets built while you teach someone how to operate a buldozzer and assure he is not going to run over people who do not match his ethnic preference at the construction site rather than move dirt with it.[/quote]
I assume nothing of the kind. I assume that Iraqis, who for centuries have been perfectly capable of constructing all sorts of schools, roads, ministry buildings, etc. would be able to continue doing these things. I do tend to assume that Iraqis able to drive tanks would probably get the hang of driving a bulldozer if necessary, and I’m not sure why you think Iraqis wouldn’t be able to. They were cut out of the international community for about 12 years, not 100.
As to the larger question as to whether “the devil finds work for idle hands” or not, perhaps this is a bit pie-in-the-sky for you. However, given that we’ve tried putting the guys with guns out of work (mostly by telling the army and police that they were fired but not collecting their weapons first), why not try putting them to work. Perhaps they’ll be less lethal towards each other if they are making good money to build things.
I think they should start the draft by sending people who said we need more troops there first. I’m sure they can still have their frat parties in Iraq. Hell, isn’t hazing a form of torture anyways? They’ll fit right in!
I think the guys who pushed for us to get into this whole Iraq fiasco ought to take the responsibility to sign up of their own accord to serve in battle. There’s no shortage of these cheerleaders, and why should somebody else be expected to die for them? Either these people can accept responsibility for their fiercely expressed viewpoints or not.
By Jove! I think that you are onto something here!
Let me see if I understand!
Those who care about education must all become teachers to have an opinion!
Those who dare to venture a comment about fire fighting must become volunteer fire fighters!
Those who want to have an opinion on health insurance must either become a healthcare professional or an insurance agent!
Those who want to have a say about environmental policy must chain themselves to a tree to show the extent of their dedication!
Those who advocate liberalizing prostitution must first become one themselves!
Those who want to have a say on how taxes are spent must first submit their records. AND based on these records, their say will be weighted according to how much they pay in tax! Great idea!
Let’s get cracking. Lots of cheerleaders and so little effort.
My favorite though would be that those who claim to care about the “poor” should first become poor and those who have an opinion about retirement and aging must first themselves be old! Fantastic! Why hasn’t anyone come up with this before! Hurray! MFGR is a genius!
I don’t think you do. I’m not suggesting that you must be an [insert profession here] to have an opinion about [the subject area of stated profession], just that if you are a vocal proponent of a government policy, you should participate and contribute to our society in a manner consistent with those vocal beliefs and take the responsibility when the vocally expressed views turn out to be a load of horseshit that hurts our society. I’m thinking something more along the lines of the SEC rules for persons foisting materially misleading information upon the investing public, adapted a bit.
For each of your examples, I’ll try to find one more fitting for you:
Those who advocate the teaching of “creationism” and other fundamentalist nonsense to our science students should be the first ones on the hook to pay for improved science teaching when American kids slide even further down in international rankings of students’ science knowledge.
Those GOPpers who quietly worked to slash the money available for first responders leading to the closure of many professional city-run fire houses ought to become volunteer fire fighters or do without fire protection for their own home.
Those who advocate Medicare purchase programs by which the government is not allowed to negotiate on price should be willing to make up the difference between the crony price and the market price once the whole scam is exposed.
Those who want to talk about environmental policy should use objective scientific facts and not override the government’s own nonpartisan scientists to mislead the public to the benefit of crony oil corporations. To the extent that mineral rights on public lands are sold for less than market value as a result of one’s professed environmental views, they can help make up the difference from their own pocket. To the extent that a cheered-on policy damages the ecology, they can be responsible for helping with or helping pay for the cleanup.
Actually, I have no response to this. I just assumed the GOP House leadership knew more than most mama-sans.
The non-billionaires who advocate massive tax cuts targeted to America’s top-1-percenters ought to be willing to make up any resulting deficit amounts out of their own pockets. Let that be their legacy to pass down to their kids.
How so? I don’t have anything against people following their fervent beliefs to a natural conclusion. Certainly before we implement an involuntary draft to fill in for our lost troops, I’d like to see those who are physically able and strong supporters of the war volunteer. In addition to our 3,000 dead and 15,000+ wounded (many unable to serve because of severe cranio-facial injuries and missing limbs from IEDs), there are older soldiers who are retiring and others who have otherwise finished the military’s ability to keep them in uniform.
Yes they should. And those “suited” to fight basically consist of anybody who meets the now very minimal requirements for recruitment.
How do you reach this conclusion? Are you suggesting that our military’s size is exactly right and headed in the correct direction? If so, then how?
