Sacrifice is for suckers

On this Fourth of July, President Bush compared the Iraq war to the Revolutionary War and called for ''more patience, more courage and more sacrifice''. Unfortunately, it seems that nobody asked the obvious question: ''What sacrifices have you and your friends made, Mr President?''

On second thought, there would be no point in asking that question. In Bush's world, only the little people make sacrifices.

You see, the Iraq war, although Bush insists that it is part of a Global War on Terror, a fight to the death between good and evil, is not like America's other great wars; wars in which the wealthy shared the financial burden through higher taxes and many members of the elite fought for their country.

This time around, Bush celebrated Mission Accomplished by cutting tax rates on dividends and capital gains, while handing out huge no-bid contracts to politically connected corporations.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/07Jul2007_news21.php

Sacrifice is for suckers

On this Fourth of July, President Bush compared the Iraq war to the Revolutionary War and called for ''more patience, more courage and more sacrifice''.

So he's trying to compare himself to George Washington now ?

The two conflicts are in no way similar. One was a Revolution to overthrow the ruling power. The other was (is) an Invasion based on trumped-up allegations in order to settle an old score (Remember, after Daddy Bush kicked Saddam's butt in Gulf War I, Saddam tried to have Daddy assassinated. Sonny boy wanted a little pay-back).

I may be a little negative this morning. We sent 6 of our lads home in boxes last night.

Just a few more sacrifices in another war started by the same guy (at least this one had a little more justification behind it).

Fortunate Son

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,

Ooh, theyre red, white and blue.

And when the band plays hail to the chief,

Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.

It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,

Yeah!

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,

Lord, dont they help themselves, oh.

But when the taxman comes to the door,

Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no millionaires son, no.

It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no.

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,

Ooh, they send you down to war, lord,

And when you ask them, how much should we give?

Ooh, they only answer more! more! more! yoh,

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no military son, son.

It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, one.

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no fortunate one, no no no,

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no fortunate son, no no no,

The Honorable sacrifice and it's the con man who takes advantage of the Honorable.

I may be a little negative this morning. We sent 6 of our lads home in boxes last night.

It's been a bad month..... RIP guys

I may be a little negative this morning. We sent 6 of our lads home in boxes last night.

It's been a bad month..... RIP guys

I see pictures like this or read the names and ask myself why, what was the sacrifice for. I still don't have a good enough answer. I hope the ones they left behind find the peace I know they need.

Why do Americans put up with it? Perhaps Bush is merely a reflection of U.S. society's mass beliefs? I don't think there's a man who could be worse qualified for the job of running a country but not only did the public sanction it for four years, they then went ahead and re-elected him. I really don't think the general public's values differ so much from Bush's. Hence, he's a perfect match to lead them.

Want an example? How could a guy like Boonie be such a staunch proponent for Bush? How many Americans feel similarly to Boonie? Scary thought?

Why do Americans put up with it? Perhaps Bush is merely a reflection of U.S. society's mass beliefs? I don't think there's a man who could be worse qualified for the job of running a country but not only did the public sanction it for four years, they then went ahead and re-elected him. I really don't think the general public's values differ so much from Bush's. Hence, he's a perfect match to lead them.

Want an example? How could a guy like Boonie be such a staunch proponent for Bush? How many Americans feel similarly to Boonie? Scary thought?

A steady diet of cheap tv and ads for a years you'll believe anything.

A steady diet of cheap tv and ads for a years you'll believe anything.

local observations would confirm this ..............

A steady diet of cheap tv and ads for a years you'll believe anything.

Even the ads and TV I think are a reflection of society's values. They're only catering to what the masses want. So much of the public buys into it. I remember the SUV craze. It almost seemed like every American had to have one. Ever look at the shear size of a Cadillac Escapade or a Lincoln Navigator? Designer clothes. 20% of the price paid is for the actual article. 80% of the cost is to have someone's name on it.

Where's the mentality? What are the values? I'm neither surprised that Bush was elected in the first place nor that he's remained in office for eight years.

I may be a little negative this morning. We sent 6 of our lads home in boxes last night.

Kerry...

a big hug to you and everyone there. I just have no words that will be comforting or wise enough to say under these circumstances. I really hope all the senseless wars and violence would end soon.

take care.

Why do Americans put up with it? Perhaps Bush is merely a reflection of U.S. society's mass beliefs?

How many Americans feel similarly to Boonie? Scary thought?

I certainly don't and seems the majority of Americans don't either.

". . . Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

6/18-19/07 Approve - 23% Disapprove - 73% Unsure - 4% Poll

"Most Americans (54 percent) don't consider him honest, most (54 percent) don't think he shares their values and most (58 percent) say he does not inspire confidence." CNN

Bush and Americans are not necessarily synonymous.

Ah, but that's a current poll, Tywais. Had those been the results of the poll when he ran for office, or even re-election, he wouldn't be sitting where he is now. Certainly opinions have shifted over his two terms. He's now seen not only as a failure but an embarrassment, too.

The fact remains, he was the people's choice eight years ago as well as four years ago.

Is it possible a majority of Americans a reconsidering what they see in the mirror? Or do they still see the same thing and are only looking for a candidate who can fulfill their values successfully?

The fact remains, he was the people's choice eight years ago as well as four years ago.

Not like he had a lot of competition.

What was that Southpark episode? When you have to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich of course the big douche is gonna win.

Next years election will be a repeat-process.

Only one candidate truly worthy of the office that can claim he as anything in mind of what the founding fathers had in mind: Ron Paul.

However, with the media-fame requisite to get elected, he stands no chance. Good moral, firm stance and proper values is nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodi...l?index=P000583

http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=ron+paul

Added: links

The fact remains, he was the people's choice eight years ago as well as four years ago.

Not like he had a lot of competition.

What was that Southpark episode? When you have to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich of course the big douche is gonna win.

True. When there are no candidates of worth voting seems like nothing more than a crapshoot. Just trying to pick the lesser of the evils. The pool of talented leadership is, IMHO, a shallow puddle. And the reason may be that politics is in large part a self-serving profession.

Ultimately, though, I think unless mass values change leadership will remain relatively the same.

See my ending post on page 1 ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...t&p=1404820 - wont be seen by many perhaps since it's last post of the page...)

Why do Americans put up with it? Perhaps Bush is merely a reflection of U.S. society's mass beliefs? I don't think there's a man who could be worse qualified for the job of running a country but not only did the public sanction it for four years, they then went ahead and re-elected him. I really don't think the general public's values differ so much from Bush's. Hence, he's a perfect match to lead them.

Want an example? How could a guy like Boonie be such a staunch proponent for Bush? How many Americans feel similarly to Boonie? Scary thought?

They put up with it because everyone's making a buck off it and it's all happening somewhere else.. Go back to the day the Iraq War started and pull up a chart of the Standard and Poors 500 or any other global market index. It's been straight up since "shock and awe". Surely you haven't failed to note all the "private security" and "civilian contractors" who post here on TV and work in Iraq and Afghanistan? They're making a great wage on all that suffering.

Forget what the polls say, if the market continues to climb (everyone's in you know), and people could vote for Bush again, they would; despite what the polls say. During Reagans administration I never found one person that admitted to voting for him, yet he won in landslide victories.

Next years election will be a repeat-process.

Only one candidate truly worthy of the office that can claim he as anything in mind of what the founding fathers had in mind: Ron Paul.

However, with the media-fame requisite to get elected, he stands no chance. Good moral, firm stance and proper values is nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodi...l?index=P000583

http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=ron+paul

Added: links

Interesting and provocative platform......

He is... for...

the abolition of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service, a return to monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency, and an end to drug prohibition. Paul opposes any federal regulation of abortion, gun control, capital punishment, gay marriage, or education.

some positives and negatives all mixed in there... requires further info gathering. He's not well known, I take it... or at least I've not heard of him.

Texas origin could be a problem for him.... I mean, for example, both Thaksin and Heng went to school there.... but on the plus side... PeaceBlondie did too... and he's just fine.

http://www.protectronpaul2008.info/

He is a classical republican before the neo-cons hijacked the party. Or a libertarian if you wish. Opposes government/federal intrusion and thinks each state can legislate regarding a lot of the topics themselfs.

There is so much to be said on this subject and I'm very unsure I could say it without disrespecting all who have died or been mutilated or widowed or orphaned in these clusterf*cks.

So I'll just comment on the (presubably ironic) thread title.

Sacrifice is for decent well-meaning human beings.

Sacrificing those people for one's own devious self-serving ends is for ars*holes.

Sorry , just a PS.

CNN just reported 105 people killed in a suicide bombing in Iraq.

Mission accomplished ?

How much blood do you need on your hands before you keep them in your pockets ?

For those of you with short memories they tried to impeach Clinton for denying a blowjob.

Now that was a serious offence !

Sorry , just a PS.

CNN just reported 105 people killed in a suicide bombing in Iraq.

Mission accomplished ?

How much blood do you need on your hands before you keep them in your pockets ?

For those of you with short memories they tried to impeach Clinton for denying a blowjob.

Now that was a serious offence !

Just shows that sex in America is way more offensive and scary than watching people slaughter each other.

Very sad news about our boys, Kerryd. I was wondering lately: if Canada was attacked, would any nation except maybe the US and the UK come to help us?

They put up with it because everyone's making a buck off it and it's all happening somewhere else.. Go back to the day the Iraq War started and pull up a chart of the Standard and Poors 500 or any other global market index. It's been straight up since "shock and awe". Surely you haven't failed to note all the "private security" and "civilian contractors" who post here on TV and work in Iraq and Afghanistan? They're making a great wage on all that suffering.

Forget what the polls say, if the market continues to climb (everyone's in you know), and people could vote for Bush again, they would; despite what the polls say. During Reagans administration I never found one person that admitted to voting for him, yet he won in landslide victories.

Far fetched? I wonder if anyone's done an in-depth analysis of exactly who is profiting from the war in Iraq. Vital information, IMHO, in any determination regarding what our interest in Iraq is truly about. The Bush admin is well known for wagging the dog.

Anyone see the recent movie, "Blood Diamonds?" Blood Oil?

New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush

By Chris Floyd

t r u t h o u t | UK Correspondent

Monday 08 January 2007

The reason that George W. Bush insists that "victory" is achievable in Iraq is not that he is deluded or isolated or ignorant or detached from reality or ill-advised. No, it's that his definition of "victory" is different from those bruited about in his own rhetoric and in the ever-earnest disquisitions of the chattering classes in print and online. ....

Bush and his cohorts don't really care what happens on the ground in Iraq - they care about what comes out of the ground. The end - profit and dominion - justifies any means. What happens to the human beings caught up in the war is of no ultimate importance; the game is worth any number of broken candles.

And in plain point of fact, the Bush-Cheney faction - and the elite interests they represent - has already won the war in Iraq. ....

Put simply, the Bush Family and their allies and cronies represent the confluence of three long-established power factions in the American elite: oil, arms and investments. These groups equate their own interests, their own wealth and privilege, with the interests of the nation - indeed, the world - as a whole. And they pursue these interests with every weapon at their command, including war, torture, deceit and corruption. Democracy means nothing to them - not even in their own country, as we saw in the 2000 election. Laws are just whips to keep the common herd in line; they don't apply to the elite, as Bush's own lawyers and minions have openly asserted in the memos, signing statements, court cases and presidential decrees asserting the "inherent power" of the "unitary executive" to override any law he pleases.

The Iraq war has been immensely profitable for these Bush-linked power factions (and their tributary industries, such as construction); billions of dollars in public money have already poured into their coffers. Halliburton has been catapulted from the edge of bankruptcy to the heights of no-bid, open-ended, guaranteed profit. The Carlyle Group is gorging on war contracts. Individual Bush family members are making out like bandits from war-related investments, while dozens of Bush minions - like Richard Perle, James Woolsey, and Joe Allbaugh - have cashed in their insider chips for blood money.

The aftermath of the war promises equal if not greater riches. Even if the new Iraqi government maintains nominal state control of its oil industry, there are still untold billions to be made in PSAs for drilling, refining, distributing, servicing and securing oilfields and pipelines. Likewise, the new Iraqi military and police forces will require billions more in weapons, equipment and training, bought from the US arms industry - and from the fast-expanding "private security" industry, the politically hard-wired mercenary forces that are the power elite's latest lucrative spin-off. And as with Saudi Arabia, oil money from the new Iraq will pump untold billions into American banks and investment houses.

For even in the worst-case scenario, if the Americans had to pull out tomorrow, abandoning everything - their bases, their contracts, their collaborators - the Bush power factions would still come out ahead. For not only has their already-incalculable wealth been vastly augmented (with any potential losses indemnified by US taxpayers), but their deeply-entrenched sway over American society has also increased by several magnitudes. No matter which party controls the government, the militarization of America is so far gone now it's impossible to imagine any major rollback in the gargantuan US war machine - 725 bases in 132 countries, annual military budgets topping $500 billion, a planned $1 trillion in new weapons systems already moving through the pipeline. Indeed, the Democratic "opposition" has promised to expand the military.

Nor will either party conceivably challenge the dominance of the energy behemoths - or stand against the American public's demand for cheap gas, big vehicles, and unlimited consumption of a vast disproportion of the world's oil. As for Wall Street - both parties have long been the eager courtesans of the investment elite, dispatching armies all over the world to protect their financial interests. The power factions whose influence has been so magnified by Bush's war will maintain their supremacy regardless of the electoral outcome.

[by the way, to think that all of this has happened because a small band of extremist ideologues - the neo-cons - somehow "hijacked" US foreign policy to push their radical dreams of "liberating" the Middle East by force and destroying Israel's enemies is absurd. The Bush power factions were already determined to pursue an aggressive foreign policy; they used the neo-cons and their bag of tricks - their inflated rhetoric, their conspiratorial zeal, their murky Middle East contacts, their ideology of brute force in the name of "higher" causes - as tools (and PR cover) to help bring about a long-planned war that had nothing to do with democracy or security or any coherent ideology whatsoever beyond the remorseless pursuit of wealth and power, the blind urge to be top dog.]

So Bush and his cohorts have won even if the surge fails and Iraq lapses into perpetual anarchy, or becomes an extremist religious state; they've won even if the whole region goes up in flames, and terrorism flares to unprecedented heights - because this will just mean more war-profiteering, more fear-profiteering. And yes, they've won even though they've lost their Congressional majority and could well lose the presidency in 2008, because war and fear will continue to fill their coffers, buying them continuing influence and power as they bide their time through another interregnum of a Democratic "centrist" - who will, at best, only nibble at the edges of the militarist state - until they are back in the saddle again. The only way they can lose the Iraq War is if they are actually arrested and imprisoned for their war crimes. And we all know that's not going to happen.

[emphasis added]

Very sad news about our boys, Kerryd. I was wondering lately: if Canada was attacked, would any nation except maybe the US and the UK come to help us?

Do you even think the US would? Most Yanks don't know there is anything north of us.

Very sad news about our boys, Kerryd. I was wondering lately: if Canada was attacked, would any nation except maybe the US and the UK come to help us?

Do you even think the US would? Most Yanks don't know there is anything north of us.

American high school geography teacher: "What country is north of the United States."

American high school student: "Alaska."

Very sad news about our boys, Kerryd. I was wondering lately: if Canada was attacked, would any nation except maybe the US and the UK come to help us?

Canada is a member of the Commonwealth and as such shares some of the most binding treaties that exist.

Err.. you may have forgotten but the last time Canadian soil was invaded by a hostile military force it was by the US.

Very sad news about our boys, Kerryd. I was wondering lately: if Canada was attacked, would any nation except maybe the US and the UK come to help us?

Canada is a member of the Commonwealth and as such shares some of the most binding treaties that exist.

Err.. you may have forgotten but the last time Canadian soil was invaded by a hostile military force it was by the US.

That worked out worse than Iraq for them

The fact remains, he was the people's choice eight years ago as well as four years ago.

Not like he had a lot of competition.

What was that Southpark episode? When you have to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich of course the big douche is gonna win.

I quite liked John Kerry and was sorry when he lost. I think that belittling his war record was about as low an act I've seen, more so as it came from a camp led by two men who chose NOT to serve their country in Vietnam.

Mind you, I make no claim to understanding American politics.