NationStates Jolt Archive

Some people here have commented on how, despite so many people claiming to support the war in IRaq, it sure doesn't show up well in the recruiting numbers. Which to say that aspersions have been cast to the concept that there are a lot of people who think it's a nifty idea that they will defend to the death....of someone else.

But let's not go there again.

So where to go?

Well, GW also asked a month ago for help. For people to dig deep and donate to the Iraqi reconstruction via extraordinary contributions besides their taxes. Why? I dunno, maybe because this way they could funnel more no-bid work to Haliburton without all tha tpesky oversight that happens with tax dollars....maybe he didn't want to have to go back to Congress begging for more bucks. All I know is that he did it.


And how did the public respond? All those who still claim that we need to stay there and get the job done? What was it worth to them? (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1577750,00.html)


An extraordinary appeal to Americans from the Bush administration for money to help pay for the reconstruction of Iraq has raised only $600 (£337), The Observer has learnt. Yet since the appeal was launched earlier this month, donations to rebuild New Orleans have attracted hundreds of millions of dollars.

The public's reluctance to contribute much more than the cost of two iPods to the administration's attempt to offer citizens 'a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq' has been seized on by critics as evidence of growing ambivalence over that country.



Damn it people, if you're gonna support something then damn well support it. With your own self or your own dollars. But it seems obvious now that this support is little more than the flapping of gums at the problem.



The only possible conclusion I can draw from this is that Bush-bots ain't just cowards. They're fricken cheapskates too!!!

I've been here for only a couple days and I've seen at least three of these threads with basically the same thing written on each one.

Some people here have commented on how, despite so many people claiming to support the war in IRaq, it sure doesn't show up well in the recruiting numbers. Which to say that aspersions have been cast to the concept that there are a lot of people who think it's a nifty idea that they will defend to the death....of someone else.

Take a look at re-enlistment rates for people who have served in Iraq.

That is, of the people who have served in Iraq, how many signed up for more.

All of the services are exceeding their re-enlistment quotas. And having spoken to more than a few who re-enlisted from Iraq, I understand why.

As far as "defending to the death" goes, consider that the US took eight times the death rate AND a draft in Vietnam to stop that war. Our current casualty rate in Iraq is a number, but it's not a really large number - it's a historically tiny number. Probably one of the tiniest casualty rates against an insurgency in an occupied country in history.

As for that "extra giving" program - I watch the news all the time here, and we never heard a single word about it - not on the news, not in advertisements, and not in public service announcements.

Would have been hard to miss that. And I'm sure pundits would have been making hay out of it here. Not a word on the Sunday talk shows.

I've been here for only a couple days and I've seen at least three of these threads with basically the same thing written on each one.


really?

I wasn't around all weekend, so if this story has been done to death then I'm sure people will ignore it. However, I just did a search for the word "extraordinary" as cut from the story itself and didn't get any hits here on a search, so I don't feel like I failed to perform due diligence before posting.


Not to mention the fact that the story was only published in the Guardian yesterday....

As for that "extra giving" program - I watch the news all the time here, and we never heard a single word about it - not on the news, not in advertisements, and not in public service announcements.

Would have been hard to miss that. And I'm sure pundits would have been making hay out of it here. Not a word on the Sunday talk shows.


What? so you're saying that the US media is incompetent too?

Like that would suprise anyone...

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/charlotte/news/12683282.htm?source=rss&channel=charlotte_news

WASHINGTON - Amid pleas for donations after Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration has launched an unusual effort to raise charitable contributions for another cause: the government's attempt to rebuild Iraq.

Although more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds have been appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction, the administration earlier this month launched an Internet-based fundraising effort at www.Iraqpartnership.org it says is aimed at giving Americans "a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq."





As to your comment on reenlistment, that really is besides the point.

What? so you're saying that the US media is incompetent too?

Like that would suprise anyone...

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/charlotte/news/12683282.htm?source=rss&channel=charlotte_news

As to your comment on reenlistment, that really is besides the point.

No, it's that we were focused on a hurricane. Probably more important.

And re-enlistment is not beside the point. If it was so horrible over there, why would people re-enlist?

Or do you not want it to get out that the soldiers there WANT to be there and WANT to kill insurgents?

Oh! The horror!

Not to mention the fact that the story was only published in the Guardian yesterday....

Because CLEARLY the guardian has a track record of truthful reporting. Give me a break.

Because CLEARLY the guardian has a track record of truthful reporting. Give me a break.


Wow. and on your very first post too..... THIS is what you coose to respond to?


So, who are you hiding?

The question is, why is an Army of volunteers, who have spent one or more years in Iraq, eager to re-enlist?

Eh?

Doesn't quite square with your view of the world, does it?

And why are the Marines (who also send ground troops), and within the Army - the infantry - exceeding their first enlistment targets?

The only ones who are having trouble are Army Reserve non-combat units.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Combat units and combat specialities having NO trouble getting people lined up to kill.

No one wants to be a truck driver or a mechanic - that sounds too much like a target. But everyone wants to be in the infantry and kill.

No, it's that we were focused on a hurricane. Probably more important.

And re-enlistment is not beside the point. If it was so horrible over there, why would people re-enlist?

Or do you not want it to get out that the soldiers there WANT to be there and WANT to kill insurgents?

Oh! The horror!


Oh, so you just want to seque back to the fact that people in uniform will stay in uniform out of feelings of unit cohesion, and standing up for their mates, and turn that into some metaphor that supposedly has some bearing on all of those vociferous supporters of GW who would run screaming from a recruiter?


Please.

Don't try and hijack my thread to go there.

Oh, so you just want to seque back to the fact that people in uniform will stay in uniform out of feelings of unit cohesion, and standing up for their mates, and turn that into some metaphor that supposedly has some bearing on all of those vociferous supporters of GW who would run screaming from a recruiter?

Please.

Don't try and hijack my thread to go there.

You can talk to a lot of these guys directly on lightfighter.net.

You'll find they re-enlisted not for unit cohesion, or standing up for their mates.

They want to kill militant Arab Muslims. As many as they can lay hands on.

Some people here have commented on how, despite so many people claiming to support the war in IRaq, it sure doesn't show up well in the recruiting numbers. Which to say that aspersions have been cast to the concept that there are a lot of people who think it's a nifty idea that they will defend to the death....of someone else.

But let's not go there again.

So where to go?

Well, GW also asked a month ago for help. For people to dig deep and donate to the Iraqi reconstruction via extraordinary contributions besides their taxes. Why? I dunno, maybe because this way they could funnel more no-bid work to Haliburton without all tha tpesky oversight that happens with tax dollars....maybe he didn't want to have to go back to Congress begging for more bucks. All I know is that he did it.


And how did the public respond? All those who still claim that we need to stay there and get the job done? What was it worth to them? (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1577750,00.html)




Damn it people, if you're gonna support something then damn well support it. With your own self or your own dollars. But it seems obvious now that this support is little more than the flapping of gums at the problem.



The only possible conclusion I can draw from this is that Bush-bots ain't just cowards. They're fricken cheapskates too!!!



Check the results in the elections .

Or do you not want it to get out that the soldiers there WANT to be there and WANT to kill insurgents?

Yeah, I can buy that, Americans are big on shooting people.. but could be cause they're poor and don't have many options.. that also might explain why they aren't putting their money where their life is. ... so to speak.

I wonder how many re-enlist after being in Iraq for a year who live above the poverty line? There is a stat I'd love to see.

Again with this anti-war crap..

We are focusing on the hurricane at this time. We however must stay in Iraq and maintain our presence. The anti-war demands will be summarily rejected.

You can talk to a lot of these guys directly on lightfighter.net.

You'll find they re-enlisted not for unit cohesion, or standing up for their mates.

They want to kill militant Arab Muslims. As many as they can lay hands on.


And those bonuses up to 30, or 40, or 50K depending on their years of service to re-up played no part either right?


But thank you for so clearly pointing out that re-enlistment has nothing to do with civillian political support for GW, or for "bringing peace and democracy" to Iraq or Afghanistan.


Which is kinda what I said right off the top.

Some people here have commented on how, despite so many people claiming to support the war in IRaq, it sure doesn't show up well in the recruiting numbers. Which to say that aspersions have been cast to the concept that there are a lot of people who think it's a nifty idea that they will defend to the death....of someone else.

But let's not go there again.

So where to go?

Well, GW also asked a month ago for help. For people to dig deep and donate to the Iraqi reconstruction via extraordinary contributions besides their taxes. Why? I dunno, maybe because this way they could funnel more no-bid work to Haliburton without all tha tpesky oversight that happens with tax dollars....maybe he didn't want to have to go back to Congress begging for more bucks. All I know is that he did it.


And how did the public respond? All those who still claim that we need to stay there and get the job done? What was it worth to them? (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1577750,00.html)




Damn it people, if you're gonna support something then damn well support it. With your own self or your own dollars. But it seems obvious now that this support is little more than the flapping of gums at the problem.



The only possible conclusion I can draw from this is that Bush-bots ain't just cowards. They're fricken cheapskates too!!!


Check the election results . :rolleyes: They actually count for something .

And why are the Marines (who also send ground troops), and within the Army - the infantry - exceeding their first enlistment targets?

The relatively good US economic performance would, ordinarily mean not meeting targets. I'd say its Iraq that getting them to join and stay.

Again with this anti-war crap..

We are focusing on the hurricane at this time. We however must stay in Iraq and maintain our presence. The anti-war demands will be summarily rejected.


What? you think that just being there does something? Especially if you're not doing the right things to bring about the successfull resolution of the problem?


Frankly, that tired old platitude makes no sense whatsoever.

"Sure, it's a mess. Sure there were lots of mistakes made. But if we keep on making them eventually it will all work out...."


How the hell does that happen exactly?

Check the election results . :rolleyes: They actually count for something .


Check current poll numbers. That says something too....


Which is that people have finally stopped buying what he's shovelling.

The definition of insanity..

Repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

You can talk to a lot of these guys directly on lightfighter.net.

You'll find they re-enlisted not for unit cohesion, or standing up for their mates.

They want to kill militant Arab Muslims. As many as they can lay hands on.


Shhhhhhhh dont let that get out ...you will spoil everything . :D

nope never heard of it

i cant imagine why he thought that anyone would send money to iraq when they were emptying their pockets for the victims of katrina

nope never heard of it

i cant imagine why he thought that anyone would send money to iraq when they were emptying their pockets for the victims of katrina

That's really weird, cause I live in Canada and I've heard of it. Hmm strange.

Check current poll numbers. That says something too....


Which is that people have finally stopped buying what he's shovelling.



Ummmm....... sure and that changes things how ? Polls said Kerry would win ... :D

The definition of insanity..

Repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.


Oh, have no fear. I was't expecting a different result than the standard, well-used, BS rhetoric from the Bush supporters....

:D

The definition of insanity..

Repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Kinda like Jane Fonda protesting against the Vietnam War - and now this war - and finding out no one is watching her, so she's going to lay off protesting.

Ummmm....... sure and that changes things how ? Polls said Kerry would win ... :D


The point being that election results of a year ago, wherby a slim majority of that minority of Americans who dragged their assess off the couch to put a vote in for the pile of sh*t that they hoped stunk less, has no bearing on the popular opinion of today.


but it's another lame platitude that people have to drag out over and over again.


Don't you guys have anything new to add?

So, to sum up the responses thus far:


1) The military loves to kill ragheads.
and
2) No comment on the fact that people won't open their wallets to help the Iraqis.

oh yes, and
3)"Stay the course! It's got to get better... somehow..... someday..... really."



There. Did I miss anything?

Oh, have no fear. I was't expecting a different result than the standard, well-used, BS rhetoric from the Bush supporters....

:D

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I was actually talking about the Bush mantra of "staying the course" ..lol :D

You can talk to a lot of these guys directly on lightfighter.net.

You'll find they re-enlisted not for unit cohesion, or standing up for their mates.

They want to kill militant Arab Muslims. As many as they can lay hands on.

Wow, that sounds less like wanting to secure democracy and more like bloodthirsty vengence.

I wasn't aware that was what we were doing over there.

In fact, I thought that was what we were trying to stop...

The point being that election results of a year ago, wherby a slim majority of that minority of Americans who dragged their assess off the couch to put a vote in for the pile of sh*t that they hoped stunk less, has no bearing on the popular opinion of today.


but it's another lame platitude that people have to drag out over and over again.


Don't you guys have anything new to add?


Yes, I added that the troops like it in Iraq, especially the combat troops. And we don't have any problem recruiting new combat troops - just recruiting new troops who would be truck drivers and mechanics. Seems that being a combat troop with the ability to kill is in fashion - being a target is not.

Yes, some people may "oppose" the war when they answer a poll question. But they are not doing much else.

The Democrats have utterly failed to excite the nation on this topic - not that Bush has excited anyone except people who want to kill Arab militants.

BTW, Bush had more people vote for him in the popular vote than Clinton had vote for him in either election. If you're going to make that couch potato comment about Bush voters, just think what we can say about Clinton voters.

Kinda like Jane Fonda protesting against the Vietnam War - and now this war - and finding out no one is watching her, so she's going to lay off protesting.

Yah, but a quarter of a million people are watching Sheehan who, if the right is to be believed, is worse than Hanoi Jane was at the height of her popularity.

$600!?!?! lol

I think that ONLY the people supporting this war should have to pay for the cost of the war as well as the rebuilding of Iraq. I bet if that truely was the case, they wouldn't be so inclined to support the war. Just a guess though.

I'm willing to make it work both ways though. Only people who support things like public education, welfare, healthcare and such should have to pay for those programs (although they should be the only ones who get anything out of those programs as well).

WE should just be able to say where we want our taxes to go and be able to refuse the use of our taxes for things we oppose.

Nope, never heard of these Global Giving people...

Definitely did not hear about GWB asking anyone to give to them. Doubt that that ever happened.

So the question is...

Who are they?

I am beginning to think that this "news story" is an attempt to drum up interest in their website...

Iraq giving website (http://www.iraqpartnership.org/aboutus/index.html)
Prior to founding GlobalGiving, Mari Kuraishi and Dennis Whittle were heads of strategy and innovation at the World Bank. While in that post, they created the first-ever Innovation Marketplace for Bank staff in 1998, an internal competition in which Bank employees pitched their own ideas for fighting poverty worldwide. The winners received grants to make their ideas happen. The competition resulted in some of the most innovative ideas and effective programs the bank has done.

In 2000, they took the concept and competition to the outside world. The Development Marketplace enabled any social entrepreneur in the world to compete for Bank funds. The program was extremely successful - finalists from all over the world gathered in Washington, DC, and $5 million was awarded to the 44 most innovative projects. Participants described the Development Marketplace as "brilliant", "extraordinary", and "life-changing."

Based on the Marketplaces' success, Mari and Dennis saw tremendous potential in creating an Internet-based platform to facilitate a broader range of social and economic investments in developing countries. In October 2000, they left the World Bank, and on February 14, 2002, GlobalGiving (formerly DevelopmentSpace) was launched. :confused:

Yah, but a quarter of a million people are watching Sheehan who, if the right is to be believed, is worse than Hanoi Jane was at the height of her popularity.

Well, I don't believe that Sheehan is Hanoi Jane. I personally believe she's a grieving mother who has been emotionally abused and taken advantage of by Democratic party political hacks (they're funding and organizing every step of her life since she started at Crawford).

She would have so much more credibility to me if she wasn't hanging with the usual hacks.

As it is, her son was an adult. He, like I, made an adult decision to serve in the Army. Unfortunately, soldiers are sometimes killed, and never in a war of their choosing. That is the nature of soldiering. Something Cindy and the other protesters will never understand.

The Democratic party has been so desperate over the past few years to get any traction at all, that they will take advantage of any person they can. As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic party is doing the equivalent of child rape by taking advantage of Cindy Sheehan. I see absolutely no moral difference.

Yah, but a quarter of a million people are watching Sheehan who, if the right is to be believed, is worse than Hanoi Jane was at the height of her popularity.

Not to mention that the majority of Americans now believe it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place. Go figure. We've been saying it for over two years, finally the majority is starting to catch on to what we knew back then.

Not to mention that the majority of Americans now believe it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place. Go figure. We've been saying it for over two years, finally the majority is starting to catch on to what we knew back then.

The problem being that of that majority, the majority of them don't care to do anything about it. Quite unlike the 1960s.

The problem being that of that majority, the majority of them don't care to do anything about it. Quite unlike the 1960s.

That's yet to be seen, we have 2006 coming up and 2008.. maybe people will vote their opinion. Bush didn't get elected in 2004 on the war in Iraq, he got elected by the religious right, near as I can tell he hasn't done much for them as they thought he would.. maybe the times they are a changing.. ;)

Damn it people, if you're gonna support something then damn well support it. With your own self or your own dollars. But it seems obvious now that this support is little more than the flapping of gums at the problem.


Just a point, but the people donating money to Iraq are in many cases the type of people who wouldn't trust official venues to get the money to where it needs to go and so would donate to private charities.

Yes, I added that the troops like it in Iraq, especially the combat troops. And we don't have any problem recruiting new combat troops - just recruiting new troops who would be truck drivers and mechanics. Seems that being a combat troop with the ability to kill is in fashion - being a target is not.

Yes, some people may "oppose" the war when they answer a poll question. But they are not doing much else.

The Democrats have utterly failed to excite the nation on this topic - not that Bush has excited anyone except people who want to kill Arab militants.

BTW, Bush had more people vote for him in the popular vote than Clinton had vote for him in either election. If you're going to make that couch potato comment about Bush voters, just think what we can say about Clinton voters.


Jesus, are you guys EVER going to give up on Clinton?




I keep having this horrid dream that I'll be watching the election in 2028 and some Republican schmuck is going to bring up Lewinski.... as mentioned, can't you guys think up something new?


(All together now, let's all act suprised that voter turnout increased along with population in 8 years after the last Clinton campaign, and also that during a war a teeny-tiny higher majority of the country finds enough motivation to go to exercise their rights. Well blow me down with a feather! That is just firkin amazing!!!!)

Well, I don't believe that Sheehan is Hanoi Jane. I personally believe she's a grieving mother who has been emotionally abused and taken advantage of by Democratic party political hacks (they're funding and organizing every step of her life since she started at Crawford).

She would have so much more credibility to me if she wasn't hanging with the usual hacks.

As it is, her son was an adult. He, like I, made an adult decision to serve in the Army. Unfortunately, soldiers are sometimes killed, and never in a war of their choosing. That is the nature of soldiering. Something Cindy and the other protesters will never understand.

The Democratic party has been so desperate over the past few years to get any traction at all, that they will take advantage of any person they can. As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic party is doing the equivalent of child rape by taking advantage of Cindy Sheehan. I see absolutely no moral difference.

Wow an excellent rational response...that twice in one hour I have seen this I hope its a trend . :D

Nope, never heard of these Global Giving people...

Definitely did not hear about GWB asking anyone to give to them. Doubt that that ever happened.

So the question is...

Who are they?

I am beginning to think that this "news story" is an attempt to drum up interest in their website...

Iraq giving website (http://www.iraqpartnership.org/aboutus/index.html)
:confused:
im with you

i put "bush iraq rebuilding donations" into googlenews and got no mention of it.

im with you

i put "bush iraq rebuilding donations" into googlenews and got no mention of it.

Should of tried U.S. seeks donations (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/politics/12679449.htm) there are lots more.

American taxpayers are already estimated to pay $4,750 a piece over the next five years for the war effort.

Jesus, are you guys EVER going to give up on Clinton?


As soon as you give up on wailing about Bush winning two elections in a row...

I've been here for only a couple days and I've seen at least three of these threads with basically the same thing written on each one.

Yes, that happens a lot. Next week there will be a million identical threads about something else.

Yes, that happens a lot. Next week there will be a million identical threads about something else.

Eventually, someone might turn it into a sex thread...

Eventually, someone might turn it into a sex thread...

One can only hope.

An extraordinary appeal to Americans from the Bush administration for money to help pay for the reconstruction of Iraq has raised only $600 (£337), The Observer has learnt. Yet since the appeal was launched earlier this month, donations to rebuild New Orleans have attracted hundreds of millions of dollars.

The public's reluctance to contribute much more than the cost of two iPods to the administration's attempt to offer citizens 'a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq' has been seized on by critics as evidence of growing ambivalence over that country.
So does this mean that they're going to send two i-pods over to Iraq? Who'll get first use of them? Will it be done like a national lottery, or in strict alphabetical order (imagine the problems when they get to 'M'!). Also, who gets to choose what goes on them?
Maybe we could start listing songs that should be on them for the Iraqis.
I'm going to go for an obvious one:

Born in the USA by Bruce Springsteen