(no subject)

[liralen]

As far as I'm concerned the present administration hasn't done anything they promised with the occupation of Iraq. They haven't improved the situation in a real sense, they haven't brought in the infrastructure they promised, they haven't even repaired the damage they made, and U.S. solders are still dying every week in a war the administration declared 'over' when it really isn't. I'm calling them on it. And they've failed miserably so far.

This article shows, pretty clearly, how bad it has gotten in particular points of the city. This one seems to show a bigger picture of the same problem, with some of the same resignation to what's necessary that I have. I didn't want them to fight this war. That said, I do believe that the U.S. has a responsibility to bring back stability, and to that goal, I'd be in support of the troops being there. However, it's like there isn't any direction to DO that over there in a big way.

Cutting taxes is just so STUPID in the face of all the expenses of the war, the expenses of all the people that are out of work, and in the face of all the money that's needed to build things. It's just beyond comprehension.

Anyway... that's my thoughts at the moment about all this, and I gave the administration some time to prove that they really were going to do all the things that they said they were.

Comments

[agrimony.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but people who make less than $100k a year are just not in their radar, so what does it matter if they can't afford health care, or housing, or food?

Er, not that I'm bitter. :)

[liralen.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I know what you mean.

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

It's not stupid. It's carefully orchestrated. They know exactly what they're doing.

This is a concerted effort to undo virtually everything accomplished in the 20th century -- from international consensus to social, labor, and environmental protection. There is a conscious, determined organization of people redefining the United States government's sole role in the world as projecting military force without international consensus, and to remove even the possibility of social and environmental regulation by eliminating the government's revenue base.

They are doing everything they can to place an electoral lock on the Presidency and Congress, by locking up donor money and controlling the media, by making sure ownership and control of as much as possible -- media, money, property -- is in as few hands as possible.

They are taking over the world, and they are astonishingly close to their end game.

Now, if I'd said that two years ago I would have sounded like a conspiracy nut. It would have flunked the smell test. After all, who really wants our country to be more polluted? Who wants Americans to starve or sicken for lack of basic necessities? Who wants a constant state of international war? Who wants to undermine the comity of the nation, its heritage, and its affluence? Who could possibly think a one-party system is desirable?

Who, indeed.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

There's an interesting fact I saw in the news. It's thought that we need to spend about 90some billion dollars to increase our readiness against another attack like the 9/11 attacks.

That's 14some billion more than the first year of Bush's war... which, remember, we fought to make the US safer from terrorist attacks, because Hussein had stocks of biological and chemical weapons, and was close to getting a nuclear bomb... oh, right, that was all a pack of lies and misinformation, how silly of me to forget.

None of this is as astoundingly bad as the fact that the majority still approve of Bush's actions.

[ogier30.livejournal.com]

Read The Dark Valley by Piers Brendon, about the 1930s. The similarities between now and then are eerie and disturbing.