Picture of the Day - "Progress" in Iraq / Update

[mabadesc]

QUOTE

The only Goldstein I am aware of is in the novel 1984 , by George Orwell.

Oh, ok. Now I get it. I've read 1984, I just didn't make the connection because he mentioned Goldstein out of the blue. But now it makes sense. Thanks for the explanation, Florin.

QUOTE

Paul Wolschowitz should be the first to crucified in this hypothesis list.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of Paul Wolfowitz, but I don't understand why people place so much importance on him. All I know about him is that he's a deputy sec. of defense, and therefore a minor player. But many people place him as an important character, so maybe I don't know enough about his actions. Why is he so important?

[Florin]

QUOTE

... To be honest, I'm not a fan of Paul Wolfowitz, but I don't understand why people place so much importance on him.  ............ Why is he so important?

As a very young official in the last years of Mr. Ronald Reagan (whom I respected during his life, and I respect now his memory), Wolfowitz created a political theory of democratizing all Middle East by force, by exterior meanings (i.e. using armies from outside Middle East).
Then the first president Bush came into power. His hands were too filled with the Iraq and Kuwait problem to democratize the Middle East any further. :?
That administration even kept Saddam in power, for various reasons, the closest to any logic being the neighbouring Iran, perceived as even a greater danger than Saddam.
Then came the Clinton years... Which as you remember, were not bad at all for the average American folk. First of all, Wolfowitz had no place in that Democrat administration. Second, Clinton cut the funds for the Pentagon and focused his attention more over the internal problems of the U.S., than over her external problems. Since 1998, his attention was much more distracted by something else , but I have the decency to don't remind that.
When Mr. Bush Junior took over, Mr. Wolfowitz had the chance to be in the administration ranks again, and to put into practice his idea to democratize all Middle East by force, by exterior meanings. He convinced his direct superior, Mr. Donald Runsfeld, to rally with him. Mr. Dick Cheney was easy to be co-opted alongside, as the latter also had economical interests in mind (just see how much money Haliburton handled around the reconstruction of Iraq).
After September 11, 2001, under the slogan of war against terror, the group of the above mentioned 3 guys overrun the opposition of other administration members, like Collin Powell and Condoleaza Rice.
So the whole idea was to change by forceall Middle East. Maybe you remember how few days after Saddam flew Baghdad, and the war was considered over, the administration started very aggressive political speeches against Iran and Syria, blankly threatened that they will share the fate of Iraq.
But soon the occupation bogged down. As the British wisely say: "Too many fingers in too many pies." When Iraq proved to be not digested yet, Washington "forgot" about Iran and Syria.
So the theory of Mr. Wolfowitz proved to be pretty hard to be put into practice, and quite now I think he is in disgrace, if I remember right.
And what did they told us :?: Oh, yes... Biological and chemical weapons ready to be unleashed in 45 minutes. Good for Street smarts or Jay Leno Walking - All Stars Contest. :laugh:

[Chandernagore]

We have met the enemy and he's us. :mrgreen:

[Alexandru H.]

You misunderstood mabadesc. I luv Bush (he is Big Brother, after all...you have to love him).... Goldstein is a metaphor for all the non-neo-cons out there that don't understand the gentle ways of world dictatorship...

[Indrid]

AMEN!!!!!!!

[Chandernagore]

Ok, the trap has worked, we've got the names : mmm ...Indrid + Alexandru. Seditious. The specimen will be soon recycled. Glory to Oceania :laugh:

[mabadesc]

Florin wrote:

QUOTE

Then came the Clinton years... Which as you remember, were not bad at all for the average American folk.

Yes, you are correct. I admit that the Clinton years were financially prosperous for the American middle-class.

However, these years also brought about some horrible social changes, like affirmative action and vast increases in Publicaid.

In the case of affirmative action, all of a sudden minority kids could obtain lower scores on their university admission exams (ACT, SAT, GRE, GMAT, MCAT, LSAT, etc...) and be admitted to universities in the place of white kids with higher scores. It also allowed for "quota", meaning a company or a university had to hire a certain percentage of black employees even if there were non-minority people who were better qualified.

In the case of Publicaid, the addition of bonuses for each baby (without limit to the number of babies) meant that cocaine-addicted, HIV-positive welfare moms kept "pumping out" more and more children in order to receive the extra bonuses. The money, of course, was almost never used to feed and take care of the babies, but rather it was spent to feed the drug and alcohol habit of the mother.

One more thing about the economic recovery in the Clinton years: the recovery undoubtedly took place, and Clinton did a good job in maintaining it. However, let's not forget that when Clinton took office, the recovery had already started 6 months before (in the last 6 months of Bush's term). All the economists recognize this, and all the economic indexes point this way. It's just that the first few months, the recovery had not yet picked up momentum and was thus too small to be felt by the public.

In any case, thanks for the info on Wolfowitz. I didn't know he was so important.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

In the case of Publicaid, the addition of bonuses for each baby (without limit to the number of babies) meant that cocaine-addicted, HIV-positive welfare moms kept \"pumping out\" more and more children in order to receive the extra bonuses. The money, of course, was almost never used to feed and take care of the babies, but rather it was spent to feed the drug and alcohol habit of the mother.

And what about the huge majority of normal mothers ? You can always dismiss any sort of social action on the ground that some fringe population wil profit from it :|

[mabadesc]

QUOTE

And what about the huge majority of normal mothers ?

Actually, the majority you're talking about is not that huge...

The New York Post reported that in a recent survey, 19% of welfare recipients voluntarily admitted that they were regular drug users.
If one-fifth admitted to it, you can imagine the real percentage is much, much higher.
So I'm not sure who the "majority" is. Regardless, it was pretty bad.

I'm not against providing welfare support to unemployed mothers or people in general, but it has to be done in a way that encourages them to find jobs, get free education, etc..., instead of staying on welfare their entire lives.

And actually, this type of positive welfare reform has already been passed into law in 1996, when a republican-dominated congress (both House and Senate) created and voted the bill and, surprisingly, Clinton signed it into law much to the dismay of many democrats. So in this regard, I wrongly accused Clinton in my previous post.

[mabadesc]

Alexandru wrote:

QUOTE

You misunderstood mabadesc. I luv Bush (he is Big Brother, after all...you have to love him)....

Sure, Alexandru. Whatever you say.

And I'm sure Bush is very proud that he has a fan in "Bacau" (and let's not forget the fan from the great city of "Galatzi").

[Alexandru H.]

Now this is healthy sarcasm. But you know, Bacau is in the east and near Galati. In many ways, Bacau is closer to Galati than to Washington...

[mabadesc]

QUOTE

Now this is healthy sarcasm. But you know, Bacau is in the east and near Galati. In many ways, Bacau is closer to Galati than to Washington...

True and well said!

Cheers! :cheers:

[Florin]

QUOTE

................................. However, these years also brought about some horrible social changes, like affirmative action and vast increases in Publicaid. In the case of affirmative action, all of a sudden minority kids could obtain lower scores on their university admission exams (ACT, SAT, GRE, GMAT, MCAT, LSAT, etc...) and be admitted to universities in the place of white kids with higher scores.  It also allowed for \"quota\", meaning a company or a university had to hire a certain percentage of black employees even if there were non-minority people who were better qualified.

Regarding the "affirmative action", I am on your side completely.
I am wondering when the low income whites will have the guts to fight a little just to have equal rights with the ones who self proclaim themselves as minorities. Eventually, every immigrant belongs to a minority. Several years ago, as a fresh newcomer, I went to a minority job fare. There were also some Russian speakers around. Who cared about us? Of course, nobody. All that job fare was created for the Blacks, of course.
And the last fashion... Just kill your white driver, and then go ahead unpunished, as long you are a Black basketball player, as that guy Williams living in New Jersey. And I can bet on a Coca-Cola that Kobe Bryan will go away unpunished form the rape lawsuit issued by that white woman from Colorado. So what are supposed to do the Whites of America ? To flee to Canada, like Sitting Bull after defeating Custer at Little Bug Horn?

Here are some good news: in California they voted to ban the "affirmative action". And they succeeded to ban it. Unfortunately, nobody else follows the good example of California.

Now... This topic started from "the Clinton years".
Wasn't "the affirmative action" a much older creation of the American society? From the 70's? I don't think it started in the 90's, with Clinton. You came here several years before me, so I think you know better.
Any additional input from you is welcomed.

[Florin]

In the previous message, which I cannot edit due to technical reasons linked with this site, read Little Big Horn in stead of Little Bug Horn.

[Florin]

OK guys...

All of us scrambled and wrestled our intelligence to support our point of view regarding what is happening in Iraq.
Usually we entered in details and wrote a lot, just to prove to the other that the truth is on our side.

So today I am hoping for answers for a very simple question. As an American would say, a no brainer question.

In spite of terrorism and sabotages, 2.5 millions of barrels of petroleum are produced every day in Iraq. On today's markets the barrel of petroleum is around 40 dollars. This means 100 million dollars of income are obtained every day this way. This means 36.5 billions dollars per year. Not bad at all, for the needs of a nation numbering 20...25 millions.
So my dumb question is: Who takes the money? What is happening with them?