Impacts some, but not me

makes marks of fatalities during Iraq war. If you watch the simulation, dots mark on days 3+years worth, ending on May 22, 2006 -- obviously a little out of date. Intriguing here are months of greater fatalities: Spring and Fall months show greater levels. Looking at the map, one would wonder why there are faltalities in Kuwait. If this is so, it would stand to reason that these are all fatalities and some non-combatant related. I guess this is to enrage or engage those already in a mindset against the war. I'm not happy with it, nor what seems to be a slow progress, but this doesn't influence me to go on a soap box protesting the war.

I'm never given a clear understanding of how it is there, as there are no impartial news agencies. I suspect that it's difficult, but that there is progress. Most of the US troops don't speak Farsi, so I believe that there is a language barrier as well as the clear culture barrier. The war effort there is halting, with still struggles to put down those attacking police and infastructure. I can only guess that for some, the US (or unified troops) are met with mixed emtions, happy that one regime is done, but worried about imperialism -- all too common in the 20th century. I think, naturally with doubt, the question is: will things be better?

With that doubt ... you aren't sure whether to accept the change, the liberation and help put down the distractors, or should you hedge your bet and let the unified troops work and let the "insurgant" force do damage as well. It certainly won't be a fast transition. The number of fatalities, as MR will undoubtedly note, are small and lower than any other previous large-scale military commitment that has been seen before. While these are the case, the US citizens are still on the fence on the war, in that they aren't spitting on soldiers, they mostly aren't picketing the Bush residences or ranches; but aren't making any action really.

Congress approved of it, then when things went sour -- backpeddled like circus clowns trying to deny they were there, their tire tracks (signing of papers) belied their claims. The media has two camps, one for, one against, but most somewhere in the middle, hoping to get out quickly, not admitting any fault, but egear to take credit.

I find it interesting only, that sentiment can be shown in the way that while underemployment has increased, the number of recruits into the armed forces isn't off-setting the number of persons dislocated by company shifts (manufacturing -- GM, Ford; communication -- AT&T, Worldcom; Energy -- Enron). Instead of jumping into benefits of US military -- now you can recruit up to age 42, they prefer to "stay here and not get involved"*

If they want people to join the military, I think that, while the assumption of seeing combat is daunting, I think the greater worry is what do you get when you sign up for it? Do you get a nice package that can be rolled over into a 401K or no load IRA with competent advice? Will you get medical or other assistance upon completion and discharge? Do you get slush money, so when you're done, you can buy a house and do whatever you want without having to worry about them calling, saying ... uh, could you come back for another few weeks (months) ... gee, we're sorry that it's lasting longer than we said.

If you read paragraph 435, section AB2, clause 3; you'll note there was not defined money for this portion of discharge, so that no dollar figure was mentioned, there is a process time of disolution of time-equity of time served, with apportioned budgetary numbers posted threes after fiscal year, influenced by rank and time period to achieve... ergo: you ain't gettin' your money now -- don't call us, we'll call you. Thanks for playing!

* Star Wars, New Hope (supposedly said of Aniken Skywalker -- baldface lie; expected statement of Uncle Owen who might have remembered Aniken's tenative psychological breakdown -- later becoming Darth Vader)