| |
Main
Date: 07 Dec 2006 18:22:20
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Iraq vs. US
|
FYI, since this is a politics/world affairs forum, this info may be of
interest.
The annual murder rate in the United States in the last several years has
continued at a rate of about 5.6 persons per 100,000 of the population.
With a total US population approaching 300,000,000, this works out to about
16,800 Americans killed each year. So in three years AMERICANS have
killed close to 50,000 fellow Americans.
In the same last three years, about 3000 Americans have been killed in Iraq.
That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own countrymen
than are killed over there in our effort to help the Iraqis to stabilize
their country.
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 07:13:49
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Sparky wrote:
> On 9-Dec-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This reminds me of the lofty rhetoric that Vietnam hawks used to trot
> > out to justify that war: if we don't stop the communists here, they'll
> > take over all of East Asia.
>
> In case you didn't notice we didn't stop them and they did take over most
> of east asia...
>
>
> me
They took over Cambodia. That's not "most of East Asia."
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 11:49:45
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On 11 Dec 2006 07:13:49 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>> In case you didn't notice we didn't stop them and they did take over most
>> of east asia...
>>
>>
>> me
>
>
>They took over Cambodia. That's not "most of East Asia."
And Laos.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 07:12:21
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
dsc wrote:
> JJK wrote:
> > JJK wrote:
> > > > I hope you're not implying Iraq is a safer place to be. If so, why don't
> > you
> > > > sign up for a great vacation, courtesy of the US Army?
> >
> > dsc wrote:
> > > The amazing thing is nobody is jumping up and down trying to stop the
> > > killing here...
> > > Not Alec Baldwin, not The Dickie Chickies, not Streisand, not anyone
> > > in here. :)
> >
> >
> > I thought the police have interest in deterring crime.
>
> Where'd you ever get that idea? :) I don't think there are enough
> police to properly deal with gangs. They should have been nipped in the
> bud years ago. They are too far out of hand now. I also don't think
> American people will ever allow anyone to properly deal with gangs. It
> might look a lot like Iraq for a while. Yea, I think it would be a war.
My sister-in-law had her purse snatched while walking down Columbus
Ave. in NYC. She called the cops and the guy she spoke to said: "What
do you want us to do?"
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 03:23:21
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"John B." wrote:
> My sister-in-law had her purse snatched while walking down Columbus
> Ave. in NYC. She called the cops and the guy she spoke to said: "What
> do you want us to do?"
The same thing happened to my wife while she was in NYC nearly 20 years ago.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 18:50:44
From: Daisy
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:23:21 GMT, "JJK" <surpher@verizon.net > wrote:
>"John B." wrote:
>> My sister-in-law had her purse snatched while walking down Columbus
>> Ave. in NYC. She called the cops and the guy she spoke to said: "What
>> do you want us to do?"
>
>
>The same thing happened to my wife while she was in NYC nearly 20 years ago.
>
Where is the relevance to golf here?
Daisy
Carthage demands an explanation for this insolence!
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 23:45:58
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"John B." wrote:
> >> My sister-in-law had her purse snatched while walking down Columbus
> >> Ave. in NYC. She called the cops and the guy she spoke to said: "What
> >> do you want us to do?"
JJK wrote:
> >The same thing happened to my wife while she was in NYC nearly 20 years
ago.
Daisy" wrote:
> Where is the relevance to golf here?
I guess you didn't read, or were not capable of reading, either the Subject
of this
thread or the post I responded to.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 11:49:11
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On 11 Dec 2006 07:12:21 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>My sister-in-law had her purse snatched while walking down Columbus
>Ave. in NYC. She called the cops and the guy she spoke to said: "What
>do you want us to do?"
Well, at least he could have pointed her to one of the fashionable
shops where she could have bought a new handbag.
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 18:47:40
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
JJK wrote:
> JJK wrote:
> > > I hope you're not implying Iraq is a safer place to be. If so, why don't
> you
> > > sign up for a great vacation, courtesy of the US Army?
>
> dsc wrote:
> > The amazing thing is nobody is jumping up and down trying to stop the
> > killing here...
> > Not Alec Baldwin, not The Dickie Chickies, not Streisand, not anyone
> > in here. :)
>
>
> I thought the police have interest in deterring crime.
Where'd you ever get that idea? :) I don't think there are enough
police to properly deal with gangs. They should have been nipped in the
bud years ago. They are too far out of hand now. I also don't think
American people will ever allow anyone to properly deal with gangs. It
might look a lot like Iraq for a while. Yea, I think it would be a war.
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 08:38:20
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >> Head Shot wrote:
> >>> John B. wrote:
> >>>> Just for the record - both the Kurds and the Shiites uprose (is that a
> >>>> word?) against SH and suffered the consequences. A friend of mine is a
> >>>> freight airline pilot. He and his crew got an assignment to fly a 747
> >>>> to Iraq and pick up a load of Kurds who had been helpful to the CIA
> >>>> and fly them to the US to be resettled. This was before the current
> >>>> war and before 9/11. When they landed, they found out that all their
> >>>> passengers had been murdered by the regime.
> >>>
> >>> As an American citizen; it is not my responsibility or the responsibility
> >>> of my Government to protect the rights or interests of Kurds or Shiites in
> >>> Iraq. What he did to the Kurds was horrible - no doubt about that. . So
> >>> let the people in that region deal with it. Saudi Arabia was threatend by
> >>> Saddam - they should have dealt with it. If other Muslim countries were
> >>> upset with Saddam they could have banded together to deal with the
> >>> attrocities Saddam commited against the Kurds. Americans had no dog in
> >>> that race.
> >>>
> >> You need to pull your head out of your ass, wipe your eyes clean and see
> >> that we, the USA and most other developed countries in the world, do
> >> have interests and interest in the happenings in all parts of the world.
> >
> >
> > Funny how you don't name them. We have one interest in that part of the
> > world and one only: OIL.
>
> Why don't you try living without OIL for a couple of months and let me
> know how you make it.
>
> Regardless of your political leanings modern societies are heavily
> dependent upon OIL and it isn't just to fuel SUV's.
You have a great talent for chaning the subject when you can't come up
with an intelligent response to the topic at hand. I was responding to
a previous post that talked about our "interests" in the Middle East,
when the fact is we have only one interest there. If you look back at
our invovement in that part of the world over the last half-century,
you'll see that it all has had the purpose - direct or indirect - of
ensuring our access to petroleum. I don't believe the Iraq invasion was
"all about oil" as some have posited, but I know we wouldn't have
invaded if Iraq had no oil.
Never has the US govt. summoned the guts to really try to find another
way to address our energy needs. The only president to really focus on
this as a national priority was Jimmy Carter, and that only after the
Arab oil embargo. Can the richest, most powerful, most scientifically
advanced country on Earth really not come up with another way to fuel
motor vehicles? Can our government not see the value in this? What
we're doing is insane.
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 13:10:45
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
> > John B. wrote:
> >> Just for the record - both the Kurds and the Shiites uprose (is that a
> >> word?) against SH and suffered the consequences. A friend of mine is a
> >> freight airline pilot. He and his crew got an assignment to fly a 747
> >> to Iraq and pick up a load of Kurds who had been helpful to the CIA
> >> and fly them to the US to be resettled. This was before the current
> >> war and before 9/11. When they landed, they found out that all their
> >> passengers had been murdered by the regime.
> >
> >
> > As an American citizen; it is not my responsibility or the responsibility
> > of my Government to protect the rights or interests of Kurds or Shiites in
> > Iraq. What he did to the Kurds was horrible - no doubt about that. . So
> > let the people in that region deal with it. Saudi Arabia was threatend by
> > Saddam - they should have dealt with it. If other Muslim countries were
> > upset with Saddam they could have banded together to deal with the
> > attrocities Saddam commited against the Kurds. Americans had no dog in
> > that race.
> >
>
> You need to pull your head out of your ass, wipe your eyes clean and see
> that we, the USA and most other developed countries in the world, do
> have interests and interest in the happenings in all parts of the world.
Funny how you don't name them. We have one interest in that part of the
world and one only: OIL.
>
> >
> >> After the Shiite uprising following Gulf War I, SH drained and
> >> destroyed one of the largest fresh water shes on earth, in the
> >> delta of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Millions of people, all
> >> Shia, lived around that sh and made their living in it. It is now
> >> completely destroyed and most of those people are now refugees in
> >> Iran and elsewhere -- not to mention the horrendous environmental
> >> consequences of draining a fresh water sh that covered thousands
> >> of sq. miles.
> >
> > Again - Saddam was a horrible man. So people in that region should do
> > something about it. It is not America's place to have to deal with regional
> > strongmen a half a planet away. He had no WMD's and if he did they weren't
> > destined for USA. If USA was so scared of WMD's; then they should try
> > checking every container from every cargo ship while they are a few miles
> > offshore.
>
> Would you please provide me with your definition of "WMD?". Please
> provide an actual definition and not just expanding the acronym to
> "Weapons of Mass Descrution."
>
> How much are you willing to contribute towards checking shipping
> containers? This would be above and beyond what you are currently
> contributing to the government in taxes.
>
> > There is a reason the Founding Fathers made comments about not getting
> > involved in the broils of Europe. They knew that we should let those people
> > deal with their own issues and that if we got involved no good could come
> > from it. So, here we are in Iraq. My life is not better or worse due to
> > the removal of Saddam. My chickens lay the same amount of eggs, my
> > paycheck is the same, and the cost of milk and cookies is just as it was
> > when he was in power. However; 3,000 of the children of my fellow American
> > parents are dead; and we are no better for it. They died in vain - no
> > American cause was upheld and no American freedom was preserved by their
> > death.
>
> Times change.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 16:40:13
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> Head Shot wrote:
>>> John B. wrote:
>>>> Just for the record - both the Kurds and the Shiites uprose (is that a
>>>> word?) against SH and suffered the consequences. A friend of mine is a
>>>> freight airline pilot. He and his crew got an assignment to fly a 747
>>>> to Iraq and pick up a load of Kurds who had been helpful to the CIA
>>>> and fly them to the US to be resettled. This was before the current
>>>> war and before 9/11. When they landed, they found out that all their
>>>> passengers had been murdered by the regime.
>>>
>>> As an American citizen; it is not my responsibility or the responsibility
>>> of my Government to protect the rights or interests of Kurds or Shiites in
>>> Iraq. What he did to the Kurds was horrible - no doubt about that. . So
>>> let the people in that region deal with it. Saudi Arabia was threatend by
>>> Saddam - they should have dealt with it. If other Muslim countries were
>>> upset with Saddam they could have banded together to deal with the
>>> attrocities Saddam commited against the Kurds. Americans had no dog in
>>> that race.
>>>
>> You need to pull your head out of your ass, wipe your eyes clean and see
>> that we, the USA and most other developed countries in the world, do
>> have interests and interest in the happenings in all parts of the world.
>
>
> Funny how you don't name them. We have one interest in that part of the
> world and one only: OIL.
Why don't you try living without OIL for a couple of months and let me
know how you make it.
Regardless of your political leanings modern societies are heavily
dependent upon OIL and it isn't just to fuel SUV's.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 00:56:18
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 16:40:13 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>> Funny how you don't name them. We have one interest in that part of the
>> world and one only: OIL.
>
> Why don't you try living without OIL for a couple of months and let me
> know how you make it.
>
> Regardless of your political leanings modern societies are heavily
> dependent upon OIL and it isn't just to fuel SUV's.
So you're conceding that the war had nothing whatsoever to do with WMD,
"democracy," Saddam was a bad bad man, and all the rest of it. Good for
you. Nice to see someone on the right who isn't a total Bush dittohead.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 01:12:47
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Hillary's too vane to be president
|
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 08:09:00 -0600, Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 00:03:07 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>>Carbon wrote:
>>> I (normally) never start these threads, but I thought the following
>>> editorial was interesting: http://tinyurl.com/vozc3
>>
>>Nah - just some twit in the "letters to the editor" page. All
>>Democrats and Republicans are vain; and quite frankly both parties
>>offer the same thing - increased spending, bigger government, more
>>taxes.
>>
> You need to read the item. They didn't misspell vane. They called her
> the "quintessential political weather vane".
And also I think a commentary on her caginess, where she--for
example--supports the war even though she (most likely) believed it was a
mistake, because of Bush's strong support at the time. Perhaps it was the
st thing to do at the time. And maybe if she had called bullshit she
would have lost the next election. Maybe.
And maybe she's too tainted to be President.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 19:06:19
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Why don't you try living without OIL for a couple of months and let me
> know how you make it.
Iraq is not the only place that sells oil; you idiot. Russia for example
exports oil. And we have oil right here in the USA. Take a drive out of
your trailer park and keep going until you hit Wyoming. If you cannot
afford a map; perhaps someone in your trailer park already has one. It has
a little Shell logo in the corner and says "USA Map" on it.
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 13:08:10
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Head Shot wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Just for the record - both the Kurds and the Shiites uprose (is that a
> > word?) against SH and suffered the consequences. A friend of mine is a
> > freight airline pilot. He and his crew got an assignment to fly a 747
> > to Iraq and pick up a load of Kurds who had been helpful to the CIA
> > and fly them to the US to be resettled. This was before the current
> > war and before 9/11. When they landed, they found out that all their
> > passengers had been murdered by the regime.
>
>
> As an American citizen; it is not my responsibility or the responsibility
> of my Government to protect the rights or interests of Kurds or Shiites in
> Iraq. What he did to the Kurds was horrible - no doubt about that. . So
> let the people in that region deal with it. Saudi Arabia was threatend by
> Saddam - they should have dealt with it. If other Muslim countries were
> upset with Saddam they could have banded together to deal with the
> attrocities Saddam commited against the Kurds. Americans had no dog in
> that race.
>
>
>
> > After the Shiite uprising following Gulf War I, SH drained and
> > destroyed one of the largest fresh water shes on earth, in the
> > delta of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Millions of people, all
> > Shia, lived around that sh and made their living in it. It is now
> > completely destroyed and most of those people are now refugees in
> > Iran and elsewhere -- not to mention the horrendous environmental
> > consequences of draining a fresh water sh that covered thousands
> > of sq. miles.
>
> Again - Saddam was a horrible man. So people in that region should do
> something about it. It is not America's place to have to deal with regional
> strongmen a half a planet away. He had no WMD's and if he did they weren't
> destined for USA. If USA was so scared of WMD's; then they should try
> checking every container from every cargo ship while they are a few miles
> offshore.
>
> There is a reason the Founding Fathers made comments about not getting
> involved in the broils of Europe. They knew that we should let those people
> deal with their own issues and that if we got involved no good could come
> from it. So, here we are in Iraq. My life is not better or worse due to
> the removal of Saddam. My chickens lay the same amount of eggs, my
> paycheck is the same, and the cost of milk and cookies is just as it was
> when he was in power. However; 3,000 of the children of my fellow American
> parents are dead; and we are no better for it. They died in vain - no
> American cause was upheld and no American freedom was preserved by their
> death.
I don't disagree with any of this. I wasn't trying to suggest that the
US invasion was justified, only to point out that his citizens had
tried and failed to get rid of SH.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 19:04:01
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
John B. wrote:
> I don't disagree with any of this. I wasn't trying to suggest that the
> US invasion was justified, only to point out that his citizens had
> tried and failed to get rid of SH.
I know that John. I am saying that the things he did most not have been
viewed as that horrific by his troops, the local citizens, and the
countries that surround him that were also Islamic. They all watched and
let it happen. And if it's not important to those people; why should it be
important to Americans half a globe away? America is not the police force
for the planet. We do not need to be all over the globe righting the
world's wrongs.
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 12:59:16
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
George Hibbard wrote:
> > In the last 3 years Iraq people have killed 650,000 Iraq people
> > You said you care about human life.
> > You don't care about Iraq people?
> > Or is 650,000 not important?
>
> 1) You believe those numbers?
I have no idea what the actual number is, but I'd bet green money that
it's much higher than what our government is reporting. I can't see
what the folks at Johns Hopkins would have to gain by inflating the
count. I CAN see why our government would want to keep the reported
numbers artificially low, however. Color me cynical.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 00:22:09
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On 9-Dec-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> I have no idea what the actual number is, but I'd bet green money that
> it's much higher than what our government is reporting
It must be cause our government isn't reporting.
“We don’t do body counts”
General Tommy Franks, US Central Command
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 09:44:46
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Head Shot wrote:
> George Hibbard wrote:
> > Saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction.
>
> Saddam was horrible. The people in Iraq should have risen up against him
> and stopped him. Be it his army or a civilian population. USA always seems
> to think that when a ruler crosses the line and becomes a threat to his own
> people; that USA troops should be the ones to take over for the locals and
> right the wrongs of the planet. If Saddam's actions against the Kurds
> were not important enough to 500,000 armed Iraqi troops and 28,000,000 Iraqi
> citizens; then it shouldn't have been important enough for 4,000 American
> troops to die half a planet away.
Just for the record - both the Kurds and the Shiites uprose (is that a
word?) against SH and suffered the consequences. A friend of mine is a
freight airline pilot. He and his crew got an assignment to fly a 747
to Iraq and pick up a load of Kurds who had been helpful to the CIA and
fly them to the US to be resettled. This was before the current war and
before 9/11. When they landed, they found out that all their passengers
had been murdered by the regime.
After the Shiite uprising following Gulf War I, SH drained and
destroyed one of the largest fresh water shes on earth, in the delta
of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Millions of people, all Shia, lived
around that sh and made their living in it. It is now completely
destroyed and most of those people are now refugees in Iran and
elsewhere -- not to mention the horrendous environmental consequences
of draining a fresh water sh that covered thousands of sq. miles.
>
>
>
> "Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and
> harmony with all... The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual
> hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to
> its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it
> astray from its duty and its interest ... Tis our true policy to steer clear
> of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world." - George
> Washington, Farewell Address, 17 Sept. 1796 .
>
> "America... well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her
> own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve
> herself beyond the power of extraction, in all the wars of interest and
> intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors
> and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy
> would insensibly change from liberty to force... She might become dictatress
> of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit." - John
> Quincy Adams; Address, 4 July 1821
>
> "I hope we may still keep clear of [the broils of Europe],... and that time
> may be given us to... find some means of shielding ourselves in future from
> foreign influence, political, commercial, or in whatever other form it may
> be attempted. I can scarcely withhold myself from joining in the wish of
> Silas Deane that there were an ocean of fire between us and the old
> world." --Thomas Jefferson, 1797.
>
> "Do what is right, leaving the people of Europe to act their follies and
> crimes among themselves, while we pursue in good faith the paths of peace
> and prosperity." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823.
>
> "I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none,
> and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking
> ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field
> of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of
> Kings to war against the principles of liberty."
> --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.
>
> "I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take
> active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are
> entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of
> power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of
> government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All
> their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and
> lives of their people." --Thomas Jefferson to James
> Monroe, 1823.
>
> "I sincerely join... in abjuring all political connection with every
> foreign power; and though I cordially wish well to the progress of liberty
> in all nations, and would forever give it the weight of our countenance,
> yet they are not to be touched without contamination from their other bad
> principles. Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our
> motto." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Lomax, 1799.
>
> "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling
> alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our
> government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its
> administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.
>
> "We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with
> the general affairs of Europe. Peace with all nations, and the right which
> that gives us with respect to all nations, are our object." --Thomas
> Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1793.
>
> "I wish that all nations may recover and retain their independence; that
> those which are overgrown may not advance beyond safe measures of power;
> that a salutary balance may be ever maintained among nations; and that our
> peace, commerce and friendship may be sought and cultivated by
> all." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Leiper, 1815.
>
> "I see... not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power
> except as to making peace" --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796.
>
> "We wish to let every treaty we have drop off without renewal... The
> interest which European nations feel as well as ourselves in the mutual
> patronage of commercial intercourse is a sufficient stimulus on both sides
> to ensure that patronage. A treaty contrary to that interest renders war
> necessary to get rid of it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1801.
>
> "Nothing is so important as that America shall separate herself from the
> systems of Europe, and establish one of her own. Our circumstances, our
> pursuits, our interests, are distinct. The principles of our policy should
> be so also. All entanglements with that quarter of the globe should be
> avoided if we mean that peace and
> justice shall be the polar stars of the American societies." --Thomas
> Jefferson to J. Correa de Serra, 1820.
>
> "It ought to be the very first object of our pursuits to have nothing to do
> with the European interests and politics. Let them be free or slaves at
> will, navigators or agriculturists, swallowed into one government or
> divided into a thousand, we have nothing to fear from them in any
> orm." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1801.
>
> "Our nation has wisely avoided entangling itself in the system of European
> interests, has taken no side between its rival powers, attached itself to
> none of its ever-changing confederacies." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore
> Baptists, 1808.
>
> "The fundamental principle of our government [is] never to entangle us with
> the broils of Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823.
>
> "Our first and fundamental maxim should be never to entangle ourselves in
> the broils of Europe. Our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle
> with
> cross-Atlantic affairs. America, North and South, has a set of interests
> distinct from those of Europe and peculiarly her own. She should therefore
> have a system of her own, separate and apart from that of Europe. While the
> last is laboring to become the domicile of despotism, our endeavor should
> surely be to make our hemisphere that of freedom." --Thomas Jefferson to
> James Monroe, 1823.
>
> "Exhortations to avoid taking part in the war... raging in Europe... were
> a confirmation of the policy I had myself pursued, and which I thought and
> still think should be the governing canon of our republic." --Thomas
> Jefferson to Mme de Stael-Holstein, 1815.
>
> "I hope we may still keep clear of [the broils of Europe],... and that time
> may be given us to... find some means of shielding ourselves in future from
> foreign influence, political, commercial, or in whatever other form it may
> be attempted. I can scarcely withhold myself from joining in the wish of
> Silas Deane that there were an ocean of fire between us and the old
> world." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1797.
>
> "[Our] object [in this hemisphere] is to introduce and establish the
> American system, of keeping out of our land all foreign powers, of never
> permitting those of Europe to intermeddle with the affairs of our
> nations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823.
>
> "We begin to broach the idea that we consider the whole Gulf Stream as of
> our waters, in which hostilities and cruising are to be frowned on for the
> present, and prohibited so soon as either consent or force will permit us.
> We shall never permit another privateer to cruise within it, and shall
> forbid our harbors to national cruisers. This is essential for our
> tranquillity and commerce." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1806.
>
> "When our strength will permit us to give the law of our hemisphere, it
> should be that the meridian of the mid-Atlantic should be the line of
> dekation between war and peace, on this side of which no act of hostility
> should be committed, and the lion and the lamb lie down in peace
> together." --Thomas Jefferson to John Crawford, 1812.
>
> "We aim not at the acquisition of any of [Europe's American]
> possessions,... we will not stand in the way of any amicable arrangement
> between them
> and the Mother country; but... we will oppose, with all our means, the
> forcible interposition of any other power, as auxiliary, stipendiary, or
> under any other form or pretext, and most especially, their transfer to any
> power by conquest, cession, or acquisition in any other way." --Thomas
> Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823.
>
> "Our attachment to no nation on earth should supplant our attachment to
> liberty." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration on Taking Up Arms, 1775.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 18:07:24
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165686286.248397.58490@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Head Shot wrote:
>> George Hibbard wrote:
>> > Saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction.
>>
>> Saddam was horrible. The people in Iraq should have risen up against
>> him
>> and stopped him. Be it his army or a civilian population. USA always
>> seems
>> to think that when a ruler crosses the line and becomes a threat to his
>> own
>> people; that USA troops should be the ones to take over for the locals
>> and
>> right the wrongs of the planet. If Saddam's actions against the Kurds
>> were not important enough to 500,000 armed Iraqi troops and 28,000,000
>> Iraqi
>> citizens; then it shouldn't have been important enough for 4,000
>> American
>> troops to die half a planet away.
>
> Just for the record - both the Kurds and the Shiites uprose (is that a
> word?) against SH and suffered the consequences. A friend of mine is a
> freight airline pilot. He and his crew got an assignment to fly a 747
> to Iraq and pick up a load of Kurds who had been helpful to the CIA and
> fly them to the US to be resettled. This was before the current war and
> before 9/11. When they landed, they found out that all their passengers
> had been murdered by the regime.
>
> After the Shiite uprising following Gulf War I, SH drained and
> destroyed one of the largest fresh water shes on earth, in the delta
> of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Millions of people, all Shia, lived
> around that sh and made their living in it. It is now completely
> destroyed and most of those people are now refugees in Iran and
> elsewhere -- not to mention the horrendous environmental consequences
> of draining a fresh water sh that covered thousands of sq. miles.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and
>> harmony with all... The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual
>> hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave
>> to
>> its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead
>> it
>> astray from its duty and its interest ... Tis our true policy to steer
>> clear
>> of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world." - George
>> Washington, Farewell Address, 17 Sept. 1796 .
>>
>> "America... well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than
>> her
>> own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would
>> involve
>> herself beyond the power of extraction, in all the wars of interest and
>> intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the
>> colors
>> and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy
>> would insensibly change from liberty to force... She might become
>> dictatress
>> of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit." -
>> John
>> Quincy Adams; Address, 4 July 1821
>>
>> "I hope we may still keep clear of [the broils of Europe],... and that
>> time
>> may be given us to... find some means of shielding ourselves in future
>> from
>> foreign influence, political, commercial, or in whatever other form it
>> may
>> be attempted. I can scarcely withhold myself from joining in the wish of
>> Silas Deane that there were an ocean of fire between us and the old
>> world." --Thomas Jefferson, 1797.
>>
>> "Do what is right, leaving the people of Europe to act their follies and
>> crimes among themselves, while we pursue in good faith the paths of
>> peace
>> and prosperity." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823.
>>
>> "I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none,
>> and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking
>> ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that
>> field
>> of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of
>> Kings to war against the principles of liberty."
>> --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.
>>
>> "I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take
>> active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are
>> entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of
>> power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of
>> government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All
>> their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and
>> lives of their people." --Thomas Jefferson to James
>> Monroe, 1823.
>>
>> "I sincerely join... in abjuring all political connection with every
>> foreign power; and though I cordially wish well to the progress of
>> liberty
>> in all nations, and would forever give it the weight of our countenance,
>> yet they are not to be touched without contamination from their other bad
>> principles. Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our
>> motto." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Lomax, 1799.
>>
>> "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling
>> alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our
>> government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its
>> administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.
>>
>> "We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor
>> with
>> the general affairs of Europe. Peace with all nations, and the right
>> which
>> that gives us with respect to all nations, are our object." --Thomas
>> Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1793.
>>
>> "I wish that all nations may recover and retain their independence; that
>> those which are overgrown may not advance beyond safe measures of power;
>> that a salutary balance may be ever maintained among nations; and that
>> our
>> peace, commerce and friendship may be sought and cultivated by
>> all." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Leiper, 1815.
>>
>> "I see... not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power
>> except as to making peace" --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796.
>>
>> "We wish to let every treaty we have drop off without renewal... The
>> interest which European nations feel as well as ourselves in the mutual
>> patronage of commercial intercourse is a sufficient stimulus on both
>> sides
>> to ensure that patronage. A treaty contrary to that interest renders war
>> necessary to get rid of it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1801.
>>
>> "Nothing is so important as that America shall separate herself from the
>> systems of Europe, and establish one of her own. Our circumstances, our
>> pursuits, our interests, are distinct. The principles of our policy
>> should
>> be so also. All entanglements with that quarter of the globe should be
>> avoided if we mean that peace and
>> justice shall be the polar stars of the American societies." --Thomas
>> Jefferson to J. Correa de Serra, 1820.
>>
>> "It ought to be the very first object of our pursuits to have nothing to
>> do
>> with the European interests and politics. Let them be free or slaves at
>> will, navigators or agriculturists, swallowed into one government or
>> divided into a thousand, we have nothing to fear from them in any
>> orm." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1801.
>>
>> "Our nation has wisely avoided entangling itself in the system of
>> European
>> interests, has taken no side between its rival powers, attached itself
>> to
>> none of its ever-changing confederacies." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore
>> Baptists, 1808.
>>
>> "The fundamental principle of our government [is] never to entangle us
>> with
>> the broils of Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823.
>>
>> "Our first and fundamental maxim should be never to entangle ourselves
>> in
>> the broils of Europe. Our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle
>> with
>> cross-Atlantic affairs. America, North and South, has a set of interests
>> distinct from those of Europe and peculiarly her own. She should
>> therefore
>> have a system of her own, separate and apart from that of Europe. While
>> the
>> last is laboring to become the domicile of despotism, our endeavor
>> should
>> surely be to make our hemisphere that of freedom." --Thomas Jefferson
>> to
>> James Monroe, 1823.
>>
>> "Exhortations to avoid taking part in the war... raging in Europe...
>> were
>> a confirmation of the policy I had myself pursued, and which I thought
>> and
>> still think should be the governing canon of our republic." --Thomas
>> Jefferson to Mme de Stael-Holstein, 1815.
>>
>> "I hope we may still keep clear of [the broils of Europe],... and that
>> time
>> may be given us to... find some means of shielding ourselves in future
>> from
>> foreign influence, political, commercial, or in whatever other form it
>> may
>> be attempted. I can scarcely withhold myself from joining in the wish of
>> Silas Deane that there were an ocean of fire between us and the old
>> world." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1797.
>>
>> "[Our] object [in this hemisphere] is to introduce and establish the
>> American system, of keeping out of our land all foreign powers, of never
>> permitting those of Europe to intermeddle with the affairs of our
>> nations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823.
>>
>> "We begin to broach the idea that we consider the whole Gulf Stream as
>> of
>> our waters, in which hostilities and cruising are to be frowned on for
>> the
>> present, and prohibited so soon as either consent or force will permit
>> us.
>> We shall never permit another privateer to cruise within it, and shall
>> forbid our harbors to national cruisers. This is essential for our
>> tranquillity and commerce." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1806.
>>
>> "When our strength will permit us to give the law of our hemisphere, it
>> should be that the meridian of the mid-Atlantic should be the line of
>> dekation between war and peace, on this side of which no act of
>> hostility
>> should be committed, and the lion and the lamb lie down in peace
>> together." --Thomas Jefferson to John Crawford, 1812.
>>
>> "We aim not at the acquisition of any of [Europe's American]
>> possessions,... we will not stand in the way of any amicable arrangement
>> between them
>> and the Mother country; but... we will oppose, with all our means, the
>> forcible interposition of any other power, as auxiliary, stipendiary, or
>> under any other form or pretext, and most especially, their transfer to
>> any
>> power by conquest, cession, or acquisition in any other way." --Thomas
>> Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823.
>>
>> "Our attachment to no nation on earth should supplant our attachment to
>> liberty." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration on Taking Up Arms, 1775.
The US is no longer a gated community safe from foreign invasion by ICBMs,
illegal immigrant terrorists.... New situation. Iraq is a proxy, no? Is
there any threat in No. Korea? Iran?
Is it easier to get here now than in the sailing ships of two hundred years
ago? Did 9/11 happen?
Like I said, if you have the anwers, please email the Pentagon and the White
House.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 17:51:36
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote in message
news:KkHeh.300$U6.279@bigfe9...
> The US is no longer a gated community safe from foreign invasion by ICBMs,
> illegal immigrant terrorists.... New situation. Iraq is a proxy, no? Is
> there any threat in No. Korea? Iran?
When was it ever?
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 19:10:30
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
George Hibbard wrote:
> Is it easier to get here now than in the sailing ships of two hundred
> years ago? Did 9/11 happen?
9-11-01 was a group of fanatics funded by OBL. If we had tigher security
and didn't let every terrorist and his cousin in the country it never would
have happened. Notice there have been no more plane attacks since 9-11-01.
If USA uses her resources for things like protecting her citizens instead of
for pork barrel spending and illegal welfare payments; I think we might
have seen the last of the 9-11-01 type terrorist attacks. And truly; if
we were not sticking our noses in the business of countries half way across
the globe; does 9-11-01 even happen?
"Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and
harmony with all... The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual
hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to
its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it
astray from its duty and its interest ... Tis our true policy to steer clear
of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world." - George
Washington, Farewell Address, 17 Sept. 1796 .
"America... well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her
own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve
herself beyond the power of extraction, in all the wars of interest and
intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors
and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy
would insensibly change from liberty to force... She might become dictatress
of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit." - John
Quincy Adams; Address, 4 July 1821
"I hope we may still keep clear of [the broils of Europe],... and that time
may be given us to... find some means of shielding ourselves in future from
foreign influence, political, commercial, or in whatever other form it may
be attempted. I can scarcely withhold myself from joining in the wish of
Silas Deane that there were an ocean of fire between us and the old
world." --Thomas Jefferson, 1797.
"Do what is right, leaving the people of Europe to act their follies and
crimes among themselves, while we pursue in good faith the paths of peace
and prosperity." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none,
and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking
ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field
of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of
Kings to war against the principles of liberty."
--Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.
"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take
active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are
entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of
power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of
government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All
their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and
lives of their people." --Thomas Jefferson to James
Monroe, 1823.
"I sincerely join... in abjuring all political connection with every
foreign power; and though I cordially wish well to the progress of liberty
in all nations, and would forever give it the weight of our countenance,
yet they are not to be touched without contamination from their other bad
principles. Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our
motto." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Lomax, 1799.
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling
alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our
government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its
administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.
"We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with
the general affairs of Europe. Peace with all nations, and the right which
that gives us with respect to all nations, are our object." --Thomas
Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1793.
"I wish that all nations may recover and retain their independence; that
those which are overgrown may not advance beyond safe measures of power;
that a salutary balance may be ever maintained among nations; and that our
peace, commerce and friendship may be sought and cultivated by
all." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Leiper, 1815.
"I see... not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power
except as to making peace" --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796.
"We wish to let every treaty we have drop off without renewal... The
interest which European nations feel as well as ourselves in the mutual
patronage of commercial intercourse is a sufficient stimulus on both sides
to ensure that patronage. A treaty contrary to that interest renders war
necessary to get rid of it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1801.
"Nothing is so important as that America shall separate herself from the
systems of Europe, and establish one of her own. Our circumstances, our
pursuits, our interests, are distinct. The principles of our policy should
be so also. All entanglements with that quarter of the globe should be
avoided if we mean that peace and
justice shall be the polar stars of the American societies." --Thomas
Jefferson to J. Correa de Serra, 1820.
"It ought to be the very first object of our pursuits to have nothing to do
with the European interests and politics. Let them be free or slaves at
will, navigators or agriculturists, swallowed into one government or
divided into a thousand, we have nothing to fear from them in any
orm." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1801.
"Our nation has wisely avoided entangling itself in the system of European
interests, has taken no side between its rival powers, attached itself to
none of its ever-changing confederacies." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore
Baptists, 1808.
"The fundamental principle of our government [is] never to entangle us with
the broils of Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823.
"Our first and fundamental maxim should be never to entangle ourselves in
the broils of Europe. Our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle
with
cross-Atlantic affairs. America, North and South, has a set of interests
distinct from those of Europe and peculiarly her own. She should therefore
have a system of her own, separate and apart from that of Europe. While the
last is laboring to become the domicile of despotism, our endeavor should
surely be to make our hemisphere that of freedom." --Thomas Jefferson to
James Monroe, 1823.
"Exhortations to avoid taking part in the war... raging in Europe... were
a confirmation of the policy I had myself pursued, and which I thought and
still think should be the governing canon of our republic." --Thomas
Jefferson to Mme de Stael-Holstein, 1815.
"I hope we may still keep clear of [the broils of Europe],... and that time
may be given us to... find some means of shielding ourselves in future from
foreign influence, political, commercial, or in whatever other form it may
be attempted. I can scarcely withhold myself from joining in the wish of
Silas Deane that there were an ocean of fire between us and the old
world." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1797.
"[Our] object [in this hemisphere] is to introduce and establish the
American system, of keeping out of our land all foreign powers, of never
permitting those of Europe to intermeddle with the affairs of our
nations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823.
"We begin to broach the idea that we consider the whole Gulf Stream as of
our waters, in which hostilities and cruising are to be frowned on for the
present, and prohibited so soon as either consent or force will permit us.
We shall never permit another privateer to cruise within it, and shall
forbid our harbors to national cruisers. This is essential for our
tranquillity and commerce." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1806.
"When our strength will permit us to give the law of our hemisphere, it
should be that the meridian of the mid-Atlantic should be the line of
dekation between war and peace, on this side of which no act of hostility
should be committed, and the lion and the lamb lie down in peace
together." --Thomas Jefferson to John Crawford, 1812.
"We aim not at the acquisition of any of [Europe's American]
possessions,... we will not stand in the way of any amicable arrangement
between them
and the Mother country; but... we will oppose, with all our means, the
forcible interposition of any other power, as auxiliary, stipendiary, or
under any other form or pretext, and most especially, their transfer to any
power by conquest, cession, or acquisition in any other way." --Thomas
Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823.
"Our attachment to no nation on earth should supplant our attachment to
liberty." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration on Taking Up Arms, 1775.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 14:08:04
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
John B. wrote:
> Just for the record - both the Kurds and the Shiites uprose (is that a
> word?) against SH and suffered the consequences. A friend of mine is a
> freight airline pilot. He and his crew got an assignment to fly a 747
> to Iraq and pick up a load of Kurds who had been helpful to the CIA
> and fly them to the US to be resettled. This was before the current
> war and before 9/11. When they landed, they found out that all their
> passengers had been murdered by the regime.
As an American citizen; it is not my responsibility or the responsibility
of my Government to protect the rights or interests of Kurds or Shiites in
Iraq. What he did to the Kurds was horrible - no doubt about that. . So
let the people in that region deal with it. Saudi Arabia was threatend by
Saddam - they should have dealt with it. If other Muslim countries were
upset with Saddam they could have banded together to deal with the
attrocities Saddam commited against the Kurds. Americans had no dog in
that race.
> After the Shiite uprising following Gulf War I, SH drained and
> destroyed one of the largest fresh water shes on earth, in the
> delta of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Millions of people, all
> Shia, lived around that sh and made their living in it. It is now
> completely destroyed and most of those people are now refugees in
> Iran and elsewhere -- not to mention the horrendous environmental
> consequences of draining a fresh water sh that covered thousands
> of sq. miles.
Again - Saddam was a horrible man. So people in that region should do
something about it. It is not America's place to have to deal with regional
strongmen a half a planet away. He had no WMD's and if he did they weren't
destined for USA. If USA was so scared of WMD's; then they should try
checking every container from every cargo ship while they are a few miles
offshore.
There is a reason the Founding Fathers made comments about not getting
involved in the broils of Europe. They knew that we should let those people
deal with their own issues and that if we got involved no good could come
from it. So, here we are in Iraq. My life is not better or worse due to
the removal of Saddam. My chickens lay the same amount of eggs, my
paycheck is the same, and the cost of milk and cookies is just as it was
when he was in power. However; 3,000 of the children of my fellow American
parents are dead; and we are no better for it. They died in vain - no
American cause was upheld and no American freedom was preserved by their
death.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 15:17:22
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Head Shot wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>> Just for the record - both the Kurds and the Shiites uprose (is that a
>> word?) against SH and suffered the consequences. A friend of mine is a
>> freight airline pilot. He and his crew got an assignment to fly a 747
>> to Iraq and pick up a load of Kurds who had been helpful to the CIA
>> and fly them to the US to be resettled. This was before the current
>> war and before 9/11. When they landed, they found out that all their
>> passengers had been murdered by the regime.
>
>
> As an American citizen; it is not my responsibility or the responsibility
> of my Government to protect the rights or interests of Kurds or Shiites in
> Iraq. What he did to the Kurds was horrible - no doubt about that. . So
> let the people in that region deal with it. Saudi Arabia was threatend by
> Saddam - they should have dealt with it. If other Muslim countries were
> upset with Saddam they could have banded together to deal with the
> attrocities Saddam commited against the Kurds. Americans had no dog in
> that race.
>
You need to pull your head out of your ass, wipe your eyes clean and see
that we, the USA and most other developed countries in the world, do
have interests and interest in the happenings in all parts of the world.
>
>> After the Shiite uprising following Gulf War I, SH drained and
>> destroyed one of the largest fresh water shes on earth, in the
>> delta of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Millions of people, all
>> Shia, lived around that sh and made their living in it. It is now
>> completely destroyed and most of those people are now refugees in
>> Iran and elsewhere -- not to mention the horrendous environmental
>> consequences of draining a fresh water sh that covered thousands
>> of sq. miles.
>
> Again - Saddam was a horrible man. So people in that region should do
> something about it. It is not America's place to have to deal with regional
> strongmen a half a planet away. He had no WMD's and if he did they weren't
> destined for USA. If USA was so scared of WMD's; then they should try
> checking every container from every cargo ship while they are a few miles
> offshore.
Would you please provide me with your definition of "WMD?". Please
provide an actual definition and not just expanding the acronym to
"Weapons of Mass Descrution."
How much are you willing to contribute towards checking shipping
containers? This would be above and beyond what you are currently
contributing to the government in taxes.
> There is a reason the Founding Fathers made comments about not getting
> involved in the broils of Europe. They knew that we should let those people
> deal with their own issues and that if we got involved no good could come
> from it. So, here we are in Iraq. My life is not better or worse due to
> the removal of Saddam. My chickens lay the same amount of eggs, my
> paycheck is the same, and the cost of milk and cookies is just as it was
> when he was in power. However; 3,000 of the children of my fellow American
> parents are dead; and we are no better for it. They died in vain - no
> American cause was upheld and no American freedom was preserved by their
> death.
Times change.
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 19:02:05
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> As an American citizen; it is not my responsibility or the
>> responsibility of my Government to protect the rights or interests
>> of Kurds or Shiites in Iraq. What he did to the Kurds was
>> horrible - no doubt about that. . So let the people in that region
>> deal with it. Saudi Arabia was threatend by Saddam - they should
>> have dealt with it. If other Muslim countries were upset with Saddam
>> they could have banded together to deal with the attrocities Saddam
>> commited against the Kurds. Americans had no dog in that race.
>>
>
> You need to pull your head out of your ass, wipe your eyes clean and
> see that we
Go fuck yourself, twit. Just because you cannot read the USC doesn't mean
that the world should operate as if it doesn't exist.
> , the USA and most other developed countries in the world,
> do have interests and interest in the happenings in all parts of the
> world.
There is a profound difference between being interested in world events and
going to war; you toothless moron.
> How much are you willing to contribute towards checking shipping
> containers? This would be above and beyond what you are currently
> contributing to the government in taxes.
That is up to the legislative branch, dipshit. If they are worried about
WMD's; they can cut the pork barrel spending and feeding/housing illegal
aliens and use that money to check containers.
> Times change.
Change your underwear; moron.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 00:53:52
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>
>>Head Shot wrote:
>>
>>>As an American citizen; it is not my responsibility or the
>>>responsibility of my Government to protect the rights or interests
>>>of Kurds or Shiites in Iraq. What he did to the Kurds was
>>>horrible - no doubt about that. . So let the people in that region
>>>deal with it. Saudi Arabia was threatend by Saddam - they should
>>>have dealt with it. If other Muslim countries were upset with Saddam
>>>they could have banded together to deal with the attrocities Saddam
>>>commited against the Kurds. Americans had no dog in that race.
>>>
>>
>>You need to pull your head out of your ass, wipe your eyes clean and
>>see that we
>
>
> Go fuck yourself, twit. Just because you cannot read the USC doesn't mean
> that the world should operate as if it doesn't exist.
>
>
>>, the USA and most other developed countries in the world,
>>do have interests and interest in the happenings in all parts of the
>>world.
>
>
>
> There is a profound difference between being interested in world events and
> going to war; you toothless moron.
>
>
>
>>How much are you willing to contribute towards checking shipping
>>containers? This would be above and beyond what you are currently
>>contributing to the government in taxes.
>
>
> That is up to the legislative branch, dipshit. If they are worried about
> WMD's; they can cut the pork barrel spending and feeding/housing illegal
> aliens and use that money to check containers.
>
>
>
>>Times change.
>
>
> Change your underwear; moron.
>
Yep!
The true trailer park Pink Mist Guy comes out.
Brilliant rhetoric and a compelling rebuttal.
If we extend your isolationist thinking then we should stop funding
Israel. You might want to check with your family on that.
Joe
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 06:25:48
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
George Hibbard wrote:
> "George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote in message
> news:xSweh.3411$hD6.2039@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com> wrote in message
> > news:457a2d68$0$91106$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> >>
> >> "George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Km1eh.1278$BL4.1248@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> >>> So in three years AMERICANS have killed close to 50,000 fellow
> >>> Americans.
> >>>
> >>> In the same last three years, about 3000 Americans have been killed in
> >>> Iraq.
> >>
> >> In the last 3 years Iraq people have killed 650,000 Iraq people
> >> You said you care about human life.
> >> You don't care about Iraq people?
> >> Or is 650,000 not important?
>
>
>
> Saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction. 300,000 civilians, was it?
> Brad - or whoever: the VERY DAY that we entered that arena I happened to
> read in the book of Exodus a series of warnings: they all started with "woe
> to you if...." and there were some pretty serious no-nos listed.
>
> One of them read: "Woe to you if you find your neighbor's life in danger and
> you fail to come to his assistance." I was deeply struck by that, as I do
> consider myself a neighbor to the innocents in Iraq, Darfur, Israel, Harlem,
> Somalia, Watts, China, and ..... and I served voluntarily in Korea to
> assist our neighbors there. You may remember WE were not attacked in So.
> Korea...
>
> Nowadays we have a much thornier problem: those who oppose peace now do not
> stand on THAT side of the fence wearing Red uniforms and identifying
> themselves [you guys stand there and we'll stand here and let's shoot at
> each other]: they move among us, they hide in churches and streets and
> buildings next to us, they hide their weapons in schools, they use ICBMs,
> and they kill for the sake of killing.
>
> If you have the answer, please tell the president and the pentagon. Of if
> you think: it will go away if WE go away, well, ..... What's the saying
> about freedom isn't free? The human lives given in one generation provide
> the privileges of freedom for the next one - or something similar.
This reminds me of the lofty rhetoric that Vietnam hawks used to trot
out to justify that war: if we don't stop the communists here, they'll
take over all of East Asia. Today it's: if we don't win in Iraq, the
terrorists will overrun the US. they were wrong then and they're wrong
now. Why on earth would "winning" in Iraq compel jihadists all
throughout the Muslim world to give up their designs on killing
Americans and other infidels? This argument is so lame that people
should be embarrassed to make it.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 13:27:17
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On 9 Dec 2006 06:25:48 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>This reminds me of the lofty rhetoric that Vietnam hawks used to trot
>out to justify that war: if we don't stop the communists here, they'll
>take over all of East Asia.
Actually, after Vietnam fell to the communists so did Laos and
Cambodia. So the dominion theory was at least partially right.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 22:23:38
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"John B." wrote:
> >This reminds me of the lofty rhetoric that Vietnam hawks used to trot
> >out to justify that war: if we don't stop the communists here, they'll
> >take over all of East Asia.
"Jack Hollis" wrote:
> Actually, after Vietnam fell to the communists so did Laos and
> Cambodia. So the dominion theory was at least partially right.
I think you meant the Domino Theory. It was bogus. We all know that Pizza
Hut now rules in Vietnam.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 15:44:34
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On 9 Dec 2006 06:25:48 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>This reminds me of the lofty rhetoric that Vietnam hawks used to trot
>out to justify that war: if we don't stop the communists here, they'll
>take over all of East Asia. Today it's: if we don't win in Iraq, the
>terrorists will overrun the US. they were wrong then and they're wrong
>now. Why on earth would "winning" in Iraq compel jihadists all
>throughout the Muslim world to give up their designs on killing
>Americans and other infidels? This argument is so lame that people
>should be embarrassed to make it.
We're doing a better job of winning in Vietnam now than we ever did
back then. Our values are getting stronger and stronger there. The
best way to win a cultural war is to show others how successful our
way of life is.
In Iraq, we are showing them that having the most weapons is the way
to go. And that the U.S. is one of the enemies.
Is that what we want them to learn?
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 06:18:02
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
bill-o wrote:
> On 8-Dec-2006, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com> wrote:
>
> > In the last 3 years Iraq people have killed 650,000 Iraq people
>
> Bogus numbers, bogus gram
>
> --
> bill-o
>
> A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
> two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
How do you know it's bogus? All the conservatives have been howling
about the Johns Hopkins study that arrived at this number (I think it
was 665,000), but no one has offered anything to suggest it's wrong.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 00:13:02
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On 9-Dec-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> How do you know it's bogus? All the conservatives have been howling
> about the Johns Hopkins study that arrived at this number (I think it
> was 665,000), but no one has offered anything to suggest it's wrong.
My gut & their methods. Also the words of an author:
"It may not be extremely precise, but it gets us into the ball park" Les
Roberts
I wouldn't even say into the ball park's parking lot.
Also the Iraq Body Count says:
the Lancet report implies that:
#
On average a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every day in the
first half of 2006, with "less than a tenth being noticed by any public
surveillance mechanism."
#
Of 800,000 wounded people in the past two years, "less than a tenth received
any kind of hospital treatment."
#
Over 7% of the male population has been killed; 10% in central region.
#
Half a million death certificates were issued to families but not officially
recorded.
#
The Coalition has killed far more people in the last year than in the
invasion and Falluja type-operations of earlier years.
The IBC says that such assertions suggested incompetence/fraud on a massive
scale by hospitals and ministries, self-destructive behaviour by the
wounded, an utter failure by agencies to notice decimation of the male
population and an abject media failure to observe the scale of events.
The IBC concludes: "In the light of such extreme and improbable
implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the
authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition,
totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the
invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy."
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 13:25:09
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On 9 Dec 2006 06:18:02 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>How do you know it's bogus? All the conservatives have been howling
>about the Johns Hopkins study that arrived at this number (I think it
>was 665,000), but no one has offered anything to suggest it's wrong.
Dids you miss the WSJ article?
Just in case, heres a link.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108
In addition, the Iraqi Body Count group, an anti-war group that counts
civilian deaths in Iraq, published a response.
Iraq Body Count Press Release 16 October 2006
Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates
Hamit Dardagan, John Sloboda, and Josh Dougherty
Sumy
A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating
over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates
published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things,
that:
1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every
single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them
being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other
serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than
a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already
been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected
areas covering most of central Iraq;
4. Half a million death certificates were received by families
which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than
in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe"
invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php?PHPSESSID=2eab1d36ecd1e68f66c5f37d86f92216
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 11:36:18
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
There are numerous professionals who do similar surveys that questioned the
methodology. Their opinion is the survey failed to include sufficient
samples.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165673882.662619.29450@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> How do you know it's bogus? All the conservatives have been howling
> about the Johns Hopkins study that arrived at this number (I think it
> was 665,000), but no one has offered anything to suggest it's wrong.
>
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 16:08:43
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165673882.662619.29450@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
>> two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
>
> How do you know it's bogus? All the conservatives have been howling
> about the Johns Hopkins study that arrived at this number (I think it
> was 665,000), but no one has offered anything to suggest it's wrong.
But someone has offered some evidence that the sampling plan was inadequate.
Doesn't mean the number is wrong, but when the JHU studies disagree with
practically all others by wide gins, it creates some healthy skepticism
at least. IMO, anyone leaping out to defend or condemn the study with
strong statements either way betrays him/herself as a partisan hack (unless
they have some heavyweight experience in the area of population sampling,
have a detailed knowledge of the study, etc.)
Scott
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 20:25:55
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
> I hope you're not implying Iraq is a safer place to be. If so, why don't you
> sign up for a great vacation, courtesy of the US Army?
>
The amazing thing is nobody is jumping up and down trying to stop the
killing here...
Not Alec Baldwin, not The Dickie Chickies, not Streisand, not anyone
in here. :)
> C) Most of the Americans in Iraq are HEAVILY ARMED.
Good point... heavily armored as well...
|
| | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 22:23:38
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
JJK wrote:
> > I hope you're not implying Iraq is a safer place to be. If so, why don't
you
> > sign up for a great vacation, courtesy of the US Army?
dsc wrote:
> The amazing thing is nobody is jumping up and down trying to stop the
> killing here...
> Not Alec Baldwin, not The Dickie Chickies, not Streisand, not anyone
> in here. :)
I thought the police have interest in deterring crime.
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 03:14:12
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"George Hibbard" wrote:
> FYI, since this is a politics/world affairs forum, this info may be of
> interest.
>
> The annual murder rate in the United States in the last several years has
> continued at a rate of about 5.6 persons per 100,000 of the population.
>
> With a total US population approaching 300,000,000, this works out to
about
> 16,800 Americans killed each year. So in three years AMERICANS have
> killed close to 50,000 fellow Americans.
>
> In the same last three years, about 3000 Americans have been killed in
Iraq.
>
> That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own countrymen
> than are killed over there in our effort to help the Iraqis to stabilize
> their country.
I hope you're not implying Iraq is a safer place to be. If so, why don't you
sign up for a great vacation, courtesy of the US Army?
Here are three ways of looking at the numbers that you cite above without
thinking.
A) We CAN CONTROL the numbers of Americans that die in Iraq. The number can
be brought arbitrarily close to zero.
B) 3000*100,000/(3*150,000) = 666 Americans per 100,000 of the American
population in Iraq. That's MUCH MORE than 5.6/100,000.
C) Most of the Americans in Iraq are HEAVILY ARMED.
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 17:15:24
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
> All you folks who are bent over your calculators working out the
> algebraic equations comparing US civilian carnage to Iraqi civilian
> carnage to see which is worse need to adjust your baseline to account
> attrition: about 3,000 Iraqis flee their country EVERY DAY. The UN
> estimates that 1.6M Iraqis have left and sought refugee status in other
> countries - priily Jordan, Syria and Egypt - since ch 2003.
> Refugees International puts it closer to 2 million. This is from
> today's NY Times.
That's exactly what we need... if all the good people would just leave
(for a month) we could easily kill all the bad guys and then the good
guys could come back. :) It's the mixture of good and bad and no way to
tell them apart that really puts the stinky stuff on the fan. :)
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 13:39:49
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Steve wrote:
> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:t9din2lc5oucfvkratrii9nor14sjabnos@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 22:38:22 -0800, "Steve" <steve@bs-s.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Read this for estimates of Iraqi deaths since the war began.
> >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html
> >>
> >>Those estimates are seriously flawed from a mathematical viewpoint:
> >>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108
> >>
> > It quoted Bush's estimate at 30,000 deaths, up to 665,000 from Johns
> > Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. Of course
> > there are seriously flawed estimates.
>
> Also do this... think for yourself, what is the average number of innocent
> Iraq civilians that are killed in a single day? What seems reasonable?
> 10?, 20? 50? 100? Then remember that the 655,000 number is suppose to
> represent innocent civilians, not terrorists, above and beyond what were
> dieing per day under Saddam. Also remember that per the U.Ns own estimates,
> 5,000 children per month, 167 per day, were dead under Saddam because of the
> U.N. food for oil program. So what seems reasonable? Well if you were to
> do the math, 655,000 over the course of the war would be somewhere around
> 550 per day. That is on top of those 167 children per day and anyone else
> that Saddam was putting through a meat grinder. Then understand that the
> group that did this survey is the same group that put out a number of
> 100,000 innocent civilians dead right before the 2004 election. So per
> their numbers, in that Nov 2004 to Nov 2006 time frame, about 550,000
> innocent civilians died, about 1 in 50 Iraqis, which would be more than 750
> per day. Once again, that is 750 innocent civilians dead per day above the
> number that were dieing under Saddam. If that is the case, then I am not
> hearing about it and I am just guessing this is something the media would
> not try to cover up.
All you folks who are bent over your calculators working out the
algebraic equations comparing US civilian carnage to Iraqi civilian
carnage to see which is worse need to adjust your baseline to account
attrition: about 3,000 Iraqis flee their country EVERY DAY. The UN
estimates that 1.6M Iraqis have left and sought refugee status in other
countries - priily Jordan, Syria and Egypt - since ch 2003.
Refugees International puts it closer to 2 million. This is from
today's NY Times.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 17:35:28
From: Michael Anselmo
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165613989.720149.139450@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Steve wrote:
>> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> news:t9din2lc5oucfvkratrii9nor14sjabnos@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 22:38:22 -0800, "Steve" <steve@bs-s.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Read this for estimates of Iraqi deaths since the war began.
>> >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html
>> >>
>> >>Those estimates are seriously flawed from a mathematical viewpoint:
>> >>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108
>> >>
>> > It quoted Bush's estimate at 30,000 deaths, up to 665,000 from Johns
>> > Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. Of course
>> > there are seriously flawed estimates.
>>
>> Also do this... think for yourself, what is the average number of
>> innocent
>> Iraq civilians that are killed in a single day? What seems reasonable?
>> 10?, 20? 50? 100? Then remember that the 655,000 number is suppose to
>> represent innocent civilians, not terrorists, above and beyond what were
>> dieing per day under Saddam. Also remember that per the U.Ns own
>> estimates,
>> 5,000 children per month, 167 per day, were dead under Saddam because of
>> the
>> U.N. food for oil program. So what seems reasonable? Well if you were
>> to
>> do the math, 655,000 over the course of the war would be somewhere around
>> 550 per day. That is on top of those 167 children per day and anyone
>> else
>> that Saddam was putting through a meat grinder. Then understand that the
>> group that did this survey is the same group that put out a number of
>> 100,000 innocent civilians dead right before the 2004 election. So per
>> their numbers, in that Nov 2004 to Nov 2006 time frame, about 550,000
>> innocent civilians died, about 1 in 50 Iraqis, which would be more than
>> 750
>> per day. Once again, that is 750 innocent civilians dead per day above
>> the
>> number that were dieing under Saddam. If that is the case, then I am not
>> hearing about it and I am just guessing this is something the media would
>> not try to cover up.
>
>
> All you folks who are bent over your calculators working out the
> algebraic equations comparing US civilian carnage to Iraqi civilian
> carnage to see which is worse need to adjust your baseline to account
> attrition: about 3,000 Iraqis flee their country EVERY DAY. The UN
> estimates that 1.6M Iraqis have left and sought refugee status in other
> countries - priily Jordan, Syria and Egypt - since ch 2003.
> Refugees International puts it closer to 2 million. This is from
> today's NY Times.
>
What is the estimate of Iraqis fleeing their country if the US leaves?
Break it down into refugees and innocent civilian genocide victims.
Mike
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 13:11:52
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Colin Wilson wrote:
> George Hibbard wrote:
>
> > That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own countrymen
> > than are killed over there in our effort to help the Iraqis to stabilize
> > their country.
>
> Yep, the Americans should have an exit strategy from America. :-)
Mexioco...sure thinks so. :)
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 23:11:27
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: James Baker is a gay commie hippie
|
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:45:19 -0500, Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2006 11:32:56 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Have you ever heard the expression "talk is cheap"? It's easy as pie for
>>you to claim that the members the Iraq Study Group are "idiots," because
>>they made a proposal that you're not competent to understand. Isn't
>>Usenet wonderful that way? You can just say whaatever you want.
>
> I'm competent enough to understand that Iran will not help the US. It's
> utter foolishness to think that they will.
No, but we greatly helped them by invading Iraq.
Another brilliant move, right Jack?
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 17:38:47
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 18:30:12 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
>
>">> George Hibbard wrote:
>>>
>>> > That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own
>>> > countrymen
>>> > than are killed over there in our effort to help the Iraqis to
>>> > stabilize
>>> > their country.
>
>
>In a country where life is sacred: where millions are heartbroken over the
>Aruba murder (Natalie Holloway) and who with great grief mourn the death of
>a GREAT hero -- James Kim-- this past week, I thought it VERY interesting
>just to compare the loss of life of Americans in Iraq vs. the loss of life
>of Americans in the same period in the US due to murder: 16 times as many.
>OF COURSE the numbers are not "comparable" for any purpose of making
>conclusions about the wisdom of our being in Iraq. What piqued my thoughts
>was THAT WE VALUE LIFE -- that many lives are ended HERE from violence. OF
>COURSE we want our troops out of harms way.
>
>I wonder if, jaded as we get to be, anyone would EVER start to devote the
>energy, funds, and passion into our problems at home that give rise to
>violence HERE that we put into our military effort there.
>
>On the radio today I heard Pres. GW discussing our interest in doing
>something meaningful in Darfur. YES YES. We value life.
>
>For this (mentioning our murder rate) someone finds something to criticize
>in ME bringing up the issue.
>
>Ugh
>
There was no criticism regarding your bringing up the issue.
There was a question though: what on earth does a comparison of our
murder rate to the loss of GIs in Iraq gain? If you agree that the
numbers aren't comparable, then we agree on your post. How can we
value life if we throw it away?
When GW does something meaningful in Darfur he should be
congratulated. What he has done to the US in Iraq deserves nothing
but criticism.
Ugh.
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 13:10:35
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:58:09 -0500, "George Hibbard"
> <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> My post presumed that you were making a point of how few Americans had
> >> been killed in Iraq vs. those in the U.S. The original post, to which
> >> you responded (Iraq vs. US)
> >
> >
> >WRONG KEMOSABE. I ORIGINATED THE THREAD.
> >
> I stand corrected. You did start the thread. You just changed the
> goalpost.
>
> >> Still, your computations are of little practical value. What do they
> >> mean, that the 3000 Americans killed in Iraq are a good statistic,
> >> because it is less than the US homicide rate? I think not.
> >
> >Duh: Are the rules that everything should have "value" by your standards?
> >It struck ME. Good on you it didn't strike YOU, eh?
>
> Certainly everyone should strive for value, if not anything but for
> their own standards. If that stat had value for you I'm sorry. It
> struck me as being a non-issue. Who the F cares? We shouldn't be
> losing lives over Iraq. Period.
We shouldn't be having people murdered here either... we shouldn't have
many cities overun with gangs, our borders shouldn't be wide open,
people shouldn't be dieing in car wrecks, Tiger shouldn't use the
F-bomb and neither should you... or me. It appears that we live in a
world where "shouldn't" doesn't hold much weight. :)
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 15:34:39
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On 8 Dec 2006 13:10:35 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
<clip >
> We shouldn't be losing lives over Iraq. Period.
>
>We shouldn't be having people murdered here either... we shouldn't have
>many cities overun with gangs, our borders shouldn't be wide open,
>people shouldn't be dieing in car wrecks, Tiger shouldn't use the
>F-bomb and neither should you... or me. It appears that we live in a
>world where "shouldn't" doesn't hold much weight. :)
Absolutely correct. However, murders, gangs, border crossings and F
bombs aren't things that our government is paying billions to support.
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 12:59:18
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
> Let's just find a way to bring the killing to an end as soon as possible.
> Any partisanship that hinders that goal is also a part of the problem, IMO.
> The study itself might not contribute to the problem, but how the results
> are interpreted by some certainly will.
>
> Scott
Even if the only way to do that is to get out now or for us to kill
more (lots more) and faster? I don't think you can ever defeat the
insurgents the way we are going now... much too nice.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 02:00:37
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message
news:1165611558.809767.134640@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> Let's just find a way to bring the killing to an end as soon as possible.
>> Any partisanship that hinders that goal is also a part of the problem,
>> IMO.
>> The study itself might not contribute to the problem, but how the results
>> are interpreted by some certainly will.
>>
>> Scott
>
> Even if the only way to do that is to get out now or for us to kill
> more (lots more) and faster? I don't think you can ever defeat the
> insurgents the way we are going now... much too nice.
>
I assume you are addressing the first statement above. If that is the case,
then my answer is an unqualified 'yes'. Minimizing the dead - or maybe
it's better to say suffering - that result from the current situation is the
only yardstick that matters (as far as I'm concerned). Defeating the
insurgents is not really high on my list as an isolated motive. It's only
influence on my thinking is the question of what degree an insurgent victory
might lead to increased suffering in the future.
I doubt seriously that either course of action you mention will produce the
minimum amount of human suffering. Hypothetically speaking, if you had a
crystal ball and could tell me unequivocally that leaving immediately would
create that minimum, then I would wholeheartedly endorse that course. Ditto
for ramping up the intensity of the conflict.
The problem is, no one has a crystal ball. Even if my criterion for a best
outcome is very clear cut, that clarity is little help in identifying
conclusively what the best course of action is. The problem is just so damn
intractable. If it wasn't their fault to begin with, I'd have sympathy for
those in the Bush Admin who must grapple with the problem with real lives in
the balance.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 13:11:46
From: Da Ringer.
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Well........ maybe we should send all the Brothas from da hood over to Iraq.
Da Ringer
"George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote in message
news:Km1eh.1278$BL4.1248@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> FYI, since this is a politics/world affairs forum, this info may be of
> interest.
>
> The annual murder rate in the United States in the last several years has
> continued at a rate of about 5.6 persons per 100,000 of the population.
>
> With a total US population approaching 300,000,000, this works out to
> about 16,800 Americans killed each year. So in three years AMERICANS
> have killed close to 50,000 fellow Americans.
>
> In the same last three years, about 3000 Americans have been killed in
> Iraq.
>
> That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own countrymen
> than are killed over there in our effort to help the Iraqis to stabilize
> their country.
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 08:32:46
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165589419.513335.187770@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > The more salient comparison is Iraqis killing Iraqis. Roughly 650,000
> > violent deaths in three-plus years in a country of fewer than 27M
> > people is astromical in relation to the US murder rate.
> >
> Yes, 650,000 out of 27M is hard to believe, but only and idiot would believe
> it.
Then why don't you?
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 10:04:15
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote in message
news:Km1eh.1278$BL4.1248@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> FYI, since this is a politics/world affairs forum, this info may be of
> interest.
>
> The annual murder rate in the United States in the last several years has
> continued at a rate of about 5.6 persons per 100,000 of the population.
>
> With a total US population approaching 300,000,000, this works out to
about
> 16,800 Americans killed each year. So in three years AMERICANS have
> killed close to 50,000 fellow Americans.
>
> In the same last three years, about 3000 Americans have been killed in
Iraq.
>
> That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own countrymen
> than are killed over there in our effort to help the Iraqis to stabilize
> their country.
You would also have to consider that over 20% of the 3000 US fatalities in
Iraq are the result of automobile accidents, natural causes and reasons
unrelated to combat.
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 06:50:19
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
George Hibbard wrote:
> FYI, since this is a politics/world affairs forum, this info may be of
> interest.
>
> The annual murder rate in the United States in the last several years has
> continued at a rate of about 5.6 persons per 100,000 of the population.
>
> With a total US population approaching 300,000,000, this works out to about
> 16,800 Americans killed each year. So in three years AMERICANS have
> killed close to 50,000 fellow Americans.
>
> In the same last three years, about 3000 Americans have been killed in Iraq.
>
> That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own countrymen
> than are killed over there in our effort to help the Iraqis to stabilize
> their country.
The more salient comparison is Iraqis killing Iraqis. Roughly 650,000
violent deaths in three-plus years in a country of fewer than 27M
people is astromical in relation to the US murder rate.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 10:13:05
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165589419.513335.187770@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The more salient comparison is Iraqis killing Iraqis. Roughly 650,000
> violent deaths in three-plus years in a country of fewer than 27M
> people is astromical in relation to the US murder rate.
>
Yes, 650,000 out of 27M is hard to believe, but only and idiot would believe
it.
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 02:16:45
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
In article <Km1eh.1278$BL4.1248@bignews2.bellsouth.net >
"George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
>
> FYI, since this is a politics/world affairs forum, this info may be of
> interest.
>
> The annual murder rate in the United States in the last several years has
> continued at a rate of about 5.6 persons per 100,000 of the population.
>
> With a total US population approaching 300,000,000, this works out to about
> 16,800 Americans killed each year. So in three years AMERICANS have
> killed close to 50,000 fellow Americans.
>
> In the same last three years, about 3000 Americans have been killed in Iraq.
>
> That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own countrymen
> than are killed over there in our effort to help the Iraqis to stabilize
> their country.
You mean trying to "stabilize" their country after we destabilized it?
Sort of like, "let's bomb the hell out of them and then, without bids,
send in halliburton to build it back up. Good logical thinking of the
most powerful democracy on the planet.
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 00:48:36
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
George Hibbard wrote:
> That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own countrymen
> than are killed over there in our effort to help the Iraqis to stabilize
> their country.
Yep, the Americans should have an exit strategy from America. :-)
--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 21:07:48
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Colin Wilson wrote:
> George Hibbard wrote:
>
>> That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own
>> countrymen than are killed over there in our effort to help the
>> Iraqis to stabilize their country.
>
> Yep, the Americans should have an exit strategy from America. :-)
The muslims will take care of that - they have a plan to kill everyone in
America. I give it 6 months after Iran gets nuclear weapons.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 18:24:38
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:22:20 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
> FYI, since this is a politics/world affairs forum, this info may be of
>interest.
>
>The annual murder rate in the United States in the last several years has
>continued at a rate of about 5.6 persons per 100,000 of the population.
>
>With a total US population approaching 300,000,000, this works out to about
>16,800 Americans killed each year. So in three years AMERICANS have
>killed close to 50,000 fellow Americans.
>
>In the same last three years, about 3000 Americans have been killed in Iraq.
>
>That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own countrymen
>than are killed over there in our effort to help the Iraqis to stabilize
>their country.
>
That wasn't the premise George. It was stated that "The United States
should be so lucky to have only 1,100 acts of violence a day." Meaning
that the violence in the U.S. is higher than in Iraq, which has
nothing to do with the ratio of ONLY the Americans killed. If
anyone has the thought that America is more violent than Iraq, I feel
sorry for them. Remember that our population is ten times greater.
Read this for estimates of Iraqi deaths since the war began.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 11:22:40
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:2cbhn2pdi652i5qrhfiu9dd6ol4sjqcd2e@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:22:20 -0500, "George Hibbard"
> <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>
>> FYI, since this is a politics/world affairs forum, this info may be of
>>interest.
>>
>>The annual murder rate in the United States in the last several years has
>>continued at a rate of about 5.6 persons per 100,000 of the population.
>>
>>With a total US population approaching 300,000,000, this works out to
>>about
>>16,800 Americans killed each year. So in three years AMERICANS have
>>killed close to 50,000 fellow Americans.
>>
>>In the same last three years, about 3000 Americans have been killed in
>>Iraq.
>>
>>That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own countrymen
>>than are killed over there in our effort to help the Iraqis to stabilize
>>their country.
>>
>
> That wasn't the premise George. It was stated that "The United States
> should be so lucky to have only 1,100 acts of violence a day." Meaning
> that the violence in the U.S. is higher than in Iraq, which has
> nothing to do with the ratio of ONLY the Americans killed. If
> anyone has the thought that America is more violent than Iraq, I feel
> sorry for them. Remember that our population is ten times greater.
>
> Read this for estimates of Iraqi deaths since the war began.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html
>
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 10:32:22
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:22:40 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:2cbhn2pdi652i5qrhfiu9dd6ol4sjqcd2e@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:22:20 -0500, "George Hibbard"
>> <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>>
>>> FYI, since this is a politics/world affairs forum, this info may be of
>>>interest.
>>>
>>>The annual murder rate in the United States in the last several years has
>>>continued at a rate of about 5.6 persons per 100,000 of the population.
>>>
>>>With a total US population approaching 300,000,000, this works out to
>>>about
>>>16,800 Americans killed each year. So in three years AMERICANS have
>>>killed close to 50,000 fellow Americans.
>>>
>>>In the same last three years, about 3000 Americans have been killed in
>>>Iraq.
>>>
>>>That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own countrymen
>>>than are killed over there in our effort to help the Iraqis to stabilize
>>>their country.
>>>
>>
>> That wasn't the premise George. It was stated that "The United States
>> should be so lucky to have only 1,100 acts of violence a day." Meaning
>> that the violence in the U.S. is higher than in Iraq, which has
>> nothing to do with the ratio of ONLY the Americans killed. If
>> anyone has the thought that America is more violent than Iraq, I feel
>> sorry for them. Remember that our population is ten times greater.
>>
>> Read this for estimates of Iraqi deaths since the war began.
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html
>> bk
>
>Your post presumes mine is based on something other than MY OWN
>computations - when I wrote it I had not knowledge of or reference to
>anything in the WashPost or elsewhere: I simply did some calculations out of
>curiosity to compare AMERICAN deaths in Iraq vs. those from murder in the
>US. nothing else. How you tie in something else to my note is beyond me.
>
My post presumed that you were making a point of how few Americans had
been killed in Iraq vs. those in the U.S. The original post, to which
you responded (Iraq vs. US) had nothing to do with your premise. If
you're going to change the subject, change the subject line.
Still, your computations are of little practical value. What do they
mean, that the 3000 Americans killed in Iraq are a good statistic,
because it is less than the US homicide rate? I think not.
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 13:58:09
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:vi4jn2pr9njsmvbhh98rtf0c3kla537igh@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:22:40 -0500, "George Hibbard"
> <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:2cbhn2pdi652i5qrhfiu9dd6ol4sjqcd2e@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:22:20 -0500, "George Hibbard"
>>> <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> FYI, since this is a politics/world affairs forum, this info may be of
>>>>interest.
>>>>
>>>>The annual murder rate in the United States in the last several years
>>>>has
>>>>continued at a rate of about 5.6 persons per 100,000 of the population.
>>>>
>>>>With a total US population approaching 300,000,000, this works out to
>>>>about
>>>>16,800 Americans killed each year. So in three years AMERICANS have
>>>>killed close to 50,000 fellow Americans.
>>>>
>>>>In the same last three years, about 3000 Americans have been killed in
>>>>Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own
>>>>countrymen
>>>>than are killed over there in our effort to help the Iraqis to stabilize
>>>>their country.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That wasn't the premise George. It was stated that "The United States
>>> should be so lucky to have only 1,100 acts of violence a day." Meaning
>>> that the violence in the U.S. is higher than in Iraq, which has
>>> nothing to do with the ratio of ONLY the Americans killed. If
>>> anyone has the thought that America is more violent than Iraq, I feel
>>> sorry for them. Remember that our population is ten times greater.
>>>
>>> Read this for estimates of Iraqi deaths since the war began.
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html
>
>>> bk
>>
>>Your post presumes mine is based on something other than MY OWN
>>computations - when I wrote it I had not knowledge of or reference to
>>anything in the WashPost or elsewhere: I simply did some calculations out
>>of
>>curiosity to compare AMERICAN deaths in Iraq vs. those from murder in the
>>US. nothing else. How you tie in something else to my note is beyond me.
>>
> My post presumed that you were making a point of how few Americans had
> been killed in Iraq vs. those in the U.S. The original post, to which
> you responded (Iraq vs. US)
WRONG KEMOSABE. I ORIGINATED THE THREAD.
had nothing to do with your premise. If
> you're going to change the subject, change the subject line.
Wrong again: no change of subject: a simple comment about deaths of
Americans in Iraq vs. deaths of Americans in the same period by murder, in
the US. JUST FOR ITSELF; FOR ANYONE TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS THEY WANT. I
knew someone would come in and make it MY misunderstanding or mistake or
something. IT WAS A SIMPLE "Wow, look at this!"
>
> Still, your computations are of little practical value. What do they
> mean, that the 3000 Americans killed in Iraq are a good statistic,
> because it is less than the US homicide rate? I think not.
Duh: Are the rules that everything should have "value" by your standards?
It struck ME. Good on you it didn't strike YOU, eh?
Nothing changes....
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 07:08:29
From: multi
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:58:09 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
>a simple comment about deaths of
>Americans in Iraq vs. deaths of Americans in the same period by murder, in
>the US.
I think you meant a "simple-minded" comment. I can think of a few
reasons why someone would make that raw numbers comparison without
noting that there are about 2,000 times as many Americans in the US as
in Iraq. Most boil down to ignorance, stupidity, or intent to
deceive. Which is it?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 18:00:35
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:j8kln29k6smc9j31qhu26folm763a20q8d@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:58:09 -0500, "George Hibbard"
> <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>>a simple comment about deaths of
>>Americans in Iraq vs. deaths of Americans in the same period by murder, in
>>the US.
>
> I think you meant a "simple-minded" comment. I can think of a few
> reasons why someone would make that raw numbers comparison without
> noting that there are about 2,000 times as many Americans in the US as
> in Iraq. Most boil down to ignorance, stupidity, or intent to
> deceive. Which is it?
It's simply over your head. And that is why you don't get it.
You show your inability to listen without a decision what the answer will be
before you hear it, because if it doesn't make sense to you, there is no
sense in it. Like unless YOU know everything, there isn't anything TO know.
When does your committee get back in session?
(Start here: it is deplorable that 16,000 people are murdered in this
country yearly. Unless of course, to you, it is NOT deplorable. That
THOSE victims are expendable.)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 14:07:08
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:58:09 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
>> My post presumed that you were making a point of how few Americans had
>> been killed in Iraq vs. those in the U.S. The original post, to which
>> you responded (Iraq vs. US)
>
>
>WRONG KEMOSABE. I ORIGINATED THE THREAD.
>
I stand corrected. You did start the thread. You just changed the
goalpost.
>> Still, your computations are of little practical value. What do they
>> mean, that the 3000 Americans killed in Iraq are a good statistic,
>> because it is less than the US homicide rate? I think not.
>
>Duh: Are the rules that everything should have "value" by your standards?
>It struck ME. Good on you it didn't strike YOU, eh?
Certainly everyone should strive for value, if not anything but for
their own standards. If that stat had value for you I'm sorry. It
struck me as being a non-issue. Who the F cares? We shouldn't be
losing lives over Iraq. Period.
>
>Nothing changes....
It certainly doesn't George.
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 10:08:48
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:2cbhn2pdi652i5qrhfiu9dd6ol4sjqcd2e@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:22:20 -0500, "George Hibbard"
> <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>
>
> That wasn't the premise George. It was stated that "The United States
> should be so lucky to have only 1,100 acts of violence a day." Meaning
> that the violence in the U.S. is higher than in Iraq, which has
> nothing to do with the ratio of ONLY the Americans killed. If
> anyone has the thought that America is more violent than Iraq, I feel
> sorry for them. Remember that our population is ten times greater.
>
The premise was that the people who make wildly exaggerated claims about how
bad things are in Iraq don't know what the fuck they are talking about.
Thank you.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 10:18:53
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:08:48 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:2cbhn2pdi652i5qrhfiu9dd6ol4sjqcd2e@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:22:20 -0500, "George Hibbard"
>> <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> That wasn't the premise George. It was stated that "The United States
>> should be so lucky to have only 1,100 acts of violence a day." Meaning
>> that the violence in the U.S. is higher than in Iraq, which has
>> nothing to do with the ratio of ONLY the Americans killed. If
>> anyone has the thought that America is more violent than Iraq, I feel
>> sorry for them. Remember that our population is ten times greater.
>>
>The premise was that the people who make wildly exaggerated claims about how
>bad things are in Iraq don't know what the fuck they are talking about.
>
>Thank you.
>
No, your premise is as stated above. A wild, exaggerated, stupidly
thought-out line, that should have stayed in your ass, except that
your head is always in the way.
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 22:38:22
From: Steve
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
> Read this for estimates of Iraqi deaths since the war began.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html
Those estimates are seriously flawed from a mathematical viewpoint:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 11:22:23
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 22:38:22 -0800, "Steve" <steve@bs-s.com > wrote:
>> Read this for estimates of Iraqi deaths since the war began.
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html
>
>Those estimates are seriously flawed from a mathematical viewpoint:
>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108
>
Yes, the results of the JH study are highly suspect and the WSJ
article failed to mention that the death toll was based on a departure
from pre-war levels which assumes that this level is accurate.
Unfortunately, the study belongs to political science rather than real
science.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 03:53:17
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 22:38:22 -0800, "Steve" <steve@bs-s.com > wrote:
>> Read this for estimates of Iraqi deaths since the war began.
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html
>
>Those estimates are seriously flawed from a mathematical viewpoint:
>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108
>
It quoted Bush's estimate at 30,000 deaths, up to 665,000 from Johns
Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. Of course
there are seriously flawed estimates.
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 12:42:10
From: Steve
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:t9din2lc5oucfvkratrii9nor14sjabnos@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 22:38:22 -0800, "Steve" <steve@bs-s.com> wrote:
>
>>> Read this for estimates of Iraqi deaths since the war began.
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html
>>
>>Those estimates are seriously flawed from a mathematical viewpoint:
>>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108
>>
> It quoted Bush's estimate at 30,000 deaths, up to 665,000 from Johns
> Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. Of course
> there are seriously flawed estimates.
Also do this... think for yourself, what is the average number of innocent
Iraq civilians that are killed in a single day? What seems reasonable?
10?, 20? 50? 100? Then remember that the 655,000 number is suppose to
represent innocent civilians, not terrorists, above and beyond what were
dieing per day under Saddam. Also remember that per the U.Ns own estimates,
5,000 children per month, 167 per day, were dead under Saddam because of the
U.N. food for oil program. So what seems reasonable? Well if you were to
do the math, 655,000 over the course of the war would be somewhere around
550 per day. That is on top of those 167 children per day and anyone else
that Saddam was putting through a meat grinder. Then understand that the
group that did this survey is the same group that put out a number of
100,000 innocent civilians dead right before the 2004 election. So per
their numbers, in that Nov 2004 to Nov 2006 time frame, about 550,000
innocent civilians died, about 1 in 50 Iraqis, which would be more than 750
per day. Once again, that is 750 innocent civilians dead per day above the
number that were dieing under Saddam. If that is the case, then I am not
hearing about it and I am just guessing this is something the media would
not try to cover up.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 02:10:05
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:2cbhn2pdi652i5qrhfiu9dd6ol4sjqcd2e@4ax.com...
>
>
> Read this for estimates of Iraqi deaths since the war began.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html
>
It seems clear from this article at least that there is huge uncertainty
associated with any estimate of civilian deaths resulting from the invasion
and occupation. Having an accurate number doesn't seem important to me.
Whatever the number, it's too high by orders of magnitude.
I also find that it's not the best thing to use pre-invasion death rates as
the point of comparison. Of course the death rate is higher now; there's a
low-grade war going on, and the battlefield is mostly in densely populated
civilian areas. The comparison doesn't really tell us anything of use, and
it's only utility is for ammunition in political games. That doesn't take
us down the line towards a resolution. In fact, I believe it hinders
progress.
It seems to me that the important question is: How does the current death
rate compare with what we might expect from different future scenarios?
What we want is to minimize civilian (& military) deaths going forward. I
don't give a rat's ass whether the cause of a 6-year old child's death is
fighting involving US forces or as a result of a premature and irresponsible
withdrawal. Either way, a 6-year old is dead. Either way the US shoulders
a large part of the blame.
Let's just find a way to bring the killing to an end as soon as possible.
Any partisanship that hinders that goal is also a part of the problem, IMO.
The study itself might not contribute to the problem, but how the results
are interpreted by some certainly will.
Scott
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 20:27:33
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 02:10:05 GMT, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com >
wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:2cbhn2pdi652i5qrhfiu9dd6ol4sjqcd2e@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> Read this for estimates of Iraqi deaths since the war began.
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html
>>
>
>It seems clear from this article at least that there is huge uncertainty
>associated with any estimate of civilian deaths resulting from the invasion
>and occupation. Having an accurate number doesn't seem important to me.
>Whatever the number, it's too high by orders of magnitude.
>
>I also find that it's not the best thing to use pre-invasion death rates as
>the point of comparison. Of course the death rate is higher now; there's a
>low-grade war going on, and the battlefield is mostly in densely populated
>civilian areas. The comparison doesn't really tell us anything of use, and
>it's only utility is for ammunition in political games. That doesn't take
>us down the line towards a resolution. In fact, I believe it hinders
>progress.
>
>It seems to me that the important question is: How does the current death
>rate compare with what we might expect from different future scenarios?
>What we want is to minimize civilian (& military) deaths going forward. I
>don't give a rat's ass whether the cause of a 6-year old child's death is
>fighting involving US forces or as a result of a premature and irresponsible
>withdrawal. Either way, a 6-year old is dead. Either way the US shoulders
>a large part of the blame.
>
>Let's just find a way to bring the killing to an end as soon as possible.
>Any partisanship that hinders that goal is also a part of the problem, IMO.
>The study itself might not contribute to the problem, but how the results
>are interpreted by some certainly will.
>
>Scott
>
Very well thought out, and stated.
bk
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 16:43:23
From: multi
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:24:38 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:22:20 -0500, "George Hibbard"
><gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote:
>
>> FYI, since this is a politics/world affairs forum, this info may be of
>>interest.
>>
>>The annual murder rate in the United States in the last several years has
>>continued at a rate of about 5.6 persons per 100,000 of the population.
>>
>>With a total US population approaching 300,000,000, this works out to about
>>16,800 Americans killed each year. So in three years AMERICANS have
>>killed close to 50,000 fellow Americans.
>>
>>In the same last three years, about 3000 Americans have been killed in Iraq.
>>
>>That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own countrymen
>>than are killed over there in our effort to help the Iraqis to stabilize
>>their country.
>>
>
>That wasn't the premise George. It was stated that "The United States
>should be so lucky to have only 1,100 acts of violence a day." Meaning
>that the violence in the U.S. is higher than in Iraq, which has
>nothing to do with the ratio of ONLY the Americans killed. If
>anyone has the thought that America is more violent than Iraq, I feel
>sorry for them. Remember that our population is ten times greater.
Since he's only talking about Americans, our population is 2000 times
greater. There are less than 150,000 US soldiers in Iraq.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 02:35:13
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:h6dhn25lorbiu2df774h3te7ethvu559mp@4ax.com...
>>That wasn't the premise George.
Don't worry about it. It's something he regurgitated after listening to
Rush Limbaugh.
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:08:49
From: PorchMonkey4Life
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
jeffc wrote:
> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> news:h6dhn25lorbiu2df774h3te7ethvu559mp@4ax.com...
>>> That wasn't the premise George.
>
> Don't worry about it. It's something he regurgitated after listening to
> Rush Limbaugh.
>
>
Remove your head from your as$ and you might start making sense, moron.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 11:43:43
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:08:49 GMT, PorchMonkey4Life
<pm4life@yousuckbutidont.com > wrote:
>jeffc wrote:
>> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>> news:h6dhn25lorbiu2df774h3te7ethvu559mp@4ax.com...
>>>> That wasn't the premise George.
>>
>> Don't worry about it. It's something he regurgitated after listening to
>> Rush Limbaugh.
>>
>>
>
>Remove your head from your as$ and you might start making sense, moron.
Remove your tongue from Rush's ass and you still won't make sense.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 18:13:37
From: PorchMonkey4Life
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:08:49 GMT, PorchMonkey4Life
> <pm4life@yousuckbutidont.com> wrote:
>
>> jeffc wrote:
>>> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>>> news:h6dhn25lorbiu2df774h3te7ethvu559mp@4ax.com...
>>>>> That wasn't the premise George.
>>> Don't worry about it. It's something he regurgitated after listening to
>>> Rush Limbaugh.
>>>
>>>
>> Remove your head from your as$ and you might start making sense, moron.
>
> Remove your tongue from Rush's ass and you still won't make sense.
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 12:43:43
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:13:37 GMT, PorchMonkey4Life
<pm4life@yousuckbutidont.com > wrote:
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:08:49 GMT, PorchMonkey4Life
>> <pm4life@yousuckbutidont.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jeffc wrote:
>>>> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:h6dhn25lorbiu2df774h3te7ethvu559mp@4ax.com...
>>>>>> That wasn't the premise George.
>>>> Don't worry about it. It's something he regurgitated after listening to
>>>> Rush Limbaugh.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Remove your head from your as$ and you might start making sense, moron.
>>
>> Remove your tongue from Rush's ass and you still won't make sense.
>> bk
>
>Remove Rush's c*ck from you your mouth and you might make sense, c*nt
I wish all idiots like you would post this way. It shows that you
don't even have a clue as to what your reply is about, let alone your
first message.
Incidentally, your screen name is perfect.
bk
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 18:49:10
From: PorchMonkey4Life
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:13:37 GMT, PorchMonkey4Life
> <pm4life@yousuckbutidont.com> wrote:
>
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:08:49 GMT, PorchMonkey4Life
>>> <pm4life@yousuckbutidont.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jeffc wrote:
>>>>> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>>>>> news:h6dhn25lorbiu2df774h3te7ethvu559mp@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> That wasn't the premise George.
>>>>> Don't worry about it. It's something he regurgitated after listening to
>>>>> Rush Limbaugh.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Remove your head from your as$ and you might start making sense, moron.
>>> Remove your tongue from Rush's ass and you still won't make sense.
>
>>> bk
>> Remove Rush's c*ck from you your mouth and you might make sense, c*nt
>
> I wish all idiots like you would post this way. It shows that you
> don't even have a clue as to what your reply is about, let alone your
> first message.
The only thing your punk as$ has a clue about is ingesting as much sp*rm
as possible. Now go back to gagging on horsec*cks. That all your b*tch
as$ seems to know about.
>
> Incidentally, your screen name is perfect.
Incidently you're a f*ggot just like your screen name hero, c*nt.
> bk
suck a d*ck, c*nt
Your turn, c*nt. Respond if you dare b*tch
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 13:02:39
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:49:10 GMT, PorchMonkey4Life
<pm4life@yousuckbutidont.com > wrote:
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> Incidentally, your screen name is perfect.
>
>Incidently you're a f*ggot just like your screen name hero, c*nt.
>
>> bk
>
>suck a d*ck, c*nt
>
>Your turn, c*nt. Respond if you dare b*tch
Dare? I don't know why I didn't realize that the term PorchMonkey had
to be used by a teenybopper.
You're gone.
bk
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 19:07:00
From: PorchMonkey4Life
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:49:10 GMT, PorchMonkey4Life
> <pm4life@yousuckbutidont.com> wrote:
>
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>
>>> Incidentally, your screen name is perfect.
>> Incidently you're a f*ggot just like your screen name hero, c*nt.
>>
>>> bk
>> suck a d*ck, c*nt
>>
>> Your turn, c*nt. Respond if you dare b*tch
>
> Dare?
Yeah dar, b*tch. Got a problem with it, c*nt. What the f*ck is your punk
as$ gonna do about it, b*tch.
>I don't know why I didn't realize that the term PorchMonkey had
> to be used by a teenybopper.
This from the a primo usenet c*ck slurper. While you're down there make
sure you get the balls nice and wet. Slurp it up c*nt.
>
> You're gone.
Your turn, c*nt. Respond if you dare, b*tch
> bk
Get ready for a messy facial b*tch
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 21:57:22
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
jeffc wrote:
> Don't worry about it. It's something he regurgitated after listening
> to Rush Limbaugh.
I don't understand why people would bother listening to AM radio. Idiots
like Limbaugh, Hennitty, or even Boortz. It's AM, for chrissake. Throw
in a nice CD or put on XM and enjoy the ride - don't listen to those
assnozzles.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 10:10:00
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:h6dhn25lorbiu2df774h3te7ethvu559mp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:24:38 -0600, Bobby Knight
> Since he's only talking about Americans, our population is 2000 times
> greater. There are less than 150,000 US soldiers in Iraq.
You better put your pencil down. It makes you look stupid.
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 21:56:42
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
In article <mNCdnRomrf7HE-TYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@centurytel.net >
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
have you signed up for duty yet in iraq?
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 23:44:03
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. US
|
"George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote in message
news:Km1eh.1278$BL4.1248@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> FYI, since this is a politics/world affairs forum, this info may be of
> interest.
>
> The annual murder rate in the United States in the last several years has
> continued at a rate of about 5.6 persons per 100,000 of the population.
>
> With a total US population approaching 300,000,000, this works out to
> about 16,800 Americans killed each year. So in three years AMERICANS
> have killed close to 50,000 fellow Americans.
>
> In the same last three years, about 3000 Americans have been killed in
> Iraq.
>
> That's about 16 times as many Americans killed here by our own countrymen
> than are killed over there in our effort to help the Iraqis to stabilize
> their country.
>
Just goes to show ya that the Iraqis really do need more training ...
Bob
|
|
