golf-forums.net Promoting golf discussion.

Main Date: 15 Oct 2006 00:45:17 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq President Bush has declared that the study done by Johns Hopkins University (I guess we all know JH is a university) is incorrect by a factor of 10 or 20, right? So, if the Republicans are gong to go with that, then they should take responsibility and credit when due. Let each of them eithe sign on, that in the future they will accept the responsibility for their support of the President's response to the report. "I, _____________ stake my credibility on our president's statement that Johns Hopkins' report is flawed and unscientific. If I am correct, when my election time rolls around, I expect for the voters to take that into consideration and if I am wrong I will take the same discredit as I would take credit. I realize that if hunderds of thousands of men, women and children have died, then that is a serious disaster and I am mindful that my decision will affect the outcome of many many lives." By not signing, I express my own doubts and this is a fair and responsible response as a citizen, as well as an elected official. The same for other factors in the war on terror. I will be glad to give them credit, if they are right. You too?   Date: 15 Oct 2006 05:41:27 From: zumafan Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > President Bush has declared that the study done by Johns Hopkins University > (I guess we all know JH is a university) is incorrect by a factor of 10 or > 20, right? So, if the Republicans are gong to go with that, then they should > take responsibility and credit when due. > > Let each of them eithe sign on, that in the future they will accept the > responsibility for their support of the President's response to the report. > > "I, _____________ stake my credibility on our president's statement that > Johns Hopkins' report is flawed and unscientific. If I am correct, when my > election time rolls around, I expect for the voters to take that into > consideration and if I am wrong I will take the same discredit as I would > take credit. I realize that if hunderds of thousands of men, women and > children have died, then that is a serious disaster and I am mindful that my > decision will affect the outcome of many many lives." > > By not signing, I express my own doubts and this is a fair and responsible > response as a citizen, as well as an elected official. > > The same for other factors in the war on terror. I will be glad to give them > credit, if they are right. You too? If people of your ilk were around in the 40's we'd all be speaking German today. People in Iraq die, they've always died there, they'd be dying if we weren't there. There's never been peace in the Middle East, there will never be peace in the Middle East.   Date: 15 Oct 2006 05:26:44 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq I'm not sure what is to be gained by knowing the exact number. It is what it is whether you call it 60K or 600K. It's war... people die... then you move on. Knowing the exact number will not bring any of them back.     Date: 15 Oct 2006 08:42:42 From: IcUrdazedandconfused Subject: Re: New Golf Terminology On 14 2006 21:30:56 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote: > >IcUrdazedandconfused wrote: >> >> Sparky is looking pretty good! Did he pass the : >> "BAT" today?? > >Yes he did and I believe that makes him the first multiple BAT winner >on RSG. Aw, he probably has played more than you in the last 6 months.... :) I know how good he is, though. I never knew him when he started out, but he has always been pretty solid when I have seen him play.... (Way better than I'll ever be...)     Date: 15 Oct 2006 13:22:38 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq In article <1160915203.956141.67780@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote: > I'm not sure what is to be gained by knowing the exact number. It is > what it is whether you call it 60K or 600K. It's war... people die... > then you move on. Knowing the exact number will not bring any of them > back. Brilliant. Be sure and inform the Jewish community that it doesn't matter if it was 600K or 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust.       Date: 15 Oct 2006 18:28:29 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "The World Wide Wade" <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote in message news:waderameyxiii-78CDC1.13223815102006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > In article > <1160915203.956141.67780@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > >> I'm not sure what is to be gained by knowing the exact number. It is >> what it is whether you call it 60K or 600K. It's war... people die... >> then you move on. Knowing the exact number will not bring any of them >> back. > > Brilliant. Be sure and inform the Jewish community that it > doesn't matter if it was 600K or 6 million Jews killed in the > Holocaust. There were 12 million people killed, not just jews, no?       Date: 17 Oct 2006 10:23:13 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On Mon, 16 2006 20:41:51 -0700, The World Wide Wade > <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote: > > >We weren't fighting a war for the "hearts and minds" of the > >German populace. We were in Iraq - at least according to the > >Pentagon, which now concedes that war has been lost. > > > Actually, the US fought the war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam and his > sons. Regime change was the major goal and no matter what happens, > that goal has been achieved. > > It would be nice if they US could have arranged a democratically > elected pro West government, but even if Iraq descends into civil war, > getting rid of Saddam will have been worth it. Worth it to whom? Americans? Getting rid of SH and his sons, who posed no visible threat to the US, was worth 2600 dead, 20,000 wounded, total chaos and anarchy in Iraq, innocent Iraqis dying by the hundreds every day, hundreds of billions of our tax money spent and no end in sight? That's "worth it?" You can't be serious.       Date: 17 Oct 2006 09:12:05 From: Ken Meltzer Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On Mon, 16 2006 20:41:51 -0700, The World Wide Wade > <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote: > > >We weren't fighting a war for the "hearts and minds" of the > >German populace. We were in Iraq - at least according to the > >Pentagon, which now concedes that war has been lost. > > > Actually, the US fought the war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam and his > sons. Regime change was the major goal and no matter what happens, > that goal has been achieved. > > It would be nice if they US could have arranged a democratically > elected pro West government, but even if Iraq descends into civil war, > getting rid of Saddam will have been worth it. By "it," do you include the lives lost on both sides, and the cost of the war, economic and otherwise? Best, Ken         Date: 17 Oct 2006 19:35:34 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 17 2006 09:12:05 -0700, "Ken Meltzer" <commspkmn@aol.com > wrote: >> It would be nice if they US could have arranged a democratically >> elected pro West government, but even if Iraq descends into civil war, >> getting rid of Saddam will have been worth it. > >By "it," do you include the lives lost on both sides, and the cost of >the war, economic and otherwise? Best, >Ken I would have preferred that no lives were lost and no money spent, but I doubt that Saddam would have left if the US just asked him to go.           Date: 17 Oct 2006 23:02:04 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message news:f3qaj2pta4kitcbv5kror0ogpvlnq2v57c@4ax.com... > On 17 2006 09:12:05 -0700, "Ken Meltzer" <commspkmn@aol.com> > wrote: > >>> It would be nice if they US could have arranged a democratically >>> elected pro West government, but even if Iraq descends into civil war, >>> getting rid of Saddam will have been worth it. >> >>By "it," do you include the lives lost on both sides, and the cost of >>the war, economic and otherwise? Best, >>Ken > > I would have preferred that no lives were lost and no money spent, but > I doubt that Saddam would have left if the US just asked him to go. How do you feel about Bin Laden being at large? Isn't it a little suspect that Hussein got caught in a little underground fort they called a "spider hole"? Isn't it a little suspicious that his trial has taken over a year, so far? The US supported Hussein before and we do take care of our despots. I wonder how Noriega is getting along. I bet he doesn't have it too rough.             Date: 19 Oct 2006 12:41:06 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Tue, 17 2006 23:02:04 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote: >How do you feel about Bin Laden being at large? I'd prefer that he would be captured, but it makes little difference. Al-Zarqawi was a much more dangerous man and killing him didn't do much good. > Isn't it a little suspect >that Hussein got caught in a little underground fort they called a "spider >hole"? Isn't it a little suspicious that his trial has taken over a year, so >far? The US supported Hussein before and we do take care of our despots. I >wonder how Noriega is getting along. I bet he doesn't have it too rough. Someone said a while back (I forget who) that the best way for the US to get Iraq under control would be to put Saddam back in power.       Date: 17 Oct 2006 17:58:54 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Carbon wrote: > On Tue, 17 2006 11:51:18 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > > > Actually, the US fought the war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam and his > > sons. Regime change was the major goal and no matter what happens, that > > goal has been achieved. > > > > It would be nice if they US could have arranged a democratically elected > > pro West government, but even if Iraq descends into civil war, getting > > rid of Saddam will have been worth it. > > You're insane. It's not enough to just remove Saddam. If he is eventually replaced by the same or worse... then it was all for nothing and certainly not worth it.       Date: 17 Oct 2006 11:04:37 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On Mon, 16 2006 20:41:51 -0700, The World Wide Wade > <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote: > > >We weren't fighting a war for the "hearts and minds" of the > >German populace. We were in Iraq - at least according to the > >Pentagon, which now concedes that war has been lost. > > > Actually, the US fought the war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam and his > sons. Regime change was the major goal and no matter what happens, > that goal has been achieved. > > It would be nice if they US could have arranged a democratically > elected pro West government, but even if Iraq descends into civil war, > getting rid of Saddam will have been worth it. But how do we know another one even worse than Saddam won't his place? That was part of the excuse they used in '91 for not marching on Bagdad and removing him then?         Date: 17 Oct 2006 19:39:55 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 17 2006 11:04:37 -0700, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote: >But how do we know another one even worse than Saddam won't his place? >That was part of the excuse they used in '91 for not marching on Bagdad >and removing him then? You don't know what's going to happen in the future. But getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do. The reason that Bush 41 didn't go after Saddam was to avoid exactly what has happened.           Date: From: Subject:       Date: 18 Oct 2006 07:16:41 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Carbon wrote: > On Tue, 17 2006 15:00:18 -0700, The World Wide Wade wrote: > > > You sir, are an apologist for the most deluded ["I talk to god"], > > incompetent [what, there are two sects of Islam there? --see Woodward], > > and dangerous regimes ever to roam Pennsylvania Avenue. > > That's what people don't realize. Bush is so clueless that he didn't know > there was more than one kind of Muslim. This is the guy in charge of > American foreign policy. He is in way, way over his head. > > Obviously the occupation was doomed from the start. There was no plan > whatsoever, other than the idiot Neocon mantra that we'll be greeted as > liberators, they'll throw flowers at our feet, etc. What a joke. The whole > thing is a farce. there was an article in the NY Times yesterday by a journalist who asked numerous senior administration officials directly involved in the so-called war on terror if they knew the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. Not a goddamn one of them, NOT ONE, could answer the question.         Date: From: Subject:         Date: 18 Oct 2006 19:09:12 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq John B. wrote: > Carbon wrote: >> On Tue, 17 2006 15:00:18 -0700, The World Wide Wade wrote: >> >>> You sir, are an apologist for the most deluded ["I talk to god"], >>> incompetent [what, there are two sects of Islam there? --see Woodward], >>> and dangerous regimes ever to roam Pennsylvania Avenue. >> That's what people don't realize. Bush is so clueless that he didn't know >> there was more than one kind of Muslim. This is the guy in charge of >> American foreign policy. He is in way, way over his head. >> >> Obviously the occupation was doomed from the start. There was no plan >> whatsoever, other than the idiot Neocon mantra that we'll be greeted as >> liberators, they'll throw flowers at our feet, etc. What a joke. The whole >> thing is a farce. > > there was an article in the NY Times yesterday by a journalist who > asked numerous senior administration officials directly involved in the > so-called war on terror if they knew the difference between Sunnis and > Shiites. Not a goddamn one of them, NOT ONE, could answer the question. What is the definition of a "senior administration official?" If you are not willing to go on the record you "information" should be evaluated very closely.           Date: 18 Oct 2006 17:13:50 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq In article <q9KdnTsIY96EKavYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > John B. wrote: > > Carbon wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 2006 15:00:18 -0700, The World Wide Wade wrote: > >> > >>> You sir, are an apologist for the most deluded ["I talk to god"], > >>> incompetent [what, there are two sects of Islam there? --see Woodward], > >>> and dangerous regimes ever to roam Pennsylvania Avenue. > >> That's what people don't realize. Bush is so clueless that he didn't know > >> there was more than one kind of Muslim. This is the guy in charge of > >> American foreign policy. He is in way, way over his head. > >> > >> Obviously the occupation was doomed from the start. There was no plan > >> whatsoever, other than the idiot Neocon mantra that we'll be greeted as > >> liberators, they'll throw flowers at our feet, etc. What a joke. The whole > >> thing is a farce. > > > > there was an article in the NY Times yesterday by a journalist who > > asked numerous senior administration officials directly involved in the > > so-called war on terror if they knew the difference between Sunnis and > > Shiites. Not a goddamn one of them, NOT ONE, could answer the question. > > What is the definition of a "senior administration official?" If you are > not willing to go on the record you "information" should be evaluated > very closely. The article is here http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17stein.html?_r=1&oref=s login The author interviewed "Washington counterterrorism officials". He names plenty of names.             Date: 18 Oct 2006 21:05:32 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq The World Wide Wade wrote: > In article <q9KdnTsIY96EKavYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > >> John B. wrote: >>> Carbon wrote: >>> there was an article in the NY Times yesterday by a journalist who >>> asked numerous senior administration officials directly involved in the >>> so-called war on terror if they knew the difference between Sunnis and >>> Shiites. Not a goddamn one of them, NOT ONE, could answer the question. >> What is the definition of a "senior administration official?" If you are >> not willing to go on the record you "information" should be evaluated >> very closely. > > The article is here > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17stein.html?_r=1&oref=s > login > > The author interviewed "Washington counterterrorism officials". > He names plenty of names. A couple of FBI agents and some Republican Representatives? You have got to be kidding. Did this guy interview Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries? I doubt it.               Date: 18 Oct 2006 21:07:49 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq In article <n9udndMPp8HAUqvYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > In article <q9KdnTsIY96EKavYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > >> John B. wrote: > >>> Carbon wrote: > >>> there was an article in the NY Times yesterday by a journalist who > >>> asked numerous senior administration officials directly involved in the > >>> so-called war on terror if they knew the difference between Sunnis and > >>> Shiites. Not a goddamn one of them, NOT ONE, could answer the question. > >> What is the definition of a "senior administration official?" If you are > >> not willing to go on the record you "information" should be evaluated > >> very closely. > > > > The article is here > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17stein.html?_r=1&oref=s > > login > > > > The author interviewed "Washington counterterrorism officials". > > He names plenty of names. > > A couple of FBI agents and some Republican Representatives? You have got > to be kidding. Did this guy interview Secretaries and Deputy > Secretaries? I doubt it. Agents? In 2005 it was the FBI's counterterrorism chief. Just a few months ago it was the chief of the FBI's new national security branch. Next up is a seven term Congressman who is vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence. Then we have a Virginia Republican who heads a House intelligence subcommittee charged with overseeing the C.I.A.'s performance in recruiting Islamic spies. So how come I know Iran is Shiite and Saudia Arabia is the Whahabi brand of Sunni, as is al Qaeda, and these people don't? I find it alarming and incomprehensible, but give us a good Tony Snow job and tell us everything's OK cuz the prez talks to god.                 Date: 19 Oct 2006 07:39:56 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq The World Wide Wade wrote: > In article <n9udndMPp8HAUqvYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > >> The World Wide Wade wrote: >>> In article <q9KdnTsIY96EKavYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: >>> >>>> John B. wrote: >>>>> Carbon wrote: >>>>> there was an article in the NY Times yesterday by a journalist who >>>>> asked numerous senior administration officials directly involved in the >>>>> so-called war on terror if they knew the difference between Sunnis and >>>>> Shiites. Not a goddamn one of them, NOT ONE, could answer the question. >>>> What is the definition of a "senior administration official?" If you are >>>> not willing to go on the record you "information" should be evaluated >>>> very closely. >>> The article is here >>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17stein.html?_r=1&oref=s >>> login >>> >>> The author interviewed "Washington counterterrorism officials". >>> He names plenty of names. >> A couple of FBI agents and some Republican Representatives? You have got >> to be kidding. Did this guy interview Secretaries and Deputy >> Secretaries? I doubt it. > > Agents? In 2005 it was the FBI's counterterrorism chief. Just a > few months ago it was the chief of the FBI's new national > security branch. Next up is a seven term Congressman who is vice > chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and > tactical intelligence. Then we have a Virginia Republican who > heads a House intelligence subcommittee charged with overseeing > the C.I.A.'s performance in recruiting Islamic spies. So how come > I know Iran is Shiite and Saudia Arabia is the Whahabi brand of > Sunni, as is al Qaeda, and these people don't? I find it alarming > and incomprehensible, but give us a good Tony Snow job and tell > us everything's OK cuz the prez talks to god. First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any information from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they occupy. The FBI as an effective anti-terrorist organization has a long way to go before it is transformed from a police agency to a defense agency. And, no I do not mean part of the DOD. The institutional character of the FBI is to arrest people towards prosecution not to protect the citizens of the USA from harm. No crime, no harm which means no arrest. God talks to you but, you are too closed minded to listen.         Date: 18 Oct 2006 12:18:41 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1161181001.131096.325940@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Carbon wrote: >> On Tue, 17 2006 15:00:18 -0700, The World Wide Wade wrote: >> >> > You sir, are an apologist for the most deluded ["I talk to god"], >> > incompetent [what, there are two sects of Islam there? --see Woodward], >> > and dangerous regimes ever to roam Pennsylvania Avenue. >> >> That's what people don't realize. Bush is so clueless that he didn't know >> there was more than one kind of Muslim. This is the guy in charge of >> American foreign policy. He is in way, way over his head. >> >> Obviously the occupation was doomed from the start. There was no plan >> whatsoever, other than the idiot Neocon mantra that we'll be greeted as >> liberators, they'll throw flowers at our feet, etc. What a joke. The >> whole >> thing is a farce. > > there was an article in the NY Times yesterday by a journalist who > asked numerous senior administration officials directly involved in the > so-called war on terror if they knew the difference between Sunnis and > Shiites. Not a goddamn one of them, NOT ONE, could answer the question. And I'm among the second tier ignoramuses (sp) : -) Not many people realize that there are subfactions within the Shiite that hate and kill each other, and that (I'm really not sure about this) that the Saudis are Sunni as are the Taliban. I'm too lazy to check. Who really knows?           Date: 23 Oct 2006 13:20:46 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Wed, 18 2006 12:18:41 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote: >And I'm among the second tier ignoramuses (sp) : -) Not many people realize >that there are subfactions within the Shiite that hate and kill each other, >and that (I'm really not sure about this) that the Saudis are Sunni as are >the Taliban. I'm too lazy to check. Who really knows? There are sub factions of Shia. However, the big division within both the Shia and Sunni is between fundamentalists and secularists. The Taliban was not adverse to killing other Sunni that didn't share their enthusiasm for living under strict Muslim law.       Date: 18 Oct 2006 13:00:48 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1161181001.131096.325940@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > Carbon wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 2006 15:00:18 -0700, The World Wide Wade wrote: > >> > >> > You sir, are an apologist for the most deluded ["I talk to god"], > >> > incompetent [what, there are two sects of Islam there? --see Woodward], > >> > and dangerous regimes ever to roam Pennsylvania Avenue. > >> > >> That's what people don't realize. Bush is so clueless that he didn't know > >> there was more than one kind of Muslim. This is the guy in charge of > >> American foreign policy. He is in way, way over his head. > >> > >> Obviously the occupation was doomed from the start. There was no plan > >> whatsoever, other than the idiot Neocon mantra that we'll be greeted as > >> liberators, they'll throw flowers at our feet, etc. What a joke. The > >> whole > >> thing is a farce. > > > > there was an article in the NY Times yesterday by a journalist who > > asked numerous senior administration officials directly involved in the > > so-called war on terror if they knew the difference between Sunnis and > > Shiites. Not a goddamn one of them, NOT ONE, could answer the question. > > And I'm among the second tier ignoramuses (sp) : -) Not many people realize > that there are subfactions within the Shiite that hate and kill each other, > and that (I'm really not sure about this) that the Saudis are Sunni as are > the Taliban. I'm too lazy to check. Who really knows? I am no expert on the Middle East, but I do know that the Saudis and the Taliban are Sunnis. I guarantee you that GW Bush does not know that.         Date: 18 Oct 2006 13:20:11 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1161201647.944651.108350@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: >> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1161181001.131096.325940@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > Carbon wrote: >> >> On Tue, 17 2006 15:00:18 -0700, The World Wide Wade wrote: >> >> >> >> > You sir, are an apologist for the most deluded ["I talk to god"], >> >> > incompetent [what, there are two sects of Islam there? --see >> >> > Woodward], >> >> > and dangerous regimes ever to roam Pennsylvania Avenue. >> >> >> >> That's what people don't realize. Bush is so clueless that he didn't >> >> know >> >> there was more than one kind of Muslim. This is the guy in charge of >> >> American foreign policy. He is in way, way over his head. >> >> >> >> Obviously the occupation was doomed from the start. There was no plan >> >> whatsoever, other than the idiot Neocon mantra that we'll be greeted >> >> as >> >> liberators, they'll throw flowers at our feet, etc. What a joke. The >> >> whole >> >> thing is a farce. >> > >> > there was an article in the NY Times yesterday by a journalist who >> > asked numerous senior administration officials directly involved in the >> > so-called war on terror if they knew the difference between Sunnis and >> > Shiites. Not a goddamn one of them, NOT ONE, could answer the question. >> >> And I'm among the second tier ignoramuses (sp) : -) Not many people >> realize >> that there are subfactions within the Shiite that hate and kill each >> other, >> and that (I'm really not sure about this) that the Saudis are Sunni as >> are >> the Taliban. I'm too lazy to check. Who really knows? > > I am no expert on the Middle East, but I do know that the Saudis and > the Taliban are Sunnis. I guarantee you that GW Bush does not know that. He might since there are pictures of him walking hand in hand with some of the Saudis, which doesn't bother me ... but what does is that they Saudis have financed Bush relatives business. That just isn't right, even if to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. It really is bizarre.       Date: 19 Oct 2006 06:42:33 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Bert Robbins wrote: > John B. wrote: > > Carbon wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 2006 15:00:18 -0700, The World Wide Wade wrote: > >> > >>> You sir, are an apologist for the most deluded ["I talk to god"], > >>> incompetent [what, there are two sects of Islam there? --see Woodward], > >>> and dangerous regimes ever to roam Pennsylvania Avenue. > >> That's what people don't realize. Bush is so clueless that he didn't know > >> there was more than one kind of Muslim. This is the guy in charge of > >> American foreign policy. He is in way, way over his head. > >> > >> Obviously the occupation was doomed from the start. There was no plan > >> whatsoever, other than the idiot Neocon mantra that we'll be greeted as > >> liberators, they'll throw flowers at our feet, etc. What a joke. The whole > >> thing is a farce. > > > > there was an article in the NY Times yesterday by a journalist who > > asked numerous senior administration officials directly involved in the > > so-called war on terror if they knew the difference between Sunnis and > > Shiites. Not a goddamn one of them, NOT ONE, could answer the question. > > What is the definition of a "senior administration official?" If you are > not willing to go on the record you "information" should be evaluated > very closely. On the record? It was in the NY Times, you dolt. Read it yourself if you don't believe it. And since every official in the article was identified by name, you can see for yourself what a senior admin. official is.     Date: 17 Oct 2006 17:56:43 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > No one said radical Muslims can defeat the US. That depends on how you define defeat. I think it is entirely possible that the radial Muslims in Iraq can out last us and in one sense that is defeat.       Date: 19 Oct 2006 12:35:07 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 17 2006 17:56:43 -0700, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote: >AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: >> No one said radical Muslims can defeat the US. > >That depends on how you define defeat. I think it is entirely possible >that the radial Muslims in Iraq can out last us and in one sense that >is defeat. I have to agree. Johan Cruyff, the soccer genius from Holland, was once asked before a WC game with Brazil in 1974, if Holland was ready for the game. He replied.."Brazil cannot defeat Holland, but Holland can lose to Brazil." There is no doubt that the Islamists see the US as lacking the will and perseverance to endure a long range conflict. This was true in Korea and it was true in Vietnam. There is also no doubt that public support for the war in Iraq is weakening. Politics being what it is in the US, it's entirely possible that the US will withdraw from Iraq before the job is done. This would be unfortunate and would only reinforce the idea that the US lacks the will to fight.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 02:08:16 From: bill-o Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jesus Ass Fault, do you still play golf or only come here to bore folks with politics? -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.     Date: 15 Oct 2006 19:06:06 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message news:4532e982$0$25972$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com... > Jesus Ass Fault, do you still play golf or only come here to bore folks > with > politics? > > -- > bill-o > > A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between > two golfers neither of whom can putt very well. I was thinking about that last night. I was born in the first week of November and politics has always kind of interested me, maybe because of my birth day as a kid. Last year I realized that I'm going to be 58 when Bush is out of office. It was a wake up call. All of the good things done to balance the budget and before that, the end of the cold war have all been undone by a f---in kid who is being used by God knows who to lead the country back to time, to when were leaving our children and grandchildren a huge debt. I don't want to think about the rest of my life being part of a neocon dominated wasteland. You must care some if you read the OT posts.       Date: 16 Oct 2006 14:46:06 From: bill-o Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 15--2006, "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote: > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote in message > news:4532e982$0$25972$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com... > > Jesus Ass Fault, do you still play golf or only come here to bore folks > > with > > politics? > > > > -- > > bill-o > > > > A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between > > two golfers neither of whom can putt very well. > > I was thinking about that last night. I was born in the first week of > November and politics has always kind of interested me, maybe because of > my > birth day as a kid. Last year I realized that I'm going to be 58 when Bush > > is out of office. It was a wake up call. All of the good things done to > balance the budget and before that, the end of the cold war have all been > undone by a f---in kid who is being used by God knows who > to > lead the country back to time, to when were leaving our children and > grandchildren a huge debt. I don't want to think about the rest of my life > > being part of a neocon dominated wasteland. You must care some if you read > the OT posts. Occasionally, but you start a new variation on the same theme every 2-3 days! Go play some golf man, or find an indoor range or something. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.   Date: 15 Oct 2006 18:15:38 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq > The West must > show some endurance and finish the job in the Middle East. F Absolutely.     Date: 15 Oct 2006 18:32:31 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message news:1160961338.394343.184140@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> The West must >> show some endurance and finish the job in the Middle East. F > > Absolutely. That's bs and the only comback that I can think of (for the moronic side that obviously doesn't care that much about American deaths) is that it's a volunteer army.   Date: 15 Oct 2006 18:13:45 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Fairway wrote: > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > Brilliant. Be sure and inform the Jewish community that it > > doesn't matter if it was 600K or 6 million Jews killed in the > > Holocaust. > Well - which number is the correct one? Has it been proven beyond doubt > that the victims were 6M ? F How ever many died... is how many died. Whatever number you put on it (correct or otherwise) doesn't change the outcome.     Date: From: Subject:     Date: 15 Oct 2006 18:30:12 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message news:1160961225.424331.227420@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > Fairway wrote: >> The World Wide Wade wrote: >> > Brilliant. Be sure and inform the Jewish community that it >> > doesn't matter if it was 600K or 6 million Jews killed in the >> > Holocaust. >> Well - which number is the correct one? Has it been proven beyond doubt >> that the victims were 6M ? F > > How ever many died... is how many died. Whatever number you put on it > (correct or otherwise) doesn't change the outcome. Maybe it has already had an impact of radical Muslim recruitment. Maybe they see what's happening and hear the US lying about smart bombs and surgical stirkes and say ... well we all know what they do.       Date: 24 Oct 2006 05:51:27 From: Tex Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Bert Robbins wrote: > tiggerspalewife wrote: > > In article <v48qj25kr8903ccji5ec8uduvp1mmg7ju1@4ax.com> > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > > > "You have to start somewhere and Saddam's number came up first. Iran > > is still in a position where the US can do something about it and I > > hope that the US has the will to do it before it's too late. NK is > > another kettle of fish and the US will have to adjust to a nuclear NK." > > > > > > .and since we've killed off about 2800 plus good American kids (84 so > > far this month) and spent all our money as well as the next generation's > > on this war, where do you propose the resources for this "policeing" of > > iran and nk come from? Oh ya, the National Guard is pretty used up too. > > In fact so used up we don't even have enough to take care of our national > > emergencies right here in the good ol' U. S. of A. Will you be signing > > up? How about your kids, your friends' kids and your neighbors? The well > > is dry my friend and your kettle of fish is stinking taking on a real bad > > smell. > > We can stop throwing money down the "entitlement" pit, double the > defense budget and reduce federal taxes at the same time. Put social > welfare back at the state level and let the federal government do its > job of conducting foreign policy and common defense of the several states. Careful, you are starting to follow what The Constitution says the Federal Government is supposed to do. There are some here that will wrap themselves in the document to "protect rights" but then will ignore it when it comes to moving social welfare to the States. Tex       Date: 25 Oct 2006 08:17:34 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On Fri, 20 2006 09:01:43 -0400, "FredK" > <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote: > > >> The region wasn't that stable to begin with and I can't see this > >> conflict spreading beyond Iraq. The Shia and Sunni in Iraq could end > >> up in a civil war, but what's so bad about your enemies wasting their > >> energy fighting each other. When did the Iraqis become our enemies? I thought we went there to liberate them. Are there any limits to your cynicism? > >> > > > >What emerges afterwards is the threat. > > There's no rule saying that the US can't go back if necessary. Better > still is to stay until the job is finished no matter how long it > takes. I find it amazing that there is anyone left who still thinks ths way. Stay until the job is finished? If the "job" is to turn Iraq into a peaceful, prosperous, pluralistic democracy, then we'll be there forever, because it is blatantly obvious to any reasonable person that that is not going to happen. Even Bush and his cabal of neo-con lunatics have come around to that point of view.         Date: 25 Oct 2006 13:01:13 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 25 2006 08:17:34 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: >I find it amazing that there is anyone left who still thinks ths way. >Stay until the job is finished? If the "job" is to turn Iraq into a >peaceful, prosperous, pluralistic democracy, then we'll be there >forever, because it is blatantly obvious to any reasonable person that >that is not going to happen. Forever is a long time. Peaceful, prosperous, pluralistic democracy is a lot to ask for. I'd settle for a relatively peaceful unified nation run by a pro-Western government.         Date: 25 Oct 2006 12:55:59 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 25 2006 08:17:34 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: >When did the Iraqis become our enemies? I thought we went there to >liberate them. Are there any limits to your cynicism? There is no doubt that the Iraqi Sunnis are a US enemy. There is also a significant minority of the Shia who are dedicated to killing Americans. The Kurds are friends.           Date: 25 Oct 2006 20:30:27 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On 25 2006 08:17:34 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > >> When did the Iraqis become our enemies? I thought we went there to >> liberate them. Are there any limits to your cynicism? > > There is no doubt that the Iraqi Sunnis are a US enemy. There is also > a significant minority of the Shia who are dedicated to killing > Americans. The Kurds are friends. Every nation is our enemy unless the want something from us and then they become our friend. And, when they get want they want they switch back from being friends to being enemies.           Date: 25 Oct 2006 13:52:44 From: multi Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Wed, 25 2006 12:55:59 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: >There is no doubt that the Iraqi Sunnis are a US enemy. There is also >a significant minority of the Shia who are dedicated to killing >Americans. "Sunni? Shia? I thought the people in Iraq were Muslims." George W. Bush, two months before he invaded     Date: 15 Oct 2006 22:52:51 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq In article <1160961225.424331.227420@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote: > Fairway wrote: > > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > > Brilliant. Be sure and inform the Jewish community that it > > > doesn't matter if it was 600K or 6 million Jews killed in the > > > Holocaust. > > Well - which number is the correct one? Has it been proven beyond doubt > > that the victims were 6M ? F > > How ever many died... is how many died. Whatever number you put on it > (correct or otherwise) doesn't change the outcome. That's insane. You don't know the outcome unless you have some grasp of the magnitude of the death toll.     Date: 17 Oct 2006 16:44:17 From: Ken Meltzer Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On 17 2006 09:12:05 -0700, "Ken Meltzer" <commspkmn@aol.com> > wrote: > > >> It would be nice if they US could have arranged a democratically > >> elected pro West government, but even if Iraq descends into civil war, > >> getting rid of Saddam will have been worth it. > > > >By "it," do you include the lives lost on both sides, and the cost of > >the war, economic and otherwise? Best, > >Ken > > I would have preferred that no lives were lost and no money spent, but > I doubt that Saddam would have left if the US just asked him to go. I doubt that, too. But that doesn't answer my question. Best, Ken       Date: 18 Oct 2006 15:03:49 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 17 2006 16:44:17 -0700, "Ken Meltzer" <commspkmn@aol.com > wrote: >> I would have preferred that no lives were lost and no money spent, but >> I doubt that Saddam would have left if the US just asked him to go. > >I doubt that, too. >But that doesn't answer my question. >Best, >Ken The answer is yes.     Date: 19 Oct 2006 10:07:08 From: Fairway Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > There is no doubt that the Islamists see the US as lacking the will > and perseverance to endure a long range conflict. This was true in > Korea and it was true in Vietnam. There is also no doubt that public > support for the war in Iraq is weakening. Politics being what it is > in the US, it's entirely possible that the US will withdraw from Iraq > before the job is done. This would be unfortunate and would only > reinforce the idea that the US lacks the will to fight. This is a fundamental question. No super-power can exist without perseverance. There are signs - but only signs - that the mentality of Americans is changing in a way which will weaken the whole nation and cause them to lose the leadership they have held for a quite long time. Many would welcome this development, not the least in America itself. F       Date: 19 Oct 2006 12:40:54 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq In article <1161277628.616040.209000@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote: > Jack Hollis wrote: > > There is no doubt that the Islamists see the US as lacking the will > > and perseverance to endure a long range conflict. This was true in > > Korea and it was true in Vietnam. There is also no doubt that public > > support for the war in Iraq is weakening. Politics being what it is > > in the US, it's entirely possible that the US will withdraw from Iraq > > before the job is done. This would be unfortunate and would only > > reinforce the idea that the US lacks the will to fight. > > This is a fundamental question. No super-power can exist without > perseverance. And how long can one persevere in crazed folly? > There are signs - but only signs - that the mentality of > Americans is changing in a way which will weaken the whole nation and > cause them to lose the leadership they have held for a quite long time. > Many would welcome this development, not the least in America itself. F Bollocks. If America needs defending, Americans will defend it. Japan thought much like you do when it attacked Pearl Harbor. They were wrong. So are you. Catastrophic overseas adventures led by incompetent, ignorant maniacs who talk to god are not something to persevere in. This gang of lying scum, who exploited the national grief of 9/11 to further their neocon fantasies, should be tar-and-feathered and marched out of Washington at the end of sticks. A lot of us saw through the charade, but many did not and still do not - much to their shame I think. But there is no shame in admitting a disastrous mistake. Let's show some courage here, call it for what it is, and make damned sure it never happens again. Continuing down this awful road - to protect the reputations of a man, his wife, and his dog - is a cowardly waste of human life and our national treasury. It also gives bin Laden what he wants.       Date: 23 Oct 2006 15:59:42 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 19 2006 10:07:08 -0700, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote: >Jack Hollis wrote: >> There is no doubt that the Islamists see the US as lacking the will >> and perseverance to endure a long range conflict. This was true in >> Korea and it was true in Vietnam. There is also no doubt that public >> support for the war in Iraq is weakening. Politics being what it is >> in the US, it's entirely possible that the US will withdraw from Iraq >> before the job is done. This would be unfortunate and would only >> reinforce the idea that the US lacks the will to fight. > >This is a fundamental question. No super-power can exist without >perseverance. There are signs - but only signs - that the mentality of >Americans is changing in a way which will weaken the whole nation and >cause them to lose the leadership they have held for a quite long time. >Many would welcome this development, not the least in America itself. F The US showed a lack of will in Korea and Vietnam and survived as the world's most powerful nation, but the lack of will encourages enemies which can make things more difficult in the long run. I think the US's position as the world's richest and most powerful nation is secure for the foreseeable future, but if you have enemies, it's best that they fear you.     Date: 19 Oct 2006 10:03:35 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On 17 2006 17:56:43 -0700, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > > >AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > >> No one said radical Muslims can defeat the US. > > > >That depends on how you define defeat. I think it is entirely possible > >that the radial Muslims in Iraq can out last us and in one sense that > >is defeat. > > > I have to agree. > > Johan Cruyff, the soccer genius from Holland, was once asked before a > WC game with Brazil in 1974, if Holland was ready for the game. He > replied.."Brazil cannot defeat Holland, but Holland can lose to > Brazil." > > There is no doubt that the Islamists see the US as lacking the will > and perseverance to endure a long range conflict. This was true in > Korea and it was true in Vietnam. There is also no doubt that public > support for the war in Iraq is weakening. Politics being what it is > in the US, it's entirely possible that the US will withdraw from Iraq > before the job is done. This would be unfortunate and would only > reinforce the idea that the US lacks the will to fight. It's not just possible, it's inevitable. There is no way for the United States to win this war, if that's what it is, and leave Iraq as a stable, pluralistic democracy. At some point, the Bush regime is going to have to summon the guts to admit that they've committed a catastrophic blunder and get out of Iraq. Every day they try to find a way to save face (remember "Peace with Honor"?) is another day that 10 or 12 American kids get killed or wounded and another $1 billion is poured down a rathole. History will remember this bunch of thugs as the worst administration this country has ever seen. They all beling in prison.     Date: 19 Oct 2006 14:12:39 From: Fairway Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq The World Wide Wade wrote: > In article > <1161277628.616040.209000@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote: > > There are signs - but only signs - that the mentality of > > Americans is changing in a way which will weaken the whole nation and > > cause them to lose the leadership they have held for a quite long time. > > Many would welcome this development, not the least in America itself. F > > Bollocks. If America needs defending, Americans will defend it. > Japan thought much like you do when it attacked Pearl Harbor. > They were wrong. So are you. A slight misunderstanding there. Of course America will defend itself when necessary - but I=B4m talking about the whole world. America has been a leading power for a very long time now - just as the English used to be, the French before them ..... Spain, Rome, you name it. But do the Americans really want to be leaders anymore? From much of what I=B4ve been reading - and of course I=B4m no expert - it seems to me that many Americans would be happy to renounce that costly prestige. Also, America seems to have serious problems with race tensions, organized crime, drug abuse, low educational level etc etc. Not exactly the best ingredients for a strong leadership. F     Date: 19 Oct 2006 12:15:05 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq dsc wrote: > > First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any information > > from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they occupy. > > They are crooks... but most are not idiots. Most are neither crooks nor idiots. Most are dedicated public servants doing what they think is right.       Date: 19 Oct 2006 13:53:25 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1161285305.639894.35880@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > dsc wrote: >> > First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any >> > information >> > from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they occupy. >> >> They are crooks... but most are not idiots. > > Most are neither crooks nor idiots. Most are dedicated public servants > doing what they think is right. That has not been my experience. And not in public office, non-elected as in heads of state departments and upper level management in the areas that spend your money on the state level.       Date: 19 Oct 2006 15:36:33 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq John B. wrote: > dsc wrote: >>> First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any information >>> from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they occupy. >> They are crooks... but most are not idiots. > > Most are neither crooks nor idiots. Most are dedicated public servants > doing what they think is right. > Therein lies the problem, the Representatives in Congress were elected to represent the voters of their district. And, there term of a Representative is only two years. This short term allows the people of the district the ability to correct their mistakes every two years.     Date: 19 Oct 2006 11:44:25 From: Fairway Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq dsc wrote: > > First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any information > > from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they occupy. > > They are crooks... but most are not idiots. With respect, dsc - this is a figure of speech, isn=B4t it? Why should the American people elect only idiots and criminals? There are honest and intelligent people in America - or what? F     Date: 19 Oct 2006 11:32:44 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq > First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any information > from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they occupy. They are crooks... but most are not idiots.     Date: 23 Oct 2006 11:34:53 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On Tue, 17 2006 23:08:20 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" > <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote: > > >> No, but then why should the US worry about winning the hearts and > >> minds of the Muslims? Right now, I think the Muslims should be > >> concerned about winning the hearts and minds of the Americans. > > > >That's an interesting point but doesn't answer the question. And how would > >we know what they care about winning American hearts and minds. There aren't > >many people who have a clue to what is going on in their thoughts or > >beliefs, imo. > > The point I was making is that, at some point, the Muslims have to > come to the conclusion that the radical Islamists are doing more harm > than good to their own people and perhaps if they stop attacking the > US and Europe, the Muslim world will be a lot better off. So far, > groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah have caused trouble for the US, > Europe and Israel, but they've been a disaster for the Muslim world. > > If the Islamic world wants to become a major force in the world, they > need peace and prosperity. Constant tension and war only hurts Islam. there is one thing that unites moderate, progressive Muslims with radical Muslims - hatred of Israel. As long as that's the case, the moderates are not going to openly and demonstrably distance themselves from the radicals. They may not like their tactics, but they completely agree with their philosophy.   Date: 15 Oct 2006 18:10:52 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Carbon wrote: > On Sun, 15 2006 08:59:48 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote: > > Carbon wrote: > >> On Sun, 15 2006 05:26:44 -0700, dsc wrote: > >> > >>> I'm not sure what is to be gained by knowing the exact number. It is > >>> what it is whether you call it 60K or 600K. It's war... people die... > >>> then you move on. Knowing the exact number will not bring any of them > >>> back. > >> > >> Knowing how many died helped determine that more people got killed > >> after the invasion than before under Saddam. > > > > Sounds like you don't need to know the numbers because you have already > > concluded that more people have died after the liberation of Iraq. > > One of us is definitely ignoring the facts. Here are the facts: > > http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s014067360669491= 9=2Epdf > > Excerpt: > > We estimate that, as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, > 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be > expected in a non-conflict situation, which is equivalent to about 2.5: of > the population in the study area. About 601000 of these excess deaths were > due to violent causes. Our estimate of the post-invasion crude mortality > rate represents a doubling of the baseline mortality rate... The > post-invasion crude mortality rate increased signi=EF=AC=81cantly from > pre-invasion =EF=AC=81gures, and showed a rising trend. > > > Please don't bore us with clueless attacks on the scientific validity of > the study. People who actually know what they're talking about have gone > over it and it's solid. Riddle me this Batman... Had the Iraqi people had the will/backbone/balls) to do the revolution them selves... what would the death toll have been?     Date: 15 Oct 2006 18:27:54 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message news:1160961052.716287.169740@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... Carbon wrote: > On Sun, 15 2006 08:59:48 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote: > > Carbon wrote: > >> On Sun, 15 2006 05:26:44 -0700, dsc wrote: > >> > >>> I'm not sure what is to be gained by knowing the exact number. It is > >>> what it is whether you call it 60K or 600K. It's war... people die... > >>> then you move on. Knowing the exact number will not bring any of them > >>> back. > >> > >> Knowing how many died helped determine that more people got killed > >> after the invasion than before under Saddam. > > > > Sounds like you don't need to know the numbers because you have already > > concluded that more people have died after the liberation of Iraq. > > One of us is definitely ignoring the facts. Here are the facts: > > http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf > > Excerpt: > > We estimate that, as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, > 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be > expected in a non-conflict situation, which is equivalent to about 2.5: of > the population in the study area. About 601000 of these excess deaths were > due to violent causes. Our estimate of the post-invasion crude mortality > rate represents a doubling of the baseline mortality rate... The > post-invasion crude mortality rate increased signi?cantly from > pre-invasion ?gures, and showed a rising trend. > > > Please don't bore us with clueless attacks on the scientific validity of > the study. People who actually know what they're talking about have gone > over it and it's solid. Riddle me this Batman... Had the Iraqi people had the will/backbone/balls) to do the revolution them selves... what would the death toll have been? I thought it was a liberation ... now wait, now it's an insurgency ... no, now it's a civil war.     Date: 15 Oct 2006 23:07:51 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq In article <1160961052.716287.169740@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote: > Carbon wrote: > > On Sun, 15 2006 08:59:48 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote: > > > Carbon wrote: > > >> On Sun, 15 2006 05:26:44 -0700, dsc wrote: > > >> > > >>> I'm not sure what is to be gained by knowing the exact number. It is > > >>> what it is whether you call it 60K or 600K. It's war... people die... > > >>> then you move on. Knowing the exact number will not bring any of them > > >>> back. > > >> > > >> Knowing how many died helped determine that more people got killed > > >> after the invasion than before under Saddam. > > > > > > Sounds like you don't need to know the numbers because you have already > > > concluded that more people have died after the liberation of Iraq. > > > > One of us is definitely ignoring the facts. Here are the facts: > > > > http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.p > > df > > > > Excerpt: > > > > We estimate that, as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, > > 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be > > expected in a non-conflict situation, which is equivalent to about 2.5: of > > the population in the study area. About 601000 of these excess deaths were > > due to violent causes. Our estimate of the post-invasion crude mortality > > rate represents a doubling of the baseline mortality rate... The > > post-invasion crude mortality rate increased significantly from > > pre-invasion figures, and showed a rising trend. > > > > > > Please don't bore us with clueless attacks on the scientific validity of > > the study. People who actually know what they're talking about have gone > > over it and it's solid. > > Riddle me this Batman... > Had the Iraqi people had the will/backbone/balls) to do the revolution > them selves... what would the death toll have been? We don't know asshole. But it would at least have been their revolution, their democracy if that's what they wanted, and we could have avoided Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, our responsibility for destruction and mass slaughter, the lightning rod for terrorists that an outright invasion has become, not to mention the looting of the national treasury by incompetent maniacs.   Date: 15 Oct 2006 17:32:11 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Fairway wrote: > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > Brilliant. Be sure and inform the Jewish community that it > > doesn't matter if it was 600K or 6 million Jews killed in the > > Holocaust. > Well - which number is the correct one? Has it been proven beyond doubt > that the victims were 6M ? F It has been proven to the satisfaction of all rational people, whose numbers don't include you.   Date: 15 Oct 2006 16:44:47 From: zumafan Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Carbon wrote: > One of us is definitely ignoring the facts. Here are the facts: > > http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s014067360669491= 9=2Epdf > > Excerpt: > > We estimate ESTIMATE that, as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, > 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be > expected in a non-conflict situation, which is equivalent to about 2.5: of > the population in the study area. About 601000 of these excess deaths were > due to violent causes. Our estimate of the post-invasion crude mortality > rate represents a doubling of the baseline mortality rate... The > post-invasion crude mortality rate increased signi=EF=AC=81cantly from > pre-invasion =EF=AC=81gures, and showed a rising trend. > > > Please don't bore us with clueless attacks on the scientific validity of > the study. People who actually know what they're talking about have gone > over it and it's solid. Right, they looked at 900 death certificates and ESTIMATED that over 600K died. Makes sense to me.   Date: 15 Oct 2006 13:33:20 From: Fairway Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq The World Wide Wade wrote: > Brilliant. Be sure and inform the Jewish community that it > doesn't matter if it was 600K or 6 million Jews killed in the > Holocaust. Well - which number is the correct one? Has it been proven beyond doubt that the victims were 6M ? F   Date: 15 Oct 2006 13:11:30 From: Fairway Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq zumafan wrote: > > People in Iraq die, they've always died there, they'd be dying if we > weren't there. There's never been peace in the Middle East, there will > never be peace in the Middle East. Correct. How many millions died in the bloody war between Iran and Iraq? Fewer people are losing their life in Iraq now. The West must show some endurance and finish the job in the Middle East. F   Date: 16 Oct 2006 10:18:03 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq dsc wrote: > > Riddle me this Batman... > > Had the Iraqi people had the will/backbone/balls) to do the revolution > > them selves... what would the death toll have been? > > This was a serious question... anyone got any serious comments? > Is it safe to say they would have lost several times as many doing it > themselves... and probably would not have succeeded in the end anyway? Yes, that is safe to say. Ask the Kurds in the north or the Shiites in the south who rebelled against SH what happened to them.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 09:57:49 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq > Riddle me this Batman... > Had the Iraqi people had the will/backbone/balls) to do the revolution > them selves... what would the death toll have been? This was a serious question... anyone got any serious comments? Is it safe to say they would have lost several times as many doing it themselves... and probably would not have succeeded in the end anyway?     Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:31:53 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message news:1161017869.055221.169340@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >> Riddle me this Batman... >> Had the Iraqi people had the will/backbone/balls) to do the revolution >> them selves... what would the death toll have been? > > This was a serious question... anyone got any serious comments? > Is it safe to say they would have lost several times as many doing it > themselves... and probably would not have succeeded in the end anyway? Only someone who knows and cares very very little about the this subject would ask such an off the wall question. It is not a serious question and I would bet that you can not find Iraq on a map and I bet you don't know the names of the 2 main grouops in Iraq, religious wise.     Date: 16 Oct 2006 17:58:22 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 16 2006 09:57:49 -0700, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote: >> Riddle me this Batman... >> Had the Iraqi people had the will/backbone/balls) to do the revolution >> them selves... what would the death toll have been? > >This was a serious question... anyone got any serious comments? >Is it safe to say they would have lost several times as many doing it >themselves... and probably would not have succeeded in the end anyway? I suspect they would be worse off - but the rest of the world would be better off.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 09:53:23 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq John B. wrote: > dsc wrote: > > > The West must > > > show some endurance and finish the job in the Middle East. F > > > > Absolutely. > > What, exactly, is "the job in the Middle East?" Initially, I think it was to Throw out Saddam... piece of cake really Clean up the mess and create some stability... proved more difficult than expected. Create Democratic government... I guess you can call that done (nearly) Train Iraqi military and police... I don't know that they will ever be ready and I think some of the trainers are starting to come to that conclusion as well. Turn the country over to them... they can't handle it and may never be able to handle it. Stick around and watch for a decade or so... just to make sure Then get out... I think that is still the basic plan. :) > Is it imposing our way > of life and our system of govt. on societies that don't want them? If > so, I expect we're still going to be there when my great-grandchildren > are born. That's probably a safe bet...   Date: 16 Oct 2006 09:41:35 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On 16 2006 05:24:14 -0700, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > > >But we are there now and need to stay until > >the job is finished or it will come back and bite us in the @$$ just > >like Korea and Gulf War I. If we had finished either of those jobs the > >first time, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion now. > > The US lacked the political will to achieve a victory in Korea 50 > years ago and... Why was that? > ...now it's come back to haunt the US in spades. Yep...     Date: 16 Oct 2006 16:47:40 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 16 2006 09:41:35 -0700, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote: >> The US lacked the political will to achieve a victory in Korea 50 >> years ago and... > >Why was that? > Fear that it would result in a wider war with China and that the Soviets would come in on China's side. China and the Soviets had good relations at the time. >> ...now it's come back to haunt the US in spades. > >Yep... The point is that you never know until years later if a certain policy was good or bad. Neville Chamberlain's deal with the Germans seemed to be a good idea at the time, but turned out to be a disaster for Britain.       Date: 16 Oct 2006 14:56:47 From: snakehawk Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea Jack Hollis wrote: > On 16 2006 10:38:01 -0700, "snakehawk" <snakehawk@MailAndNews.com> > wrote: > > >Well, yeah, but as Hollis points out, the U.S. media isn't paying any > >attention to the study. How can the study possibly be valid? Would you > >pit the integrity of John Hopkins against the U.S. media? > > If you read the Iraqi Body Count response to the article, it becomes > clear that the study is bogus. And this is coming from an anti-war > group. The body count before the study came from either the Bush administration or the puppet regime in Iraq set up by the Bush administration. Which would you consider more objective and reliable. > > "Iraq Body Count Press Release 16 ober 2006 > > Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates > > Hamit Dardagan, John Sloboda, and Josh Dougherty > > Summary > > 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 ober 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; What public surveillance mechanisms? The Iraqi government is hunkered down behind barricades just like the American troops. No one in the Iraqi government is taking surveys of the number of people dying in Iraq. > 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; Would that be surprising when the United States has destroyed the Iraqi hospital system, the water treatment facilities, the pharmaceutical plants, the roads, the bridges, and just about every modern facility in Iraq? > 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; Why would that be surprising? The Iraqis have no tanks to hide behind, no armored personnel carriers to ride around in, no machine guns to use in self defense, no armored vests to wear, and they don't live in a well guarded green zone. The Americans have all that and they still suffered almost three thousand dead. > 4. Half a million death certificates were received by families > which were never officially recorded as having been issued; You mean never recorded by diligent, well-paid clerks working at functioning government offices? What the hell do you people think is going on in Iraq, an election? > 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. That wouldn't be at all surprising. People can take cover from expected bombs. But there's no where to run when the troops come barging into private homes and sending paid mercenaries to shoot up the villages. And the "Coalition" is fond of employing thugs from the different sects to attack their historical enemies in other sections of Iraq. Saddam Hussein had kept sectarian violence in check; the American government is doing everything it can to foment violence. And anyone who thinks Iraqis aren't dying in large numbers is a fool. > > If these assertions are true, they further imply: > > * incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi > officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and > national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation > began; Gosh! Fraud and incompetence on the part of the American installed puppet government of Iraq? Who would have suspected? The hospital system and the ministries were destroyed with the rest of Saddam's administration. And the Americans can't replace it while hunkered down in the Green Zone. > * bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a > small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis; You mean like getting in the way of American bullets and bombs? Like letting themselves get caught out in the streets by some rival faction armed to the teeth with American supplied weapons? Like drinking stagnant water to replace the non-existent drinkable water? Like getting too close to car bombs? That kind of "bizarre and self-destructive behavior?" > * the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and > respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban > areas; What "external agencies?" You mean some American organization appointed by Bush to keep track of dead Iraqis? > * an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, > to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported > during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month > for over a year. Just out. Iraq is the most dangerous place for Journalist in the world. Those "heroes" do what most other journalist do: sit behind the guarded walls and write what they are told by American military establishment. > > 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." > Oh, but it is necessary. It is very necessary. That's why the report is being trashed by the pro-war crowd--the report lets the American people know what their government is doing over there: killing, maiming, torturing, destroying, and lying through their teeth to deny it.         Date: 16 Oct 2006 22:46:56 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea On 16 2006 14:56:47 -0700, "snakehawk" <snakehawk@MailAndNews.com > wrote: >The body count before the study came from either the Bush >administration or the puppet regime in Iraq set up by the Bush >administration. Which would you consider more objective and reliable. IBC has nothing to do with the Bush Administration. They're an anti-war group who know more about what's happening in Iraq than anyone who administered a few surveys to a few Iraqis. You are obviously so blinded by political ideology that you wont see the truth. The Lancet study is basically crap. Luckily the IBC people are not so blinded by political ideology (because they are anti-war activists) to disregard the truth because they're scientists with integrity.           Date: From: Subject:         Date: 16 Oct 2006 22:37:31 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT: Clinton, Bush, N. Korea On 16 2006 14:56:47 -0700, "snakehawk" <snakehawk@MailAndNews.com > wrote: >What public surveillance mechanisms? The Iraqi government is hunkered >down behind barricades just like the American troops. No one in the >Iraqi government is taking surveys of the number of people dying in >Iraq. This is borne out in Iraq in statistics gathered by the Iraqi Ministry of Health (MoH). Their casualty monitoring centre was set up in Spring 2004 to allow the Ministry to allocate resources in response to conflict-related violence across Iraq (excluding the Kurdish-administered regions). The system is claimed to be manned 24 hours a day, with hospitals phoning the Ministry in Baghdad on a daily basis (when necessary) to report on dead and wounded from conflict-related violence.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 09:36:55 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On 16 2006 02:26:27 -0700, "zumafan" <mgeorg@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Right, there have only been terrorists since 2003, and it's all because > >of Iraq. > > I'm always amused by the thinking that you shouldn't attack your > enemies because it makes them mad. Agreed, but you should probably have some reason for doing it... it needent be all that good of a reason though. :)   Date: 16 Oct 2006 07:17:03 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq dsc wrote: > > The West must > > show some endurance and finish the job in the Middle East. F > > Absolutely. What, exactly, is "the job in the Middle East?" Is it imposing our way of life and our system of govt. on societies that don't want them? If so, I expect we're still going to be there when my great-grandchildren are born.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 07:08:45 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Fairway wrote: > John B. wrote: > > It has been proven to the satisfaction of all rational people, whose > > numbers don't include you. > I don=B4t doubt the Holocaust but I=B4ve never seen the proof, only the > number - and you would not care about a proof at all, you sleezy little > reptile. F thanks for the laugh.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 06:26:54 From: Tex Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq zumafan wrote: > On 15, 10:22 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s01406736066... > > > > Excerpt: > > > > We estimate that, as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, > > 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be > > expected in a non-conflict situation, > > Another thing, this is the same group who in ober of 2004 (right > before an election) estimated 100K civilian deaths. Now, two years > later (right before an election) they're estimating 655K. I guess in > ober of '08 EVERY Iraqi will be estimated to be dead. If that's the case, we can take all the Oil and pull the troops out and GWB can claim victory! Yeah for us :) Tex     Date: 16 Oct 2006 14:44:21 From: bill-o Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 16--2006, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote: > zumafan wrote: > > On 15, 10:22 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s01406736066... > > > > > > Excerpt: > > > > > > We estimate that, as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March > > > 18, > > > 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be > > > expected in a non-conflict situation, > > > > Another thing, this is the same group who in ober of 2004 (right > > before an election) estimated 100K civilian deaths. Now, two years > > later (right before an election) they're estimating 655K. I guess in > > ober of '08 EVERY Iraqi will be estimated to be dead. > > If that's the case, we can take all the Oil and pull the troops out and > GWB can claim victory! > Yeah for us :) Carbon would love that. It would prove his lame brain theory. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.       Date: From: Subject:   Date: 16 Oct 2006 05:58:35 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message > news:1160961338.394343.184140@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > >> The West must > >> show some endurance and finish the job in the Middle East. F > > > > Absolutely. > > That's bs and the only comback that I can think of (for the moronic side > that obviously doesn't care that much about American deaths) is that it's a > volunteer army. If that's your only comeback... maybe you should have just saved it. :) It's not very good. :) They volunteered... for better or worse. Well, this is some of the worse. They always knew that was a possiblity. But I think more of them have died than was necessary... all in the name of saving a few Iraqi lives. I'm not to happy about that. Okay, I'll admit I've been stirring the pot a little in this thread. Some of you guys work yourselves up into a lather way too easily. But I am serious when I say we have to finish this job. I also beleive if we would/could have shown the resolve to finish the job in Nam, Korea and GulfI we probalby wouldn't be in this situation today. If we don't finish it this time, we will garantee we will be in this situation again. Since WWII we always cut and run... every single time. We never finsh what we start or what we get sucked into. Saddam was able to withstand our first cut and run... he had no reason to believe he couldn't withstand another one. If not for one little bulldog off a Texan who just happened to be PoTUS, I'm sure he would have. I do think that some of the things Bush has done are questionable (in the legal sense). I think he's taken some pretty generous liberties in some cases. I also think they have bungled some parts of how this war was/is fought. But at least he doesnt' waiver in the wind like so many presidents before him.     Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:56:32 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message news:1161003515.476608.232440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: >> "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message >> news:1160961338.394343.184140@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> >> The West must >> >> show some endurance and finish the job in the Middle East. F >> > >> > Absolutely. >> >> That's bs and the only comback that I can think of (for the moronic side >> that obviously doesn't care that much about American deaths) is that it's >> a >> volunteer army. > > If that's your only comeback... maybe you should have just saved it. :) > It's not very good. :) They volunteered... for better or worse. Well, > this is some of the worse. They always knew that was a possiblity. But > I think more of them have died than was necessary... all in the name of > saving a few Iraqi lives. I'm not to happy about that. > > > Okay, I'll admit I've been stirring the pot a little in this thread. > Some of you guys work yourselves up into a lather way too easily. But I > am serious when I say we have to finish this job. I also beleive if we > would/could have shown the resolve to finish the job in Nam, Korea and > GulfI we probalby wouldn't be in this situation today. If we don't > finish it this time, we will garantee we will be in this situation > again. Since WWII we always cut and run... every single time. We never > finsh what we start or what we get sucked into. Saddam was able to > withstand our first cut and run... he had no reason to believe he > couldn't withstand another one. If not for one little bulldog off a > Texan who just happened to be PoTUS, I'm sure he would have. I do think > that some of the things Bush has done are questionable (in the legal > sense). I think he's taken some pretty generous liberties in some > cases. I also think they have bungled some parts of how this war was/is > fought. But at least he doesnt' waiver in the wind like so many > presidents before him. How do you police a civil war? That seems to be what we've enabled. Could France have come in to the United States in 1860 and said "We're going to take some plantation owners and some abolitionists and make a police force out of them. They'll train together and keep the peace."   Date: 16 Oct 2006 05:44:19 From: zumafan Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 15, 10:22 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.verizon.net > wrote: > > http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s01406736066... > > Excerpt: > > We estimate that, as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, > 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be > expected in a non-conflict situation, Another thing, this is the same group who in ober of 2004 (right before an election) estimated 100K civilian deaths. Now, two years later (right before an election) they're estimating 655K. I guess in ober of '08 EVERY Iraqi will be estimated to be dead.     Date: 16 Oct 2006 12:34:20 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 16 2006 05:44:19 -0700, "zumafan" <mgeorg@gmail.com > wrote: >Another thing, this is the same group who in ober of 2004 (right >before an election) estimated 100K civilian deaths. Now, two years >later (right before an election) they're estimating 655K. I guess in >ober of '08 EVERY Iraqi will be estimated to be dead. This is a good point. Using the same methodology, they came up with very different results. When you see such variability in the results of two similar studies you have to question the methodology. In addition, there is an anti-war group called the Iraqi Body Count. They work at hospitals and follow up news reports to varify civilian deaths. They collect data on all death certificates issued in Iraq and try to determine the cause of death. Their figures indicate that there has been between 44,000 and 49,000 varified civilian casualties in Iraq to date. In any case, here is their response to the Lancet study published today. "Iraq Body Count Press Release 16 ober 2006 Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates Hamit Dardagan, John Sloboda, and Josh Dougherty Summary 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 ober 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. If these assertions are true, they further imply: * incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began; * bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis; * the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas; * an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year. 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." http://iraqbodycount.net/       Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:38:39 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message news:hbc7j2davi82rq4sfu5sc92m8dmeg2qo7i@4ax.com... > On 16 2006 05:44:19 -0700, "zumafan" <mgeorg@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Another thing, this is the same group who in ober of 2004 (right >>before an election) estimated 100K civilian deaths. Now, two years >>later (right before an election) they're estimating 655K. I guess in >>ober of '08 EVERY Iraqi will be estimated to be dead. > > > This is a good point. Using the same methodology, they came up with > very different results. When you see such variability in the results > of two similar studies you have to question the methodology. > > In addition, there is an anti-war group called the Iraqi Body Count. > They work at hospitals and follow up news reports to varify civilian > deaths. They collect data on all death certificates issued in Iraq > and try to determine the cause of death. > > Their figures indicate that there has been between 44,000 and 49,000 > varified civilian casualties in Iraq to date. > > In any case, here is their response to the Lancet study published > today. > > > "Iraq Body Count Press Release 16 ober 2006 > > Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates > > Hamit Dardagan, John Sloboda, and Josh Dougherty > > Summary > > 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 ober 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. > > If these assertions are true, they further imply: > > * incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi > officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and > national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation > began; > * bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a > small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis; > * the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and > respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban > areas; > * an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, > to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported > during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month > for over a year. > > 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." > > http://iraqbodycount.net/ I wrote the OP and the question is whether the politicians who make the same arguements as you, which seem to be from a lack of understanding of the study, but maybe not, are going to be willing to accept responsibility for their support of it. I just don't want anyone saying "we got bad intelligence" but didn't realize that we used the same excuse before ... or that everyone was fooled, and so were we ... or "nobody predicted that the levees would break".         Date: 16 Oct 2006 21:08:46 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Mon, 16 2006 13:38:39 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote: >I wrote the OP and the question is whether the politicians who make the same >arguements as you, which seem to be from a lack of understanding of the >study, but maybe not, are going to be willing to accept responsibility for >their support of it. The response is written by researchers who understand exactly what the article is. In addition, Iraqi Body Count (IBC) is an anti-war group that has no political opposition to the spirit of the Lancet study. The IBC article is extremely thorough and well thought out. They are also a group that spends a lot of time collecting data on deaths and injuries in Iraq. The go to the hospitals, morgues and use data collected by the Iraqi Health Ministry. The researchers at IBC are more qualified to critique the Lancet study than anyone else because they are working on the same issue. Let's look more deeply at the issue of the casualties that always accompany deaths. "Implication two: 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. It may be argued that deaths often fail to be reported to authorities or registered by them (although information supplied by the Lancet authors themselves casts doubt on this argument - see Implication four below). However, people suffering injuries usually make strenuous efforts to receive appropriate treatment, or if they are severely incapacitated, others see to it that they do so. It is a long-established finding that around three times as many people are injured in modern wars as are killed in them. This is borne out in Iraq in statistics gathered by the Iraqi Ministry of Health (MoH). Their casualty monitoring centre was set up in Spring 2004 to allow the Ministry to allocate resources in response to conflict-related violence across Iraq (excluding the Kurdish-administered regions). The system is claimed to be manned 24 hours a day, with hospitals phoning the Ministry in Baghdad on a daily basis (when necessary) to report on dead and wounded from conflict-related violence, The MoH has reported 2.9 wounded for each person killed in the period from mid-2004 to mid-2006. An almost identical ratio was confirmed in IBC's independent analysis of media-derived data for the first two years after the invasion. If 600,000 people have died violent deaths, then the 3:1 ratio implies that 1,800,000 Iraqis have by now been wounded. This would correspond to 1 in every 15 Iraqis. Of course, death/injury ratios vary according to the weapons being used. Bombs and air strikes leave more wounded than does gunfire, but even the latter may cause widespread injury when it is indiscriminate, as it often is in gun-battles or in "defensive" fire by US troops who come under attack. By far the lowest proportion of injured are produced in the execution of captives, whether by guns or other means. We might therefore calculate a much more conservative estimate of wounded associated with the Lancet findings, based on the different proportions of weaponry reported in Table 4 of the Lancet paper. We assume 3 wounded for every explosive- or air strike-caused death, but only 1 wounded for every 2 gunfire deaths, and no wounded from the "unknown" and "accident" categories. This yields a revised Lancet-based estimate of 800,000 wounded over the equivalent period for which the MoH has been collecting this information centrally. In that same two-year period the official total of wounded treated in Iraqi hospitals is recorded as 59,372. Whether hospitals can provide a comprehensive tally of violent deaths or not, their knowledge of seriously injured should be much more complete. Accepting the Lancet estimate would entail concluding that at least 740,000 wounded Iraqis (90% of the total) were not treated or, if treated, not recorded in any way, throughout a 2-year period beginning in mid-2004. It may be that many injured anti-occupation combatants have avoided hospitals to prevent identification or arrest, but they are hardly likely to account for more than a small fraction of this discrepancy. It would further imply that approaching 90% of Lancet's deaths are also of combatants." I can't see anything wrong with the logic or reasoning behind their argument and it is only one of many. Political ideologues will disregard this because they want to believe the article. However, anyone with any sense of objectivity has to be skeptical of the Lancet study's accuracy.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 05:35:45 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq The World Wide Wade wrote: > In article > <1160961225.424331.227420@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > > > Fairway wrote: > > > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > > > Brilliant. Be sure and inform the Jewish community that it > > > > doesn't matter if it was 600K or 6 million Jews killed in the > > > > Holocaust. > > > Well - which number is the correct one? Has it been proven beyond doubt > > > that the victims were 6M ? F > > > > How ever many died... is how many died. Whatever number you put on it > > (correct or otherwise) doesn't change the outcome. > > That's insane. You don't know the outcome unless you have some > grasp of the magnitude of the death toll. Horse hockey. You don't know the magnitude without knowing the magnitude... but the outcome is pretty clear. Hitler killed a lot of people... some with bombs, some with bullets, some with gas... we (Russians, British, Americans and all the other allies) killed him (well technically he killed himself to deny us the pleasure). That's your outcome in it's simpliest form. :)     Date: 16 Oct 2006 11:52:39 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq In article <1161002145.669736.210010@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote: > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > In article > > <1160961225.424331.227420@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > Fairway wrote: > > > > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > > > > Brilliant. Be sure and inform the Jewish community that it > > > > > doesn't matter if it was 600K or 6 million Jews killed in the > > > > > Holocaust. > > > > Well - which number is the correct one? Has it been proven beyond doubt > > > > that the victims were 6M ? F > > > > > > How ever many died... is how many died. Whatever number you put on it > > > (correct or otherwise) doesn't change the outcome. > > > > That's insane. You don't know the outcome unless you have some > > grasp of the magnitude of the death toll. > > Horse hockey. You don't know the magnitude without knowing the > magnitude... but the outcome is pretty clear. Hitler killed a lot of > people... some with bombs, some with bullets, some with gas... we > (Russians, British, Americans and all the other allies) killed him > (well technically he killed himself to deny us the pleasure). That's > your outcome in it's simpliest form. :) Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of people ... we killed him. There's your outcome. Pretty much the same as Hitler. Brilliant.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 05:24:14 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message > news:1160961225.424331.227420@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > > > Fairway wrote: > >> The World Wide Wade wrote: > >> > Brilliant. Be sure and inform the Jewish community that it > >> > doesn't matter if it was 600K or 6 million Jews killed in the > >> > Holocaust. > >> Well - which number is the correct one? Has it been proven beyond doubt > >> that the victims were 6M ? F > > > > How ever many died... is how many died. Whatever number you put on it > > (correct or otherwise) doesn't change the outcome. > > Maybe it has already had an impact of radical Muslim recruitment. Maybe they > see what's happening and hear the US lying about smart bombs and surgical > stirkes and say ... well we all know what they do. I guess as long as there are radicals, we'll have to keep killing/impriosning radicals. But I'm pretty sure we'll stop if they do. They can stop any time they want, we can't stop until they do. So it's in their control... not ours. I'll grant you that there have been a lot of mistakes made to date... not enough boots on the ground, worrying about collateral damge to the point that you don't use enough force and put our troops in unnecessary danger, bad intelligence, friendly fire deaths, etc. But we are there now and need to stay until the job is finished or it will come back and bite us in the @$$ just like Korea and Gulf War I. If we had finished either of those jobs the first time, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion now. We may well have to go back to NK at some point and this time it could well be on a nuclear scale if they in fact do have nukes. That (and Iran) are much scarier than Iraq at this point.     Date: 16 Oct 2006 12:20:18 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 16 2006 05:24:14 -0700, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote: >But we are there now and need to stay until >the job is finished or it will come back and bite us in the @$$ just >like Korea and Gulf War I. If we had finished either of those jobs the >first time, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion now. The US lacked the political will to achieve a victory in Korea 50 years ago and now it's come back to haunt the US in spades.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 05:05:48 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq The World Wide Wade wrote: > In article > <1160961052.716287.169740@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > > > Carbon wrote: > > > On Sun, 15 2006 08:59:48 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote: > > > > Carbon wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 15 2006 05:26:44 -0700, dsc wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> I'm not sure what is to be gained by knowing the exact number. It= is > > > >>> what it is whether you call it 60K or 600K. It's war... people di= e=2E.. > > > >>> then you move on. Knowing the exact number will not bring any of = them > > > >>> back. > > > >> > > > >> Knowing how many died helped determine that more people got killed > > > >> after the invasion than before under Saddam. > > > > > > > > Sounds like you don't need to know the numbers because you have alr= eady > > > > concluded that more people have died after the liberation of Iraq. > > > > > > One of us is definitely ignoring the facts. Here are the facts: > > > > > > http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s01406736066= 94919.p > > > df > > > > > > Excerpt: > > > > > > We estimate that, as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March= 18, > > > 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be > > > expected in a non-conflict situation, which is equivalent to about 2.= 5: of > > > the population in the study area. About 601000 of these excess deaths= were > > > due to violent causes. Our estimate of the post-invasion crude mortal= ity > > > rate represents a doubling of the baseline mortality rate... The > > > post-invasion crude mortality rate increased signi=EF=AC=81cantly from > > > pre-invasion =EF=AC=81gures, and showed a rising trend. > > > > > > > > > Please don't bore us with clueless attacks on the scientific validity= of > > > the study. People who actually know what they're talking about have g= one > > > over it and it's solid. > > > > Riddle me this Batman... > > Had the Iraqi people had the will/backbone/balls) to do the revolution > > them selves... what would the death toll have been? > > We don't know asshole. Wow, that was easier than I thought. you already resorted to name calling... I guess I win. :) You are way too easy. Try and put up a least a little fight next time. :)     Date: 16 Oct 2006 12:20:23 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq In article <1161000348.412779.224460@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote: > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > In article > > <1160961052.716287.169740@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, > > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > Carbon wrote: > > > > On Sun, 15 2006 08:59:48 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote: > > > > > Carbon wrote: > > > > >> On Sun, 15 2006 05:26:44 -0700, dsc wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> I'm not sure what is to be gained by knowing the exact number. It > > > > >>> is > > > > >>> what it is whether you call it 60K or 600K. It's war... people > > > > >>> die... > > > > >>> then you move on. Knowing the exact number will not bring any of > > > > >>> them > > > > >>> back. > > > > >> > > > > >> Knowing how many died helped determine that more people got killed > > > > >> after the invasion than before under Saddam. > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like you don't need to know the numbers because you have > > > > > already > > > > > concluded that more people have died after the liberation of Iraq. > > > > > > > > One of us is definitely ignoring the facts. Here are the facts: > > > > > > > > http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s01406736066949 > > > > 19.p > > > > df > > > > > > > > Excerpt: > > > > > > > > We estimate that, as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March > > > > 18, > > > > 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be > > > > expected in a non-conflict situation, which is equivalent to about 2.5: > > > > of > > > > the population in the study area. About 601000 of these excess deaths > > > > were > > > > due to violent causes. Our estimate of the post-invasion crude > > > > mortality > > > > rate represents a doubling of the baseline mortality rate... The > > > > post-invasion crude mortality rate increased significantly from > > > > pre-invasion figures, and showed a rising trend. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please don't bore us with clueless attacks on the scientific validity > > > > of > > > > the study. People who actually know what they're talking about have > > > > gone > > > > over it and it's solid. > > > > > > Riddle me this Batman... > > > Had the Iraqi people had the will/backbone/balls) to do the revolution > > > them selves... what would the death toll have been? > > > > We don't know asshole. > > Wow, that was easier than I thought. you already resorted to name > calling... I guess I win. No, you lost - which is why you snipped most of my post. Your question was an utterly stupid one. > :) You are way too easy. Try and put up a > least a little fight next time. :)   Date: 16 Oct 2006 05:03:50 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message > news:1160961052.716287.169740@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > Carbon wrote: > > On Sun, 15 2006 08:59:48 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote: > > > Carbon wrote: > > >> On Sun, 15 2006 05:26:44 -0700, dsc wrote: > > >> > > >>> I'm not sure what is to be gained by knowing the exact number. It is > > >>> what it is whether you call it 60K or 600K. It's war... people die... > > >>> then you move on. Knowing the exact number will not bring any of them > > >>> back. > > >> > > >> Knowing how many died helped determine that more people got killed > > >> after the invasion than before under Saddam. > > > > > > Sounds like you don't need to know the numbers because you have already > > > concluded that more people have died after the liberation of Iraq. > > > > One of us is definitely ignoring the facts. Here are the facts: > > > > http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf > > > > Excerpt: > > > > We estimate that, as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, > > 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be > > expected in a non-conflict situation, which is equivalent to about 2.5: of > > the population in the study area. About 601000 of these excess deaths were > > due to violent causes. Our estimate of the post-invasion crude mortality > > rate represents a doubling of the baseline mortality rate... The > > post-invasion crude mortality rate increased signi?cantly from > > pre-invasion ?gures, and showed a rising trend. > > > > > > Please don't bore us with clueless attacks on the scientific validity of > > the study. People who actually know what they're talking about have gone > > over it and it's solid. > > Riddle me this Batman... > Had the Iraqi people had the will/backbone/balls) to do the revolution > them selves... what would the death toll have been? > > I thought it was a liberation ... now wait, now it's an insurgency ... no, > now it's a civil war. It is what ever it is... why is everyone so hung up on putting numbers and names on things? A rose by any other name... :)   Date: 16 Oct 2006 04:20:31 From: Tex Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq The World Wide Wade wrote: > In article <4532eb3e$0$25979$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>, > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote: > > > On 15--2006, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > One of us is definitely ignoring the facts. Here are the facts: > > > > Facts hell! That is an EXTRAPOLATION based on less than 600 certified > > deaths! > > You haven't the faintest clue about how probability and > statistics work, do you? By your logic, counting the driveby shootings in Compton and then extroplating that out to the entire State of California would have us to believe that 5000 people each day are shot in California. Tex     Date: 16 Oct 2006 18:52:03 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq In article <1160997631.466475.73750@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote: > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > In article <4532eb3e$0$25979$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>, > > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote: > > > > > On 15--2006, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > One of us is definitely ignoring the facts. Here are the facts: > > > > > > Facts hell! That is an EXTRAPOLATION based on less than 600 certified > > > deaths! > > > > You haven't the faintest clue about how probability and > > statistics work, do you? > > By your logic, It's not my logic. It's a simple reality: An extrapolation based on fewer that 600 deaths cam be extremely accurate with a high level of probability. It depends on the methodology. Simply citing "less than 600 deaths" as evidence the study is flawed is ignorant. > counting the driveby shootings in Compton and then > extroplating that out to the entire State of California would have us > to believe that 5000 people each day are shot in California. Well Tex, you pulled that figure out of your ass (you're off by a factor of a 100 or something), but never mind. Yes, extrapolating gun deaths from Compton to all of CA would be incredibly stupid. Perhaps you can help us out here and point to the design flaws in the Lancet study that render it as incredibly stupid as a Compton to CA extrapolation.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 02:26:27 From: zumafan Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > Maybe it has already had an impact of radical Muslim recruitment. Maybe they > see what's happening and hear the US lying about smart bombs and surgical > stirkes and say ... well we all know what they do. Right, there have only been terrorists since 2003, and it's all because of Iraq.     Date: 16 Oct 2006 12:14:38 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 16 2006 02:26:27 -0700, "zumafan" <mgeorg@gmail.com > wrote: >Right, there have only been terrorists since 2003, and it's all because >of Iraq. I'm always amused by the thinking that you shouldn't attack your enemies because it makes them mad.       Date: 16 Oct 2006 16:24:12 From: Joe Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On 16 2006 02:26:27 -0700, "zumafan" <mgeorg@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>Right, there have only been terrorists since 2003, and it's all because >>of Iraq. > > > I'm always amused by the thinking that you shouldn't attack your > enemies because it makes them mad. lol j       Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:49:55 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message news:1qb7j2h5r8sb8a3iaf5jkics1ll2v52a70@4ax.com... > On 16 2006 02:26:27 -0700, "zumafan" <mgeorg@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Right, there have only been terrorists since 2003, and it's all because >>of Iraq. > > I'm always amused by the thinking that you shouldn't attack your > enemies because it makes them mad. In this case you are making a bunch of people in other countries mad who might have been on the fence, maybe millions. I guess the idea of fighting for 'hearts and minds" is bs. Well, if should be interesting fighting Iraq, Iran and North Korea, all at the same time. I guess the US is so powerful and so popular that we don't need to worry about our image in other countries. That might have made more sense when we were isolationist, which seems to when our image was the best, as opposed to now, when our foreign policy is kind of a Texas is the lone star state and we don't need know stinking allies.         Date: 16 Oct 2006 21:18:37 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Mon, 16 2006 13:49:55 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote: >In this case you are making a bunch of people in other countries mad who >might have been on the fence, maybe millions. I guess the idea of fighting >for 'hearts and minds" is bs. I'm sure that public opinion of the US went down in Germany in December of 1941.           Date: 16 Oct 2006 21:57:08 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message news:ldb8j25r0cv0r933de22lmmvdr5jjt4q09@4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 2006 13:49:55 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" > <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote: > >>In this case you are making a bunch of people in other countries mad who >>might have been on the fence, maybe millions. I guess the idea of fighting >>for 'hearts and minds" is bs. > > I'm sure that public opinion of the US went down in Germany in > December of 1941. We are fighting against the radical part of a worldwide religion. There was little chance that our actions in Germany could have gotten more Germans to join the army. There is now a growing army from around the world, drawing on a billion person (who really knows how big) pool. Isn't the difference obvious? Germany was the obvious bad guy in world opinion. The US is not the good guy in world opinon, in this one and there is no bad guy country because the war is not against a country but a religon.             Date: 17 Oct 2006 12:06:36 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Mon, 16 2006 21:57:08 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote: >> I'm sure that public opinion of the US went down in Germany in >> December of 1941. > >We are fighting against the radical part of a worldwide religion. There was >little chance that our actions in Germany could have gotten more Germans to >join the army. There is now a growing army from around the world, drawing on >a billion person (who really knows how big) pool. Isn't the difference >obvious? First, the Germans were a lot more dangerous. The idea that radical Islamists can defeat the US is absurd. They can cause a lot of trouble, but Islam will not prevail over the West. In fact, the more strife and chaos in the Middle East the worse it is for Islam. Saddam had his fantasies that he was the second Salamun and he ended up hiding in a hole in the ground. An Iraq divided by sectarian conflict is only a setback for the cause of Islam. Right now, they're killing a lot more of their fellow Muslims than anyone else. Divide and conquer.               Date: 17 Oct 2006 13:44:44 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq No one said radical Muslims can defeat the US. Are you a high school student? "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message news:r0v9j255r591j0mc46khf8rt65uphamqnm@4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 2006 21:57:08 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" > <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote: > >>> I'm sure that public opinion of the US went down in Germany in >>> December of 1941. >> >>We are fighting against the radical part of a worldwide religion. There >>was >>little chance that our actions in Germany could have gotten more Germans >>to >>join the army. There is now a growing army from around the world, drawing >>on >>a billion person (who really knows how big) pool. Isn't the difference >>obvious? > > > First, the Germans were a lot more dangerous. The idea that radical > Islamists can defeat the US is absurd. They can cause a lot of > trouble, but Islam will not prevail over the West. > > In fact, the more strife and chaos in the Middle East the worse it is > for Islam. Saddam had his fantasies that he was the second Salamun > and he ended up hiding in a hole in the ground. An Iraq divided by > sectarian conflict is only a setback for the cause of Islam. Right > now, they're killing a lot more of their fellow Muslims than anyone > else. Divide and conquer.                 Date: 17 Oct 2006 19:49:15 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Tue, 17 2006 13:44:44 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote: >No one said radical Muslims can defeat the US. Are you a high school >student? No, but then why should the US worry about winning the hearts and minds of the Muslims? Right now, I think the Muslims should be concerned about winning the hearts and minds of the Americans.                   Date: From: Subject:                   Date: 17 Oct 2006 23:08:20 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message news:hrqaj2pq547lf59il8h4ls8k1e1fp2asi7@4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 2006 13:44:44 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" > <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote: > >>No one said radical Muslims can defeat the US. Are you a high school >>student? > > No, but then why should the US worry about winning the hearts and > minds of the Muslims? Right now, I think the Muslims should be > concerned about winning the hearts and minds of the Americans. That's an interesting point but doesn't answer the question. And how would we know what they care about winning American hearts and minds. There aren't many people who have a clue to what is going on in their thoughts or beliefs, imo. Do some of them, or most of them want to be known and understood? I think so and the fact that maybe the maternal instinct is stronger than religious fanaticism, on both sides, is one thing to hope for. That maybe we love our kids more than we love the religions we have created in opposition to things like the real message of Jesus, imo.                     Date: 23 Oct 2006 11:46:01 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Tue, 17 2006 23:08:20 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote: >> No, but then why should the US worry about winning the hearts and >> minds of the Muslims? Right now, I think the Muslims should be >> concerned about winning the hearts and minds of the Americans. > >That's an interesting point but doesn't answer the question. And how would >we know what they care about winning American hearts and minds. There aren't >many people who have a clue to what is going on in their thoughts or >beliefs, imo. The point I was making is that, at some point, the Muslims have to come to the conclusion that the radical Islamists are doing more harm than good to their own people and perhaps if they stop attacking the US and Europe, the Muslim world will be a lot better off. So far, groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah have caused trouble for the US, Europe and Israel, but they've been a disaster for the Muslim world. If the Islamic world wants to become a major force in the world, they need peace and prosperity. Constant tension and war only hurts Islam.           Date: 16 Oct 2006 20:41:51 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq In article <ldb8j25r0cv0r933de22lmmvdr5jjt4q09@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Mon, 16 2006 13:49:55 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" > <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote: > > >In this case you are making a bunch of people in other countries mad who > >might have been on the fence, maybe millions. I guess the idea of fighting > >for 'hearts and minds" is bs. > > I'm sure that public opinion of the US went down in Germany in > December of 1941. We weren't fighting a war for the "hearts and minds" of the German populace. We were in Iraq - at least according to the Pentagon, which now concedes that war has been lost.             Date: 17 Oct 2006 11:51:18 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Mon, 16 2006 20:41:51 -0700, The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote: >We weren't fighting a war for the "hearts and minds" of the >German populace. We were in Iraq - at least according to the >Pentagon, which now concedes that war has been lost. Actually, the US fought the war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam and his sons. Regime change was the major goal and no matter what happens, that goal has been achieved. It would be nice if they US could have arranged a democratically elected pro West government, but even if Iraq descends into civil war, getting rid of Saddam will have been worth it.               Date: 17 Oct 2006 10:56:14 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Tue, 17 2006 11:51:18 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: >On Mon, 16 2006 20:41:51 -0700, The World Wide Wade ><waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote: > >>We weren't fighting a war for the "hearts and minds" of the >>German populace. We were in Iraq - at least according to the >>Pentagon, which now concedes that war has been lost. > > >Actually, the US fought the war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam and his >sons. Regime change was the major goal and no matter what happens, >that goal has been achieved. > >It would be nice if they US could have arranged a democratically >elected pro West government, but even if Iraq descends into civil war, >getting rid of Saddam will have been worth it. Why? ___, \o               Date: 17 Oct 2006 15:00:18 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq In article <b9u9j2dirti5fdjd5aud4u6e7m1b79p7g2@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Mon, 16 2006 20:41:51 -0700, The World Wide Wade > <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote: > > >We weren't fighting a war for the "hearts and minds" of the > >German populace. We were in Iraq - at least according to the > >Pentagon, which now concedes that war has been lost. > > > Actually, the US fought the war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam and his > sons. Regime change was the major goal and no matter what happens, > that goal has been achieved. LOL. That was certainly a "goal". And one of my goals today is to mow the lawn. Nobody with the slightest knowledge of the US/Iraq military balance could have entertained any thought that the US would fail in successfully invading and overthrowing that regime. There was no Iraq war. If you think "war" is the right term, then you'll have no trouble putting an 8 year-old in the ring with Mike Tyson and calling it a "boxing match". Here is Bush, early on, in April 03: "Our mission -- besides removing the regime that threatened us [false], besides ending a place (sic) where the terrorists could find a friend [translation: creating a lightning rod for terrorist jihadis], besides getting rid of weapons of mass destruction [that didn't exist] -- our mission has been to bring a humanitarian aid and restore basic services [which are far below pre-invasion levels, 3 1/2 years later], and put this country, Iraq, on the road to self-government [words alone do not suffice]." > It would be nice if they US could have arranged a democratically > elected pro West government, but even if Iraq descends into civil war, > getting rid of Saddam will have been worth it. You sir, are an apologist for the most deluded ["I talk to god"], incompetent [what, there are two sects of Islam there? --see Woodward], and dangerous regimes ever to roam Pennsylvania Avenue.                 Date: From: Subject:               Date: 17 Oct 2006 12:11:45 From: FredK Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message news:b9u9j2dirti5fdjd5aud4u6e7m1b79p7g2@4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 2006 20:41:51 -0700, The World Wide Wade > <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote: > > >We weren't fighting a war for the "hearts and minds" of the > >German populace. We were in Iraq - at least according to the > >Pentagon, which now concedes that war has been lost. > > > Actually, the US fought the war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam and his > sons. Regime change was the major goal and no matter what happens, > that goal has been achieved. > > It would be nice if they US could have arranged a democratically > elected pro West government, but even if Iraq descends into civil war, > getting rid of Saddam will have been worth it. That is questionable on pretty much every level. What will have been the cost that was "worth it"? The US and Iraqi deaths? The potential destablization of the entire region (think Turkey and the Kurds)? A trillion dollars and the weakening of the US military infrastructure? The weakening of our relationships with allies? The new wave of terrorists being trained by the ongoing action in Iraq? An Iraq that forms strong political ties to Iran? An unmitigated disaster.                 Date: 19 Oct 2006 12:24:03 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Tue, 17 2006 12:11:45 -0400, "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote: >That is questionable on pretty much every level. What will have been the >cost that was "worth it"? The US and Iraqi deaths? Saddam was considered as a long range threat to the US. As much as they talked about his possession of biological and chemical weapons, these were not a threat. But Saddam, or his sons with nuclear weapons 20 or 25 years down the road was a legitimate concern. That threat no longer exists. >The potential >destablization of the entire region (think Turkey and the Kurds)? The region wasn't that stable to begin with and I can't see this conflict spreading beyond Iraq. The Shia and Sunni in Iraq could end up in a civil war, but what's so bad about your enemies wasting their energy fighting each other. Turkey would not be happy to see a new country called Kurdistan on their eastern border, but they have the military might to take care of anything that arises. If given the reason, they might even annex Kurdistan and it's oil which would then come under NATO (and probably EU) control. > Atrillion dollars and the weakening of the US military infrastructure? I disagree. This conflict will strengthen the US military. >The weakening of our relationships with allies? The new wave of terrorists >being trained by the ongoing action in Iraq? The only "ally" that the US has alienated is France and that's of little consequence. Certainly the war has led to tensions with Russia and China, but I would hardly consider them as allies. >An Iraq that forms strong political ties to Iran? This is the most serious potential problem, but nothing can be done without a down side. Of course, if Iran continues with its nuclear ambitions, they may end up with more serious things to worry about than spreading their influence in the Shia regions of Iraq.                   Date: 20 Oct 2006 09:01:43 From: FredK Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message news:kc8fj291ut27a7lrscg5urs27vamv4in4u@4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 2006 12:11:45 -0400, "FredK" > <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote: > > > >That is questionable on pretty much every level. What will have been the > >cost that was "worth it"? The US and Iraqi deaths? > > Saddam was considered as a long range threat to the US. As much as > they talked about his possession of biological and chemical weapons, > these were not a threat. But Saddam, or his sons with nuclear weapons > 20 or 25 years down the road was a legitimate concern. That threat no > longer exists. > Of the "axis of evil" Iraq was simply the "soft" target. One of the others now has nuclear weapons and has a delivery system to begin fitting them to. The other will achieve the same in a few years. Both are bigger short and long term "threats". > >The potential > >destablization of the entire region (think Turkey and the Kurds)? > > The region wasn't that stable to begin with and I can't see this > conflict spreading beyond Iraq. The Shia and Sunni in Iraq could end > up in a civil war, but what's so bad about your enemies wasting their > energy fighting each other. > What emerges afterwards is the threat. > Turkey would not be happy to see a new country called Kurdistan on > their eastern border, but they have the military might to take care of > anything that arises. If given the reason, they might even annex > Kurdistan and it's oil which would then come under NATO (and probably > EU) control. > Did you work in the White House? An invasion by Turkey will pull much of the region into it. > > Atrillion dollars and the weakening of the US military infrastructure? > > I disagree. This conflict will strengthen the US military. > Talk to someone working on military programs and ask them how their funding is. Many programs have been stopped, put on life support, extended with band-aids and white glue - while the resources are sucked out for Iraq. When we are done (if ever) in Iraq, it will take years to restock and rebuild. Many important long term programs will have been set back by 5 or 10 years. > > >The weakening of our relationships with allies? The new wave of terrorists > >being trained by the ongoing action in Iraq? > > The only "ally" that the US has alienated is France and that's of > little consequence. Certainly the war has led to tensions with Russia > and China, but I would hardly consider them as allies. > You don't get out much do you. > > >An Iraq that forms strong political ties to Iran? > > This is the most serious potential problem, but nothing can be done > without a down side. Of course, if Iran continues with its nuclear > ambitions, they may end up with more serious things to worry about > than spreading their influence in the Shia regions of Iraq. Or we may have a lot more to worry about.                     Date: 23 Oct 2006 16:09:08 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Fri, 20 2006 09:01:43 -0400, "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote: >> Saddam was considered as a long range threat to the US. As much as >> they talked about his possession of biological and chemical weapons, >> these were not a threat. But Saddam, or his sons with nuclear weapons >> 20 or 25 years down the road was a legitimate concern. That threat no >> longer exists. >> > >Of the "axis of evil" Iraq was simply the "soft" target. One of the others >now has nuclear weapons and has a delivery system to begin fitting them to. >The other will achieve the same in a few years. Both are bigger short and >long term "threats". You have to start somewhere and Saddam's number came up first. Iran is still in a position where the US can do something about it and I hope that the US has the will to do it before it's too late. NK is another kettle of fish and the US will have to adjust to a nuclear NK.                       Date: 24 Oct 2006 10:48:09 From: tiggerspalewife Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq In article <v48qj25kr8903ccji5ec8uduvp1mmg7ju1@4ax.com > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: "You have to start somewhere and Saddam's number came up first. Iran is still in a position where the US can do something about it and I hope that the US has the will to do it before it's too late. NK is another kettle of fish and the US will have to adjust to a nuclear NK." .and since we've killed off about 2800 plus good American kids (84 so far this month) and spent all our money as well as the next generation's on this war, where do you propose the resources for this "policeing" of iran and nk come from? Oh ya, the National Guard is pretty used up too. In fact so used up we don't even have enough to take care of our national emergencies right here in the good ol' U. S. of A. Will you be signing up? How about your kids, your friends' kids and your neighbors? The well is dry my friend and your kettle of fish is stinking taking on a real bad smell.                         Date: 24 Oct 2006 07:27:37 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq tiggerspalewife wrote: > In article <v48qj25kr8903ccji5ec8uduvp1mmg7ju1@4ax.com> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > "You have to start somewhere and Saddam's number came up first. Iran > is still in a position where the US can do something about it and I > hope that the US has the will to do it before it's too late. NK is > another kettle of fish and the US will have to adjust to a nuclear NK." > > > .and since we've killed off about 2800 plus good American kids (84 so > far this month) and spent all our money as well as the next generation's > on this war, where do you propose the resources for this "policeing" of > iran and nk come from? Oh ya, the National Guard is pretty used up too. > In fact so used up we don't even have enough to take care of our national > emergencies right here in the good ol' U. S. of A. Will you be signing > up? How about your kids, your friends' kids and your neighbors? The well > is dry my friend and your kettle of fish is stinking taking on a real bad > smell. We can stop throwing money down the "entitlement" pit, double the defense budget and reduce federal taxes at the same time. Put social welfare back at the state level and let the federal government do its job of conducting foreign policy and common defense of the several states.                     Date: 24 Oct 2006 21:31:23 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Fri, 20 2006 09:01:43 -0400, "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote: >> The only "ally" that the US has alienated is France and that's of >> little consequence. Certainly the war has led to tensions with Russia >> and China, but I would hardly consider them as allies. >> > >You don't get out much do you. I could get out more, but I have 3 kids. In any case, I don't see any real damage to the relationship between the US and its allies. I'm sure that France is smarting a bit, but they've been very cooperative on Iran and NK. What else are they going to do? They're certainly not going to cast their lot with the Russians and Chinese. Germany's opposition to the war was more for domestic consumption than anything else. Schroder was in a fight to be re-elected and support for the war in Iraq was political suicide. Despite their opposition to the war, Germany allowed the US and Britain to use NATO bases in Germany to support the war effort. Schroder sent 10,000 troops to Afghanistan which freed up 10,000 US troops for Iraq. German intelligence agents inside Iraq also provided targeting information to the US during the early stages of the war. Unfortunately for Schroder, his ploy didn't work. Merkel ended up as Chancellor and the first thing she did was come to Washington to suck up to Bush.                     Date: 24 Oct 2006 21:14:21 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Fri, 20 2006 09:01:43 -0400, "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote: >> I disagree. This conflict will strengthen the US military. >> > >Talk to someone working on military programs and ask them how their funding >is. Many programs have been stopped, put on life support, extended with >band-aids and white glue - while the resources are sucked out for Iraq. >When we are done (if ever) in Iraq, it will take years to restock and >rebuild. Many important long term programs will have been set back by 5 or >10 years. However, at the same time, the US is "field testing" all its weapon systems. The military will get to see what works and what doesn't work. I can assure you that weapons development programs are getting funding. The next generation of equipment will be better and the current generation is coming on line a lot faster. If it wasn't for Afghanistan and Iraq, the Predator would still be in the testing phase instead of an active system with very effective results. This is also a lesson in counter insurgence tactics and a sobering one at that. The US is learning the lesson that the Israeli's learned a long time ago. Suicide bombers are very difficult to stop in an urban environment. Israel solved the problem by totally isolating themselves from the Palestinians with a wall. Obviously, this can not be done in the cities of Iraq.                     Date: 24 Oct 2006 20:48:41 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Fri, 20 2006 09:01:43 -0400, "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote: >> Turkey would not be happy to see a new country called Kurdistan on >> their eastern border, but they have the military might to take care of >> anything that arises. If given the reason, they might even annex >> Kurdistan and it's oil which would then come under NATO (and probably >> EU) control. >> > >Did you work in the White House? An invasion by Turkey will pull much of >the region into it. I doubt it. If an autonomous Kurdish state in Iraq was causing trouble for Turkey and Turkey decided to "annex" the region, I doubt that anyone would do anything about it. Iran wouldn't like it, but they're not about to attack a nation with a far superior military and a NATO member to boot.                       Date: 24 Oct 2006 21:21:28 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On Fri, 20 2006 09:01:43 -0400, "FredK" > <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote: > >>> Turkey would not be happy to see a new country called Kurdistan on >>> their eastern border, but they have the military might to take care of >>> anything that arises. If given the reason, they might even annex >>> Kurdistan and it's oil which would then come under NATO (and probably >>> EU) control. >>> >> Did you work in the White House? An invasion by Turkey will pull much of >> the region into it. > > I doubt it. If an autonomous Kurdish state in Iraq was causing > trouble for Turkey and Turkey decided to "annex" the region, I doubt > that anyone would do anything about it. Iran wouldn't like it, but > they're not about to attack a nation with a far superior military and > a NATO member to boot. That depends upon whether the Iranian Kurds kicked in with the Turkish Kurds and the Iraqi Kurds. If the Kurds meld from all three nations into a single autonomous region then the Iraqi's, Turk's and Iranian's would all be engaged in a battle with the Kurds.                         Date: 24 Oct 2006 22:18:33 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Tue, 24 2006 21:21:28 -0400, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: >That depends upon whether the Iranian Kurds kicked in with the Turkish >Kurds and the Iraqi Kurds. If the Kurds meld from all three nations into >a single autonomous region then the Iraqi's, Turk's and Iranian's would >all be engaged in a battle with the Kurds. First of all, the scenario where Turkey "annexes" the Kurdish region of Iraq is highly speculative. More likely is that the US maintains a presence in the area and keeps the Turks and Iranians out. This would also assume that Iraq is divided into three autonomous regions, which is no sure thing.                           Date: 24 Oct 2006 22:21:13 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On Tue, 24 2006 21:21:28 -0400, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> > wrote: > >> That depends upon whether the Iranian Kurds kicked in with the Turkish >> Kurds and the Iraqi Kurds. If the Kurds meld from all three nations into >> a single autonomous region then the Iraqi's, Turk's and Iranian's would >> all be engaged in a battle with the Kurds. > > First of all, the scenario where Turkey "annexes" the Kurdish region > of Iraq is highly speculative. More likely is that the US maintains a > presence in the area and keeps the Turks and Iranians out. This would > also assume that Iraq is divided into three autonomous regions, which > is no sure thing. The Kurds in the north of Iraq are sitting on a pile of oil.                             Date: 25 Oct 2006 12:52:38 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Tue, 24 2006 22:21:13 -0400, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: >> First of all, the scenario where Turkey "annexes" the Kurdish region >> of Iraq is highly speculative. More likely is that the US maintains a >> presence in the area and keeps the Turks and Iranians out. This would >> also assume that Iraq is divided into three autonomous regions, which >> is no sure thing. > >The Kurds in the north of Iraq are sitting on a pile of oil. Right now, there are a lot of Sunni's taking up Kurdish seats on the Kirkuk oil fields.                     Date: 24 Oct 2006 20:40:30 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Fri, 20 2006 09:01:43 -0400, "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote: >> The region wasn't that stable to begin with and I can't see this >> conflict spreading beyond Iraq. The Shia and Sunni in Iraq could end >> up in a civil war, but what's so bad about your enemies wasting their >> energy fighting each other. >> > >What emerges afterwards is the threat. There's no rule saying that the US can't go back if necessary. Better still is to stay until the job is finished no matter how long it takes.               Date: 17 Oct 2006 17:34:22 From: MuahMan Subject: Re: Alan Baker's Eternal Shame "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net > wrote in message news:mr-EDC36F.21561617102006@individual.net... > In article <1161113415.911415.196830@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote: > >> > Been there, done that. And you know damn well it happened. >> >> "And no the one time where I was clearly joking doesn't count. " >> >> What part of that is too complicated for you to understand, Loopy? > > Been there, done that. And you know damn well it happened. Ample > quotes have been given in this matter. > And in steps Alan's "life partner"! These mac jihad are a tight bunch. Check your car for C4! > > -- > Sandman[.net]               Date: 17 Oct 2006 13:42:36 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq I'm sure other will attack this, and rightly so. I can't imagine anyone saying this, really. "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message news:b9u9j2dirti5fdjd5aud4u6e7m1b79p7g2@4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 2006 20:41:51 -0700, The World Wide Wade > <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote: > >>We weren't fighting a war for the "hearts and minds" of the >>German populace. We were in Iraq - at least according to the >>Pentagon, which now concedes that war has been lost. > > > Actually, the US fought the war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam and his > sons. Regime change was the major goal and no matter what happens, > that goal has been achieved. > > It would be nice if they US could have arranged a democratically > elected pro West government, but even if Iraq descends into civil war, > getting rid of Saddam will have been worth it.               Date: 27 Oct 2006 06:35:55 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On Thu, 26 2006 01:59:08 GMT, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> > wrote: > > >> You may be right, but whatever happens, it's better than having Saddam > >> in power. > > > >How? > > What could be worse than Saddam? A sectarian civil war, chaos, anarchy, widespread violence, 100 Iraqis dying violent deaths every day, no electicity throughout most of the country, an impotent, ineffectual government. That would be worse. Wait! That's what's going on there right now!                 Date: 27 Oct 2006 11:47:31 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 27 2006 06:35:55 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: >> What could be worse than Saddam? > >A sectarian civil war, chaos, anarchy, widespread violence, 100 Iraqis >dying violent deaths every day, no electicity throughout most of the >country, an impotent, ineffectual government. My point exactly.             Date: 20 Oct 2006 06:32:03 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message > news:lloydparsons-8F0327.17154819102006@individual.net... > > In article <1161294882.070307.311130@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > >> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> > news:1161285305.639894.35880@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > > > >> > > dsc wrote: > >> > >> > First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any > >> > >> > information > >> > >> > from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they > >> > >> > occupy. > >> > >> > >> > >> They are crooks... but most are not idiots. > >> > > > >> > > Most are neither crooks nor idiots. Most are dedicated public > >> > > servants > >> > > doing what they think is right. > >> > > >> > That has not been my experience. And not in public office, non-elected > >> > as in > >> > heads of state departments and upper level management in the areas that > >> > spend your money on the state level. > >> > >> Well, I don't want to sound like Mr. know-it-all, but I spent a > >> sizeable chunk of my working life on Capitol Hill and while I'm glad as > >> hell I'm not there anymore, I don't believe that most members of > >> Congress are dumb or crooked. Some of them lose touch with their > >> districts and their constituents and become creatures of Washington, > >> particularly those with safe seats. Many of them are egomaniacs. And, > >> yes, a few are crooked and a few are dumber than dirt. But most are > >> just average folks trying to do public service in the way they think is > >> best. Some of them, both D and R, are really admirable people whom I > >> respect a great deal. > > > > I agree. > > > > And the problem is that they are there far too long. Term limits, > > either formal or informal, would help with that 'inside the beltway' > > mentality that forms all too often. > > > > And how can we expect them to not stray? In most other endeavors > > 'campaign contributions' would be called 'bribes'. > > I'm not sure that getting rid of the good old timers is a good idea. I > wonder if others here would have liked for guys like Tip O'neill or Bob Dole > or Morgan Pressel, oops, to be subject to term limits. I'm preety sure it's a bad idea. Term limit supporters stereotype members of Congress -- they're all bad after they've been in ofc. for X yrs. If people want to continue being represented by someone after 6 yrs, or whatever it is, they should have that right. Also, the workings of Congress and the legislative process are incredbly complex. It takes yrs to really learn your way around them. With term limits, when someone has been there long enough to understand the system, he has to leave.               Date: 20 Oct 2006 12:04:35 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1161351123.754488.43450@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: >> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message >> news:lloydparsons-8F0327.17154819102006@individual.net... >> > In article <1161294882.070307.311130@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: >> >> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > news:1161285305.639894.35880@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > >> >> > > dsc wrote: >> >> > >> > First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any >> >> > >> > information >> >> > >> > from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they >> >> > >> > occupy. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> They are crooks... but most are not idiots. >> >> > > >> >> > > Most are neither crooks nor idiots. Most are dedicated public >> >> > > servants >> >> > > doing what they think is right. >> >> > >> >> > That has not been my experience. And not in public office, >> >> > non-elected >> >> > as in >> >> > heads of state departments and upper level management in the areas >> >> > that >> >> > spend your money on the state level. >> >> >> >> Well, I don't want to sound like Mr. know-it-all, but I spent a >> >> sizeable chunk of my working life on Capitol Hill and while I'm glad >> >> as >> >> hell I'm not there anymore, I don't believe that most members of >> >> Congress are dumb or crooked. Some of them lose touch with their >> >> districts and their constituents and become creatures of Washington, >> >> particularly those with safe seats. Many of them are egomaniacs. And, >> >> yes, a few are crooked and a few are dumber than dirt. But most are >> >> just average folks trying to do public service in the way they think >> >> is >> >> best. Some of them, both D and R, are really admirable people whom I >> >> respect a great deal. >> > >> > I agree. >> > >> > And the problem is that they are there far too long. Term limits, >> > either formal or informal, would help with that 'inside the beltway' >> > mentality that forms all too often. >> > >> > And how can we expect them to not stray? In most other endeavors >> > 'campaign contributions' would be called 'bribes'. >> >> I'm not sure that getting rid of the good old timers is a good idea. I >> wonder if others here would have liked for guys like Tip O'neill or Bob >> Dole >> or Morgan Pressel, oops, to be subject to term limits. > > I'm preety sure it's a bad idea. Term limit supporters stereotype > members of Congress -- they're all bad after they've been in ofc. for X > yrs. If people want to continue being represented by someone after 6 > yrs, or whatever it is, they should have that right. Also, the workings > of Congress and the legislative process are incredbly complex. It takes > yrs to really learn your way around them. With term limits, when > someone has been there long enough to understand the system, he has to > leave. There does need to be something done about the power of incumbency, though. Gerrymandering is just so obviously wrong that 3rd graders can see it. And there should be some kind of government or private citizen demand that challengers get air time and that there are debates, real debates that include 3rd party and independent candidates. Maybe term limits should be set but could be overwridden by a larger majority than ... I guess I really am getting out of it by posting this political stuff here. I go to political ng, but I can't help bashing Bush here. Maybe he does remind me of a kid who used to beat up my friends and me in jr high school. Except Bush does it in God's name.       Date: 16 Oct 2006 18:13:16 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Mon, 16 2006 12:14:38 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: >>Right, there have only been terrorists since 2003, and it's all because >>of Iraq. > >I'm always amused by the thinking that you shouldn't attack your >enemies because it makes them mad. It's sort of like the line in _Shogun_ about treason being the ultimate crime - unless you win. You shouldn't make your enemies mad unless you're going to win. But in this case, is Iraq the enemy or are the terrorists the enemy? Bin Laden was delighted at us attacking Iraq. Furthering the causes of the Terrorists by attacking Iraq is not a winning strategy.         Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:52:05 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message news:0mi7j21jimb76di4itq6a91te2mr515c7k@4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 2006 12:14:38 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> > wrote: > >>>Right, there have only been terrorists since 2003, and it's all because >>>of Iraq. >> >>I'm always amused by the thinking that you shouldn't attack your >>enemies because it makes them mad. > > It's sort of like the line in _Shogun_ about treason being the > ultimate crime - unless you win. > > You shouldn't make your enemies mad unless you're going to win. > > But in this case, is Iraq the enemy or are the terrorists the enemy? > Bin Laden was delighted at us attacking Iraq. Furthering the causes > of the Terrorists by attacking Iraq is not a winning strategy. Bush attacked and removed an anti-Iran force. Is that clear?           Date: 16 Oct 2006 21:47:57 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Mon, 16 2006 13:52:05 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote: >> But in this case, is Iraq the enemy or are the terrorists the enemy? >> Bin Laden was delighted at us attacking Iraq. Furthering the causes >> of the Terrorists by attacking Iraq is not a winning strategy. > >Bush attacked and removed an anti-Iran force. Is that clear? OBL's plan was to draw the US into a war in the Middle East. His plan was to escalate his attacks until the US was forced to invade Afghanistan. He blew up a few embassies and attacked the USS Cole and got no response. The WTC attack certainly did the trick. I don't know if OBL predicted that the US would invade Iraq, but I can't imagine he was unhappy about it. OBL and the Taliban thought that they would be able to do to the US what the Mujahadeen did to the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, for them, it didn't work out the way they planned. Perhaps OBL knew that fighting the US would not be like fighting the Soviet Union, but convinced the Taliban that they could drive the infidels out of Afghanistan just so he could have his war. There is no doubt that under Saddam, Iraq was a counterweight to Iran. So the US has removed an anti-Iran force. There is also no doubt that the war in Iraq has increased the power of the Shia in the Middle East. Also, don't forget that Hezbollah are Shia. Of course, most of the governments in the Middle East are run by the Sunni and they cannot be happy to see this resurgence of the Shia. This works in the US favor, because countries like Saudi Arabia, et al, wouldn't be too upset to see Iran's military strength weakened and they certainly don't want Iran to have a nuclear bomb. They might protest publicly, but none of them are going to do anything drastic if the US attacks Iran.       Date: 25 Oct 2006 10:52:27 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On 25 2006 08:17:34 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > >I find it amazing that there is anyone left who still thinks ths way. > >Stay until the job is finished? If the "job" is to turn Iraq into a > >peaceful, prosperous, pluralistic democracy, then we'll be there > >forever, because it is blatantly obvious to any reasonable person that > >that is not going to happen. > > Forever is a long time. Thanks for the platitude. > > Peaceful, prosperous, pluralistic democracy is a lot to ask for. I'd > settle for a relatively peaceful unified nation run by a pro-Western > government. Yes, I'm sure we'd all settle for that, but it ain't gonna happen. Iraq is probably the most dangerous, chaotic, violent place on earth. To get from there to peace, unity and a pro-Western government is nothing more than a dream.         Date: 25 Oct 2006 21:06:10 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 25 2006 10:52:27 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: >> Peaceful, prosperous, pluralistic democracy is a lot to ask for. I'd >> settle for a relatively peaceful unified nation run by a pro-Western >> government. > >Yes, I'm sure we'd all settle for that, but it ain't gonna happen. Iraq >is probably the most dangerous, chaotic, violent place on earth. To get >from there to peace, unity and a pro-Western government is nothing more >than a dream. You may be right, but whatever happens, it's better than having Saddam in power.           Date: From: Subject:       Date: 25 Oct 2006 10:48:52 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Jack Hollis wrote: > On 25 2006 08:17:34 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > >When did the Iraqis become our enemies? I thought we went there to > >liberate them. Are there any limits to your cynicism? > > There is no doubt that the Iraqi Sunnis are a US enemy. There is also > a significant minority of the Shia who are dedicated to killing > Americans. The Kurds are friends. To neatly catoegorize each group as "friend" or "enemy" shows your ignorance. Not all Iraqi Sunnis are antagonostic to the US. Some of them are working for us. If we were to brand the entire sect as the enemy, then we have absolutely no chance to resolve the conflict among them. Not that there's any chance of that, anyway.         Date: 25 Oct 2006 21:04:49 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On 25 2006 10:48:52 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: >Not all Iraqi Sunnis are antagonostic to the US. A poll conducted in January 2006 showed that 88% of the Sunni approve of attacks on US forces. So you're right that not all Sunni are enemise, but most of them are.     Date: 16 Oct 2006 04:28:26 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "zumafan" <mgeorg@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1160990787.206438.54850@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > >> Maybe it has already had an impact of radical Muslim recruitment. Maybe >> they >> see what's happening and hear the US lying about smart bombs and surgical >> stirkes and say ... well we all know what they do. > > Right, there have only been terrorists since 2003, and it's all because > of Iraq. You must write about quickly as I do, without thinking. You can see I didn't say that the lies caused all of the terrorists. Do you think that other countries don't see through my country's propaganda? I guess if you are George Bush you think the little army toys of the US can beat up the little army toys of the whole rest of the world if they have to. To bad there isn't a calvary so George Bush could ride into the command station of the war. And the war machine is eathing it up. "We don't know how much longer this can go on, but we're lovin every minute." I wonder if the main manufacturing jobs left in the US are going to be weapons. To bad Reagan had to mess up the cold war, but it looks like we've got a boomer going now.     Date: 19 Oct 2006 14:54:42 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1161285305.639894.35880@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > dsc wrote: > >> > First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any > >> > information > >> > from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they occupy. > >> > >> They are crooks... but most are not idiots. > > > > Most are neither crooks nor idiots. Most are dedicated public servants > > doing what they think is right. > > That has not been my experience. And not in public office, non-elected as in > heads of state departments and upper level management in the areas that > spend your money on the state level. Well, I don't want to sound like Mr. know-it-all, but I spent a sizeable chunk of my working life on Capitol Hill and while I'm glad as hell I'm not there anymore, I don't believe that most members of Congress are dumb or crooked. Some of them lose touch with their districts and their constituents and become creatures of Washington, particularly those with safe seats. Many of them are egomaniacs. And, yes, a few are crooked and a few are dumber than dirt. But most are just average folks trying to do public service in the way they think is best. Some of them, both D and R, are really admirable people whom I respect a great deal.       Date: 19 Oct 2006 17:15:48 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq In article <1161294882.070307.311130@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1161285305.639894.35880@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > dsc wrote: > > >> > First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any > > >> > information > > >> > from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they occupy. > > >> > > >> They are crooks... but most are not idiots. > > > > > > Most are neither crooks nor idiots. Most are dedicated public servants > > > doing what they think is right. > > > > That has not been my experience. And not in public office, non-elected as in > > heads of state departments and upper level management in the areas that > > spend your money on the state level. > > Well, I don't want to sound like Mr. know-it-all, but I spent a > sizeable chunk of my working life on Capitol Hill and while I'm glad as > hell I'm not there anymore, I don't believe that most members of > Congress are dumb or crooked. Some of them lose touch with their > districts and their constituents and become creatures of Washington, > particularly those with safe seats. Many of them are egomaniacs. And, > yes, a few are crooked and a few are dumber than dirt. But most are > just average folks trying to do public service in the way they think is > best. Some of them, both D and R, are really admirable people whom I > respect a great deal. I agree. And the problem is that they are there far too long. Term limits, either formal or informal, would help with that 'inside the beltway' mentality that forms all too often. And how can we expect them to not stray? In most other endeavors 'campaign contributions' would be called 'bribes'.         Date: 19 Oct 2006 22:52:45 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message news:lloydparsons-8F0327.17154819102006@individual.net... > In article <1161294882.070307.311130@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > >> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: >> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:1161285305.639894.35880@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > > >> > > dsc wrote: >> > >> > First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any >> > >> > information >> > >> > from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they >> > >> > occupy. >> > >> >> > >> They are crooks... but most are not idiots. >> > > >> > > Most are neither crooks nor idiots. Most are dedicated public >> > > servants >> > > doing what they think is right. >> > >> > That has not been my experience. And not in public office, non-elected >> > as in >> > heads of state departments and upper level management in the areas that >> > spend your money on the state level. >> >> Well, I don't want to sound like Mr. know-it-all, but I spent a >> sizeable chunk of my working life on Capitol Hill and while I'm glad as >> hell I'm not there anymore, I don't believe that most members of >> Congress are dumb or crooked. Some of them lose touch with their >> districts and their constituents and become creatures of Washington, >> particularly those with safe seats. Many of them are egomaniacs. And, >> yes, a few are crooked and a few are dumber than dirt. But most are >> just average folks trying to do public service in the way they think is >> best. Some of them, both D and R, are really admirable people whom I >> respect a great deal. > > I agree. > > And the problem is that they are there far too long. Term limits, > either formal or informal, would help with that 'inside the beltway' > mentality that forms all too often. > > And how can we expect them to not stray? In most other endeavors > 'campaign contributions' would be called 'bribes'. I'm not sure that getting rid of the good old timers is a good idea. I wonder if others here would have liked for guys like Tip O'neill or Bob Dole or Morgan Pressel, oops, to be subject to term limits.       Date: 19 Oct 2006 18:13:58 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq John B. wrote: > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: >> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1161285305.639894.35880@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> dsc wrote: >>>>> First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any >>>>> information >>>>> from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they occupy. >>>> They are crooks... but most are not idiots. >>> Most are neither crooks nor idiots. Most are dedicated public servants >>> doing what they think is right. >> That has not been my experience. And not in public office, non-elected as in >> heads of state departments and upper level management in the areas that >> spend your money on the state level. > > Well, I don't want to sound like Mr. know-it-all, but I spent a > sizeable chunk of my working life on Capitol Hill and while I'm glad as > hell I'm not there anymore, I don't believe that most members of > Congress are dumb or crooked. Some of them lose touch with their > districts and their constituents and become creatures of Washington, > particularly those with safe seats. Many of them are egomaniacs. And, > yes, a few are crooked and a few are dumber than dirt. But most are > just average folks trying to do public service in the way they think is > best. Some of them, both D and R, are really admirable people whom I > respect a great deal. > Sometimes the public persona is quite different from the private persona. Also, it depends upon the specific audience too.       Date: 19 Oct 2006 22:50:48 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1161294882.070307.311130@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: >> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1161285305.639894.35880@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > dsc wrote: >> >> > First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any >> >> > information >> >> > from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they occupy. >> >> >> >> They are crooks... but most are not idiots. >> > >> > Most are neither crooks nor idiots. Most are dedicated public servants >> > doing what they think is right. >> >> That has not been my experience. And not in public office, non-elected as >> in >> heads of state departments and upper level management in the areas that >> spend your money on the state level. > > Well, I don't want to sound like Mr. know-it-all, but I spent a > sizeable chunk of my working life on Capitol Hill and while I'm glad as > hell I'm not there anymore, I don't believe that most members of > Congress are dumb or crooked. Some of them lose touch with their > districts and their constituents and become creatures of Washington, > particularly those with safe seats. Many of them are egomaniacs. And, > yes, a few are crooked and a few are dumber than dirt. But most are > just average folks trying to do public service in the way they think is > best. Some of them, both D and R, are really admirable people whom I > respect a great deal. I wish I could believe that and I can't say about federal level or anywhere other than the state where I used to live. Even the most well-intentioned were diverted by a system that knows very well how to divert, confuse, disable, bury with information, give a feeling of being important, cover up, threaten in subtle ways, offer compromises that damage other programs to give a pet program a slight and temporary boos, etc. etc.     Date: 19 Oct 2006 13:23:53 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq John B. wrote: > dsc wrote: > > > First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any information > > > from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they occupy. > > > > They are crooks... but most are not idiots. > > Most are neither crooks nor idiots. Most are dedicated public servants > doing what they think is right. You forgot the smilie at the end... :) A recent poll showed that something like 36 percent of America trusted the Republicans in office and somewhere around 50% of Americans trusted the Democrats in office. There's a reson for that. :)       Date: 19 Oct 2006 15:50:40 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message news:1161289433.200207.9930@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > John B. wrote: >> dsc wrote: >> > > First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any >> > > information >> > > from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they occupy. >> > >> > They are crooks... but most are not idiots. >> >> Most are neither crooks nor idiots. Most are dedicated public servants >> doing what they think is right. > > You forgot the smilie at the end... :) > > A recent poll showed that something like 36 percent of America trusted > the Republicans in office and somewhere around 50% of Americans trusted > the Democrats in office. There's a reson for that. :) > Polls are worthless.         Date: From: Subject:     Date: 19 Oct 2006 13:21:21 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq Fairway wrote: > dsc wrote: > > > First congresspeople are mostly idiots, so we can ignore any informat= ion > > > from all of them regardless off which side of the aisle they occupy. > > > > They are crooks... but most are not idiots. > > With respect, dsc - this is a figure of speech, isn=B4t it? Well I'm about 52.675% serious. Seems you can't get to that level US Senate/Congres/etc. without learning how to lie, cheat, steal and screw people over. If you to manage to get that far and still be a decent sort, once you're inside the beltway it's just a matter of time before you're as crooked as all the rest of them. :) Just watch the news, every week another one is in trouble for something. > Why should > the American people elect only idiots and criminals? I guess they are the only ones with enough power and money to run for it. > There are honest > and intelligent people in America - or what? F .=2E. yes, but they don't hold political office at the highest levels. :)   Date: 16 Oct 2006 02:25:57 From: Fairway Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq John B. wrote: > It has been proven to the satisfaction of all rational people, whose > numbers don't include you. I don=B4t doubt the Holocaust but I=B4ve never seen the proof, only the number - and you would not care about a proof at all, you sleezy little reptile. F   Date: 16 Oct 2006 18:44:12 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq MnMikew wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message > news:pan.2006.10.16.21.55.41.769511@nospam.verizon.net... > > On Mon, 16 2006 13:28:57 -0500, MnMikew wrote: > >> "Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message > >> news:pan.2006.10.16.02.42.16.30212@nospam.verizon.net... > > > >>> I do not believe the researchers at Johns Hopkins have any particular > >>> axe to grind > >>> > >> You're delusional. > > > > Right. Let's just assume the researchers who did the study are a bunch of > > pinko commies out to smear Bush. Because that makes way more sense. > > > You're catching on. > > > Ever go to college? Any training in the scientific method? Just wondering. > > College, yes. But just for computer nerd stuff. The folks at JH may want to > take some refresher courses in the scientific method. I have no idea if the JH numbers are right, but I'm familiar enough w/the university and its school of intl. affairs to doubt that their study was politically motivated. The school of intl affairs is actually to the right of center, as I recall.     Date: From: Subject:   Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:06:08 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq The World Wide Wade wrote: > In article > <1161002145.669736.210010@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > > > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > > In article > > > <1160961225.424331.227420@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > > > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > Fairway wrote: > > > > > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > > > > > Brilliant. Be sure and inform the Jewish community that it > > > > > > doesn't matter if it was 600K or 6 million Jews killed in the > > > > > > Holocaust. > > > > > Well - which number is the correct one? Has it been proven beyond doubt > > > > > that the victims were 6M ? F > > > > > > > > How ever many died... is how many died. Whatever number you put on it > > > > (correct or otherwise) doesn't change the outcome. > > > > > > That's insane. You don't know the outcome unless you have some > > > grasp of the magnitude of the death toll. > > > > Horse hockey. You don't know the magnitude without knowing the > > magnitude... but the outcome is pretty clear. Hitler killed a lot of > > people... some with bombs, some with bullets, some with gas... we > > (Russians, British, Americans and all the other allies) killed him > > (well technically he killed himself to deny us the pleasure). That's > > your outcome in it's simpliest form. :) > > Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of people ... we killed him. There's > your outcome. Pretty much the same as Hitler. Brilliant. You're catching on... there's hope for you yet. You told me exactly what happened and didn't have to mention a single number to do it. Congrats. :)     Date: 16 Oct 2006 18:02:44 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq In article <1161029168.102778.87860@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote: > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > In article > > <1161002145.669736.210010@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <1160961225.424331.227420@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Fairway wrote: > > > > > > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > > > > > > Brilliant. Be sure and inform the Jewish community that it > > > > > > > doesn't matter if it was 600K or 6 million Jews killed in the > > > > > > > Holocaust. > > > > > > Well - which number is the correct one? Has it been proven beyond > > > > > > doubt > > > > > > that the victims were 6M ? F > > > > > > > > > > How ever many died... is how many died. Whatever number you put on it > > > > > (correct or otherwise) doesn't change the outcome. > > > > > > > > That's insane. You don't know the outcome unless you have some > > > > grasp of the magnitude of the death toll. > > > > > > Horse hockey. You don't know the magnitude without knowing the > > > magnitude... but the outcome is pretty clear. Hitler killed a lot of > > > people... some with bombs, some with bullets, some with gas... we > > > (Russians, British, Americans and all the other allies) killed him > > > (well technically he killed himself to deny us the pleasure). That's > > > your outcome in it's simpliest form. :) > > > > Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of people ... we killed him. There's > > your outcome. Pretty much the same as Hitler. Brilliant. > > You're catching on... there's hope for you yet. You told me exactly > what happened and didn't have to mention a single number to do it. > Congrats. :) I called you an asshole earlier, but it's now clear you're simply a moron, and can't be held responsible for the drivel you leave in this thread. My apologies.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:02:32 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq The World Wide Wade wrote: > In article > <1161000348.412779.224460@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > > > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > > In article > > > <1160961052.716287.169740@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, > > > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > Carbon wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 15 2006 08:59:48 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote: > > > > > > Carbon wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, 15 2006 05:26:44 -0700, dsc wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> I'm not sure what is to be gained by knowing the exact number= . It > > > > > >>> is > > > > > >>> what it is whether you call it 60K or 600K. It's war... people > > > > > >>> die... > > > > > >>> then you move on. Knowing the exact number will not bring any= of > > > > > >>> them > > > > > >>> back. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Knowing how many died helped determine that more people got ki= lled > > > > > >> after the invasion than before under Saddam. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like you don't need to know the numbers because you have > > > > > > already > > > > > > concluded that more people have died after the liberation of Ir= aq. > > > > > > > > > > One of us is definitely ignoring the facts. Here are the facts: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673= 6066949 > > > > > 19.p > > > > > df > > > > > > > > > > Excerpt: > > > > > > > > > > We estimate that, as a consequence of the coalition invasion of M= arch > > > > > 18, > > > > > 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would = be > > > > > expected in a non-conflict situation, which is equivalent to abou= t 2.5: > > > > > of > > > > > the population in the study area. About 601000 of these excess de= aths > > > > > were > > > > > due to violent causes. Our estimate of the post-invasion crude > > > > > mortality > > > > > rate represents a doubling of the baseline mortality rate... The > > > > > post-invasion crude mortality rate increased signi=EF=AC=81cantly= from > > > > > pre-invasion =EF=AC=81gures, and showed a rising trend. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please don't bore us with clueless attacks on the scientific vali= dity > > > > > of > > > > > the study. People who actually know what they're talking about ha= ve > > > > > gone > > > > > over it and it's solid. > > > > > > > > Riddle me this Batman... > > > > Had the Iraqi people had the will/backbone/balls) to do the revolut= ion > > > > them selves... what would the death toll have been? > > > > > > We don't know asshole. > > > > Wow, that was easier than I thought. you already resorted to name > > calling... I guess I win. > > No, you lost - which is why you snipped most of my post. > it was irrelevant to the question I asked... > Your question was an utterly stupid one. More name calling... that all you got? :)   Date: 17 Oct 2006 08:16:21 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq John B. wrote: > dsc wrote: > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > > > > > How do you police a civil war? > > > > You probably can't police it very well. It's not like you are reffing a > > boxing match. All you can do is arrest the ones that need arresting and > > kill the ones that give you no other option... until there's noone left > > that needs arresting or killing. But that's not policing... that's > > participating. > > > > > That seems to be what we've enabled. Could > > > France have come in to the United States in 1860 and said "We're going to > > > take some plantation owners and some abolitionists and make a police force > > > out of them. They'll train together and keep the peace." > > > > It would have been difficult at best and that's what we are facing... > > difficult at best. > > > Difficult at best? It would have been impossible. Doesn't difficult AT BEST allow for that possibility. Thought I had that covered. :)   Date: 17 Oct 2006 06:51:52 From: John B. Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq dsc wrote: > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > > > How do you police a civil war? > > You probably can't police it very well. It's not like you are reffing a > boxing match. All you can do is arrest the ones that need arresting and > kill the ones that give you no other option... until there's noone left > that needs arresting or killing. But that's not policing... that's > participating. > > > That seems to be what we've enabled. Could > > France have come in to the United States in 1860 and said "We're going to > > take some plantation owners and some abolitionists and make a police force > > out of them. They'll train together and keep the peace." > > It would have been difficult at best and that's what we are facing... > difficult at best. Difficult at best? It would have been impossible. It would also be impossible for the The US Army to intervene sectarian-based civil war and expect any good result when both sides in the war hate us. Your grasp of history is weak to non-existent.   Date: 17 Oct 2006 05:38:34 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq The World Wide Wade wrote: > In article <ldb8j25r0cv0r933de22lmmvdr5jjt4q09@4ax.com>, > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 16 2006 13:49:55 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" > > <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote: > > > > >In this case you are making a bunch of people in other countries mad who > > >might have been on the fence, maybe millions. I guess the idea of fighting > > >for 'hearts and minds" is bs. > > > > I'm sure that public opinion of the US went down in Germany in > > December of 1941. > > We weren't fighting a war for the "hearts and minds" of the > German populace. We were in Iraq - at least according to the > Pentagon, which now concedes that war has been lost. That is a good point and appears to be dead on accurate. Once the insurgency reared up, I think it was impossible though. We expected the people of Iraq to join us and take up the fight and that didn't happen... probably because the last time they trie that, we left hem holding the bag and SH lowered the boom on them. There again, had we finished the job the first time (in '91), things could have been different... maybe.     Date: 17 Oct 2006 13:41:32 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message news:1161088714.406486.17350@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > The World Wide Wade wrote: >> In article <ldb8j25r0cv0r933de22lmmvdr5jjt4q09@4ax.com>, >> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, 16 2006 13:49:55 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" >> > <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote: >> > >> > >In this case you are making a bunch of people in other countries mad >> > >who >> > >might have been on the fence, maybe millions. I guess the idea of >> > >fighting >> > >for 'hearts and minds" is bs. >> > >> > I'm sure that public opinion of the US went down in Germany in >> > December of 1941. >> >> We weren't fighting a war for the "hearts and minds" of the >> German populace. We were in Iraq - at least according to the >> Pentagon, which now concedes that war has been lost. > > That is a good point and appears to be dead on accurate. Once the > insurgency reared up, I think it was impossible though. We expected the > people of Iraq to join us and take up the fight and that didn't > happen... probably because the last time they trie that, we left hem > holding the bag and SH lowered the boom on them. There again, had we > finished the job the first time (in '91), things could have been > different... maybe. And you expected the Sunnis to take arms against who? There is no "Iraqi people". There are however, according to 99% of everyone who reports on the issue, religious factions that want to kill each other. Who are the "Iraqi people"? If there were such a thing they wouldn't be hiding the 'insurgents'.       Date: 17 Oct 2006 19:46:07 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Tue, 17 2006 13:41:32 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote: >There is no "Iraqi >people". I agree. The borders of Iraq, like many in the Middle East, were made by the British and often made no historical sense. BTW, Saddam was correct in his assertion that Kuwait was traditionally ruled by Baghdad. The same is true in Afghanistan in that very few "Afghanis" see themselves as such. And, as we know, the people in Western Pakistan do not consider themselves to be Pakistanis.   Date: 17 Oct 2006 05:28:43 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq The World Wide Wade wrote: > In article > <1161029168.102778.87860@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > > > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > > In article > > > <1161002145.669736.210010@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > > <1160961225.424331.227420@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Fairway wrote: > > > > > > > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > > > > > > > Brilliant. Be sure and inform the Jewish community that it > > > > > > > > doesn't matter if it was 600K or 6 million Jews killed in the > > > > > > > > Holocaust. > > > > > > > Well - which number is the correct one? Has it been proven beyond > > > > > > > doubt > > > > > > > that the victims were 6M ? F > > > > > > > > > > > > How ever many died... is how many died. Whatever number you put on it > > > > > > (correct or otherwise) doesn't change the outcome. > > > > > > > > > > That's insane. You don't know the outcome unless you have some > > > > > grasp of the magnitude of the death toll. > > > > > > > > Horse hockey. You don't know the magnitude without knowing the > > > > magnitude... but the outcome is pretty clear. Hitler killed a lot of > > > > people... some with bombs, some with bullets, some with gas... we > > > > (Russians, British, Americans and all the other allies) killed him > > > > (well technically he killed himself to deny us the pleasure). That's > > > > your outcome in it's simpliest form. :) > > > > > > Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of people ... we killed him. There's > > > your outcome. Pretty much the same as Hitler. Brilliant. > > > > You're catching on... there's hope for you yet. You told me exactly > > what happened and didn't have to mention a single number to do it. > > Congrats. :) > > I called you an asshole earlier, but it's now clear you're simply > a moron, and can't be held responsible for the drivel you leave > in this thread. My apologies. That's 3 to nothing... but I'm still not sinking to your level.   Date: 17 Oct 2006 05:22:34 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > How do you police a civil war? You probably can't police it very well. It's not like you are reffing a boxing match. All you can do is arrest the ones that need arresting and kill the ones that give you no other option... until there's noone left that needs arresting or killing. But that's not policing... that's participating. > That seems to be what we've enabled. Could > France have come in to the United States in 1860 and said "We're going to > take some plantation owners and some abolitionists and make a police force > out of them. They'll train together and keep the peace." It would have been difficult at best and that's what we are facing... difficult at best.   Date: 17 Oct 2006 05:13:22 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > "Sparky" <biff@funco.com> wrote in message > news:H6CdnR3OmOcedq7YnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@giganews.com... > > > > On 15--2006, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> Please don't bore us with clueless attacks on the scientific validity of > >> the study. People who actually know what they're talking about have gone > >> over it and it's solid. > > > > No they certainly have not. Even the anti-war sites are panning it as a > > load of rubish.... > > > > > > http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php > > > > > > me > > Did you believe the body counts for Viet Nam? Do 'I beleive they are correct right down to the last man... no. >Did you believe the death > tolls reported as a result of sanctions? Which sanctions... which country? > Do you believe in surgical strikes > and smart bombs? Yes... do I believe they are perfect... not even close. I haven't seen any claims from our government that they are perfect either. The bombs some times miss the right targets and the people sometimes send them to the wrong targets. It's not a perfect system by any means.   Date: 17 Oct 2006 05:04:08 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message > news:1161017869.055221.169340@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > >> Riddle me this Batman... > >> Had the Iraqi people had the will/backbone/balls) to do the revolution > >> them selves... what would the death toll have been? > > > > This was a serious question... anyone got any serious comments? > > Is it safe to say they would have lost several times as many doing it > > themselves... and probably would not have succeeded in the end anyway? > > Only someone who knows and cares very very little about the this subject > would ask such an off the wall question. It's not off the wall at all. Revolutions cost lives and money. Had they attemped it themselves, it would have fost many more Iraqi lives than it has with us doing it for them. 650,000 is a drop in the bucket to what it could/would have been if they would have had the spine to do it themselves. > It is not a serious question and I > would bet that you can not find Iraq on a map and I bet you don't know the > names of the 2 main grouops in Iraq, religious wise. Sunni, Shia and sits between Saudi Arabia and Iran... what's my prize? Whatever it is, I want to trade it for whats behind door #2...     Date: 17 Oct 2006 13:18:40 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message news:1161086648.839017.242510@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote: >> "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message >> news:1161017869.055221.169340@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> > >> >> Riddle me this Batman... >> >> Had the Iraqi people had the will/backbone/balls) to do the revolution >> >> them selves... what would the death toll have been? >> > >> > This was a serious question... anyone got any serious comments? >> > Is it safe to say they would have lost several times as many doing it >> > themselves... and probably would not have succeeded in the end anyway? >> >> Only someone who knows and cares very very little about the this subject >> would ask such an off the wall question. > > It's not off the wall at all. Revolutions cost lives and money. Had > they attemped it themselves, it would have fost many more Iraqi lives > than it has with us doing it for them. 650,000 is a drop in the bucket > to what it could/would have been if they would have had the spine to do > it themselves. > >> It is not a serious question and I >> would bet that you can not find Iraq on a map and I bet you don't know >> the >> names of the 2 main grouops in Iraq, religious wise. > > Sunni, Shia and sits between Saudi Arabia and Iran... what's my prize? > Whatever it is, I want to trade it for whats behind door #2... There would never have been a revolution. There was never a revolution being planned. Hussein had the country under his thumb and no one, not one single person or story I've ever read either at the time or since has ever suggested that there was any chance of a revolution. If someone else knows more, and that should be pretty easy, please correct me.   Date: 17 Oct 2006 17:54:39 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq > > That is a good point and appears to be dead on accurate. Once the > > insurgency reared up, I think it was impossible though. We expected the > > people of Iraq to join us and take up the fight and that didn't > > happen... probably because the last time they trie that, we left hem > > holding the bag and SH lowered the boom on them. There again, had we > > finished the job the first time (in '91), things could have been > > different... maybe. > > And you expected the Sunnis to take arms against who? There is no "Iraqi > people". There are however, according to 99% of everyone who reports on the > issue, religious factions that want to kill each other. Who are the "Iraqi > people"? If there were such a thing they wouldn't be hiding the > 'insurgents'. AHH... you're right. The last time some of the people (in the souh I think) took up the fight. But that was against Saddam and his military... not other Iraqi civilians. Furthermore most of those people were probaly killed. I didn't think of that and apparently neither did our leaders. The fact that the insurgents are protected instead of ratted out is a major nail in the coffin.     Date: 17 Oct 2006 22:59:11 From: AKA Gray Asphalt Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message news:1161132879.284884.51760@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > That is a good point and appears to be dead on accurate. Once the >> > insurgency reared up, I think it was impossible though. We expected the >> > people of Iraq to join us and take up the fight and that didn't >> > happen... probably because the last time they trie that, we left hem >> > holding the bag and SH lowered the boom on them. There again, had we >> > finished the job the first time (in '91), things could have been >> > different... maybe. >> >> And you expected the Sunnis to take arms against who? There is no "Iraqi >> people". There are however, according to 99% of everyone who reports on >> the >> issue, religious factions that want to kill each other. Who are the >> "Iraqi >> people"? If there were such a thing they wouldn't be hiding the >> 'insurgents'. > > AHH... you're right. The last time some of the people (in the souh I > think) took up the fight. But that was against Saddam and his > military... not other Iraqi civilians. Furthermore most of those people > were probaly killed. I didn't think of that and apparently neither did > our leaders. The fact that the insurgents are protected instead of > ratted out is a major nail in the coffin. I might be right but I'm really just parrotting the news stories that seem the most credible and you are never conned by a con man who seems to be a liar. The good ones all can lie to their mother with a gun pointed to their head.   Date: 19 Oct 2006 10:58:41 From: dsc Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq > The 2004 survey had a range of accuracy, between 8,000 to 194,000 deaths > (from your source). The latest survey used the same techniques (from your > source). > > A range like that is pretty much a WAG in most circles. Really, if you can't get any closer than that... why bother?   Date: 20 Oct 2006 10:26:05 From: Alan Murphy Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq "AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message news:yOlYg.3744$v43.1690@fed1read02... > President Bush has declared that the study done by Johns Hopkins > University (I guess we all know JH is a university) is incorrect by a > factor of 10 or 20, right? So, if the Republicans are gong to go with > that, then they should take responsibility and credit when due. > > Let each of them eithe sign on, that in the future they will accept the > responsibility for their support of the President's response to the > report. > > "I, _____________ stake my credibility on our president's statement that > Johns Hopkins' report is flawed and unscientific. If I am correct, when > my election time rolls around, I expect for the voters to take that into > consideration and if I am wrong I will take the same discredit as I would > take credit. I realize that if hunderds of thousands of men, women and > children have died, then that is a serious disaster and I am mindful that > my decision will affect the outcome of many many lives." > > By not signing, I express my own doubts and this is a fair and > responsible response as a citizen, as well as an elected official. > > The same for other factors in the war on terror. I will be glad to give > them credit, if they are right. You too? > There was a really excellent analysis of the Lancet/JH report published in the Guardian the other day, link below: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1925587,00.html Helped me make sense of the numbers and methodology. Quite an interesting discussion in the appended comments also. Alan     Date: 23 Oct 2006 16:05:04 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: OT Responsibility for study of deaths in Iraq On Fri, 20 2006 10:26:05 +0100, "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote: >There was a really excellent analysis of the Lancet/JH >report published in the Guardian the other day, link below: >http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1925587,00.html >Helped me make sense of the numbers and methodology. >Quite an interesting discussion in the appended comments >also. > >Alan It says a lot when a left-wing propaganda sheet like the Guardian starts to question the accuracy of the study.