The surge
Robert Chung
Scotty
Especially for the months that the US had about the same troop strength as
the surge will provide. Thanks.
"Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:50vdf5F...@mid.individual.net...
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
>
>
Phil Holman
"Scotty" <Cill...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jP2dnchXvfIsRzfY...@comcast.com...
> Can you please explain the chart for me ? I am interested in these
> figures. Especially for the months that the US had about the same
> troop strength as the surge will provide. Thanks.
>
It's a box and whisker histogram. The heavy horizontal line on each box
is the median value. The box contains the middle two quartiles (ends of
box represent the 1st and 3rd quartile values) and the whiskers the
0-25% and 75 -100% values.
Phil H
ST
Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
>
>
Nice boxplot you got there......
You do know what an outlier is don't you?
Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops where
you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?
More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.
Howard Kveck
No, there are not more deaths than that in many major cities in the US. Secondly,
even if there were more deaths than that in a major US city, the population of that
city is far greater than the total number of US troops in Iraq. Therefore, the
deaths per capita of people in this ficitious US city would pale in comparison to
the rate of death among the soldiers in Iraq.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Phil Holman
"ST" <n...@no.com> wrote in message news:C1D04CDA.1FEA85%n...@no.com...
> On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article 50vdf5F...@mid.individual.net,
> "Robert
> Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
>>
>>
>
> Nice boxplot you got there......
> You do know what an outlier is don't you?
That's like asking if the Pope is a Catholic.
>
> Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops
> where
> you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a
> max?
>
> More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.
>
Phil H
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
> > http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
> >
>
> Nice boxplot you got there......
> You do know what an outlier is don't you?
>
> Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops where
> you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?
>
> More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.
Robert's plot shows the average number of deaths of coalition
soldiers (who are mostly healthy young people) only. If you want
to compare deaths in major cities, an appropriate comparison
would be the number of civilian violent deaths (murders) per day
in a major US city versus, say, the number of Iraqi civilian violent
deaths per day in Baghdad. I am sure the comparison would not be
flattering. For example,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1981434,00.html
The sad thing is that the country is such a mess we don't even
know by how much the number is an underestimate.
Kurgan Gringioni
Dumbass -
No it isn't.
It doesn't matter anyways because the "victory" (or failure) will be
measured by what replaces Saddam Hussein's government and the true
measure of how that is how many Iraqis are dying. The Lancet study put
the figure at anywhere from 350,000 to 950,000. The vast majority of it
is sectarian violence and with that sort of bloodshed going on between
the tribes, it's pretty much guaranteed that the government will not
succeed.
The Civil War, it's inevitable. The reason there are so many willing
suicide bombers is their culture dictates that slain relatives must be
avenged. So the suicide bomber kills more which engenders more
avengers. We can't stop it. Neither can they.
Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
a few more troops will somehow solve it.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Howard Kveck
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
> cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
> a few more troops will somehow solve it.
An interesting note on the person who seems to have authored the logic of the
surge, Fred Kagan:
______________________________
It was at Camp David last June that Kagan, a military historian and fellow of the
American Enterprise Institute, outlined his plans for pouring more troops into Iraq
to Bush and his war cabinet.
Donald Rumsfeld, the then defence secretary, was unimpressed, but Kagans views got
another hearing when Bush was searching for ways to ditch the seemingly defeatist
recommendations of James Bakers Iraq Study Group. "Wow, you mean we can still win
this war?" a grateful Bush reportedly said.
______________________________
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-524-2546344-524,00.html
Furthermore:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011921.php
John Forrest Tomlinson
<kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
>cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
>a few more troops will somehow solve it.
What amazes me at least as much the dopes who still support Bush's
actions in Iraq.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Kurgan Gringioni
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2007 23:32:09 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
> <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
> >cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
> >a few more troops will somehow solve it.
>
> What amazes me at least as much the dopes who still support Bush's
> actions in Iraq.
Dumbass -
Less troops are killed than in US cities every day! The war is a
success!! It's a great thing that we invaded!!! It's a great use of US
lives and resources!!!!
thanks,
Masters Fattie Idiot
John Forrest Tomlinson
<kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2007 23:32:09 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
>> <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
>> >cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
>> >a few more troops will somehow solve it.
>>
>> What amazes me at least as much the dopes who still support Bush's
>> actions in Iraq.
>
>
>
>
>Dumbass -
>
>
>Less troops are killed than in US cities every day! The war is a
>success!! It's a great thing that we invaded!!! It's a great use of US
>lives and resources!!!!
>
Your sarcasm gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
Fred Fredburger
> On 15 Jan 2007 06:24:01 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
> <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On 14 Jan 2007 23:32:09 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
>>> <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
>>>> cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
>>>> a few more troops will somehow solve it.
>>> What amazes me at least as much the dopes who still support Bush's
>>> actions in Iraq.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dumbass -
>>
>>
>> Less troops are killed than in US cities every day! The war is a
>> success!! It's a great thing that we invaded!!! It's a great use of US
>> lives and resources!!!!
>>
> Your sarcasm gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
They're gonna need all the aid and comfort they can get 'cause Georgy's
sendin over another can of good old Americun Whoop Ass(TM)!
YEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWWW!!!
Andre
Bush doesn't want to solve it. Just wants to make sure he retains all
the stolen oil. The death count does not matter one bit to him. To him
the Iraqi civilians and the invading American soldiers are not people
just numbers.
Andre
Kurgan Gringioni
Andre wrote:
> > Dumbass -
> >
> >
> > No it isn't.
> >
> > It doesn't matter anyways because the "victory" (or failure) will be
> > measured by what replaces Saddam Hussein's government and the true
> > measure of how that is how many Iraqis are dying. The Lancet study put
> > the figure at anywhere from 350,000 to 950,000. The vast majority of it
> > is sectarian violence and with that sort of bloodshed going on between
> > the tribes, it's pretty much guaranteed that the government will not
> > succeed.
> >
> > The Civil War, it's inevitable. The reason there are so many willing
> > suicide bombers is their culture dictates that slain relatives must be
> > avenged. So the suicide bomber kills more which engenders more
> > avengers. We can't stop it. Neither can they.
> >
> > Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
> > cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
> > a few more troops will somehow solve it.
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> Bush doesn't want to solve it. Just wants to make sure he retains all
> the stolen oil. The death count does not matter one bit to him. To him
> the Iraqi civilians and the invading American soldiers are not people
> just numbers.
Dumbass -
If only that were true.
One of the problems with this administration is that they're ideologues
(ignoring data that doesn't fit their preconceived notions) and
actually believe they're doing the right thing.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
dusto...@mac.com
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> One of the problems with this administration is that they're ideologues
> (ignoring data that doesn't fit their preconceived notions) and
> actually believe they're doing the right thing.
Kurganbutt: That's two, two problems with this administration.
You're welcome <g>. --D-y
ST
YOURhoward-95036...@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
<YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
You logic is stupid.......
Over there is a war, here it is not.
There are many cities were there are more than 5 deaths per day.
ST
1168845456.7...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
You assclowns are only looking at 1 area and saying it is fucked......
ST
1168846329....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
An admission?
There culture is backwards and screwed up.
ST
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2007 23:32:09 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
> <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
>> cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
>> a few more troops will somehow solve it.
>
> What amazes me at least as much the dopes who still support Bush's
> actions in Iraq.
You rope-a-dopes don't get it.......
Their culture is looking at reaching goals 2+ generations into the future.
We gotta have it NOW!!
That is a big part of the problem. Not to mention they are just as happy to
kill each other. Do you want that culture to dominate your great-grandkids??
The rules of engagement suck over there. They have to go through about a
dozen factors before they can pull the trigger not to mention, most of the
time, phoning home to ask mommy & daddy for permission first...
Surely was not like that in WWII. Do you remember how many civilians were
killed in the Berlin et al. air raids?
If you blowhards would make the same stink about civilian deaths in regards
to other area in the world I might look at your whining as unbiased.
ST
1168871041.4...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
While Gorilla boy is a real asshole along the lines of.............you!
At least he is smart enough not to try to argue this topic with you assbags.
ST
1168904729.4...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, "Andre"
<ANDREJA...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
Hey.....
Yes you, you lying sack of cow shit. Got any facts?
ST
1168905278.4...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
We were ideologues in WWI & WWII shithead....
Over there they are major flaming ideologues. Where is the same bashing??
John Forrest Tomlinson
Umm, that's the point.
John Forrest Tomlinson
I make a stink about civilian deaths caused by my country and my
government that are pointless. The civilian deaths in Iraq are
pointless -- they contribute to no one's secutiry. Insofar as the US
invasion precipitated that violence, I have to protest it.
ST
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
Everyone knows that..........
What the hell was the point of that stupid post above?
Would you rather it be here?
ST
Protest all you want homer.......
I am very certain about your political leanings and believes. You are
probably hip to that "Maybe we should give Marxism another chance.."
bandwagon.
You got one vote........vote!
Pretty much all civil war type situations going on in the world involves
Muslims not getting along with their neighbors. Their religious freaky
leaders are trying to convince them this is a Christian crusade. Even you
windbags are smart enough to know that is a lie. We build shit over there
and in 5 minutes they come out and blow up there own infrastructure.
It sux...... But trying to say it is our fault (all you liberals whack jobs
say is Bush..) for the secondary & tertiary actions of those whackjobs who
have a long history of violence and backwards ancient culture is stupid.
Saying the reason why Bush initiated the issue over there was because of his
religion?? Come on! Those guys are religious whackjobs.
SLAVE of THE STATE
b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> The sad thing is that the country is such a mess we don't even
> know by how much the number is an underestimate.
The sad thing is thinking you need a statistician and numbers to know
right from wrong.
John Forrest Tomlinson
GWB started a war for no point, and people are dying because of it.
Pretty simple.
Oh yeah, one other point -- some dopes think that was a good idea.
>Would you rather it be here?
I'd rather it be neither.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>Saying the reason why Bush initiated the issue over there was because of his
>religion??
Who said that here?
Kurgan Gringioni
ST wrote:
>>
> You rope-a-dopes don't get it.......
> Their culture is looking at reaching goals 2+ generations into the future.
> We gotta have it NOW!!
>
> That is a big part of the problem. Not to mention they are just as happy to
> kill each other. Do you want that culture to dominate your great-grandkids??
>
> The rules of engagement suck over there. They have to go through about a
> dozen factors before they can pull the trigger not to mention, most of the
> time, phoning home to ask mommy & daddy for permission first...
>
> Surely was not like that in WWII. Do you remember how many civilians were
> killed in the Berlin et al. air raids?
>
> If you blowhards would make the same stink about civilian deaths in regards
> to other area in the world I might look at your whining as unbiased.
Dumbass -
You've got your head up your ass. You missed the entire point of the
post. I'm not whining about the civilian deaths.
Hint: it's not a conventional war.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Howard Kveck
Then it should be quite simple for you to name a few. It'll be even more relevant
if these cities have a population of about 150,000.
By the way, Steve, I know this stuff gets you really worked up, but try taking
the time to proofread your posts before you hit send. As it is, you're giving aid
and comfort to Carl.
ST
1168917767.7...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Crap..........
Bring it Chang Bang.
I got his point. Like many other pseudo-Marxist Bush bashers...
Why do most semi-intelligent (at least), civilized people want to come to
the US (if given the chance) but it seems to be mostly those that were
raised here that are jumping on the "America is always wrong and was
responsible for all wrongs in the world, even before it existed" bandwagon
I am just sick of the liberal progressive bullshit.......
Most liberal/progressive thinkers/voters are either in a lower
socio-economic bracket and do not think they have the power (or brains,
persistence) to raise above it OR are those that think they are mentally &
morally superior and know what is best for everyone else based on their
emotionally thought out socialist views BUT do not think that system applies
to any of THEIR piece of the "American Dream" pie....
Live your life according to what you think is right but keep your fuckin
hands on other peoples American Dream. If you feel guilty for others that
have not or cannot achieve what you have give up some of yours.....
Every once in a while I check things out here and I feel like I am on a
moveon.org message board. You guys think you are the majority philosophical
viewpoint in America?? Wrong!
Fuck your polls! Why don't you look at the questions they ask and the choice
of answers they offer you to pick from. Like this:
Do you think President Bush is:
A) completely wrong
B) totally wrong
C) A Dumbass
D) A Religious Wacko
E) All of the above...
ST
YOURhoward-F255A...@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
<YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
Here ya go Professor Ass Bag........
http://newsbusters.org/node/9932
http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ViolDeathGraph1206.jpeg
Kurgan Gringioni
ST wrote:
>>
> Fuck your polls! Why don't you look at the questions they ask and the choice
> of answers they offer you to pick from. Like this:
>
> Do you think President Bush is:
> A) completely wrong
> B) totally wrong
> C) A Dumbass
> D) A Religious Wacko
> E) All of the above...
Dumbass -
A, B, and C.
And it's not about the polls - most Americans don't understand the
tribalism/parochialism/nationalism that pervades much of the world
outside the United States.
Your rant is so strawman that I snipped it.
I'll give you a short synopsis of why Bush erred. It doesn't have
anything to do with us, other than us Americans in general not
understanding that region of the world.
The point about the civilian casualties in Iraq is when Bush prevented
the Baathists from participating in the new "government" he created a
power vacuum which has been filled by tribal militias. That's where all
the casualties are coming from. We're not killing them. They're killing
each other. There is no chance of "victory" in Iraq. The Democrats are
lucky that Kerry lost the last election because he didn't have a plan
any better than Bush's. The fundamental error was in eliminating the
army and police force when we invaded in 2003. They would have
cooperated. All of the sudden, their livelihoods were taken away and
what were these trained killers going to do? Duh.
In the meantime, the Iraqi "army" that we've been training is largely a
Shiite militia. Whenever we leave, the newly empowered Shiites will
attempt to eradicate the Sunnis who used to oppress them. Iran will
support the Shiites and Saudi Arabia/Jordan/Syria will support the
Sunnis. Hopefully, the conflict will not erupt into a regional war
beyond Iraqi borders because of the economic consequences (along with
the humanitarian cost of such a major war).
Since we are dependent upon foreign sources of energy for the majority
of our energy needs, it was a bad move for the average American (not
the ones who own oil wells). That doesn't even take into account the
$$$ we've spent there, nor the soldiers' lives who were lost for
nothing.
Even Bush admitted that it was a mistake in his speech last week. The
thing he's still not understanding is that the situation is lose/lose.
There is no way to come out of it with a win and that die was cast 3.5
years ago when we didn't seek the cooperation of the Baathists. Our
military is trained to seek and destroy and they're excellent at it,
but what's needed now is a police force and our military cannot succeed
at that mission. They can't even speak the language.
That's the short version of the mistake. It is not a "liberal" attack
on W. Bush - the historians will write a similar account. Traditional
conservatives such as Pat Buchanan and William F. Buckley concur with
analysis that the war was in error. Unfortunately for all involved,
they are correct.
BTW, the way my family's assets are located, in an energy state, we
benefit from all this financially. But none of us are in favor of it.
It's bad for the country. I take no pleasure from it. We're all gonna
pay for it in the long run unless, somehow, the conflict manages to be
contained within the Sunni Triangle.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
William Asher
<snip>
>
> http://newsbusters.org/node/9932
> http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ViolDeathGraph1206.jpeg
That's a little misleading. If you look at one year at random and look
at a lot of U.S. cities, instead of using the outlier years for cities in
the midst of drug wars or riots, the average murder rate is fairly low.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html
If you consider most of the Iraqi deaths are in and around Baghdad and
don't spread them over the entire population (i.e., Basra and most of the
south is relatively peaceful, as is Kurdistan), then the murder rate
there is on order of 200 per 100,000 or so (using the 16,000 dead figure
from the Iraqi government and assuming maybe 75% of them are from Baghdad
(pop. est. 6,000,000)), nearly an order of magnitude larger than the
average for U.S. cities.
But the real reason that chart is misleading is it doesn't take into
account the non-fatal casualties, which are underreported since there
aren't medical facilities to treat the wounded. I would think a
reasonable estimate might be 6 to 7 times as many seriously wounded as
killed, taking the coalition force numbers as an example, bringing the
total casualty rate among Baghdad residents up to over 1,000 per 100,000,
or around 1%. That is extraordinary for a "peacetime" population and
demonstrates why reconstruction is virtually at a standstill there. If
the true casualty numbers are higher than the government reports, as some
have suggested, it is simply staggering.
Clearly not all of Iraq is as violent as Baghdad, but Baghdad remains a
completely volatile place to live. The war there is a disaster and will
remain a disaster for generations. Cherry-picking murder rates simply
can't gild a turd that big. It isn't anti-American to point this out,
it's simple arithmetic.
--
Bill Asher
Donald Munro
>>Less troops are killed than in US cities every day! The war is a
>>success!! It's a great thing that we invaded!!! It's a great use of US
>>lives and resources!!!!
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> Your sarcasm gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
Lidocaine ?
Donald Munro
> While Gorilla boy is a real asshole along the lines of.............you!
> At least he is smart enough not to try to argue this topic with you assbags.
So you're saying a gorilla is smarter than you are ?
Donald Munro
> Cherry-picking murder rates simply can't gild a turd that big.
Anyone cherry picking a turd deserves what he finds.
Kurgan Gringioni
William Asher wrote:
>
> If you consider most of the Iraqi deaths are in and around Baghdad and
> don't spread them over the entire population (i.e., Basra and most of the
> south is relatively peaceful, as is Kurdistan), then the murder rate
> there is on order of 200 per 100,000 or so (using the 16,000 dead figure
> from the Iraqi government and assuming maybe 75% of them are from Baghdad
> (pop. est. 6,000,000)), nearly an order of magnitude larger than the
> average for U.S. cities.
<snip>
Dumbass -
According to the Iraq Study Group, chaired by former Bush Sr. Secretary
of State James Baker, the casualty figures for the Iraqi civilians are
12 times too low.
Violence that doesn't involve US personnel are not counted by the USDD.
Clearly that method
is not a good indicator of the *overall* level of violence in Iraq
since the great majority of the deaths are Iraqi civilian deaths due to
internecine sectarian violence. The factor of 12 corresponds to the
difference in the figures arrived at by the USDD and the Lancet
Casualty Study.
I am posting this from Fox News just so our resident Fatass Idiot won't
be able to claim that it's a liberal conspiracy.
From:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Dec07/0,4670,IraqIntelligence,00.html
<snip>
The group also said that intelligence officials are underreporting the
violence in Iraq. Its official counts leave out the deaths of Iraqis,
sectarian attacks whose source can't be determined and bombings or
other attacks that don't hurt U.S. personnel.
"On one day in July 2006, there were 93 attacks or significant acts of
violence reported," the study said. "Yet a careful review of the
reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence."
<snip><end>
dusto...@mac.com
ST wrote:
> >> That is a big part of the problem. Not to mention they are just as happy to
> >> kill each other. Do you want that culture to dominate your great-grandkids??
Hip hop? No. I hope we go back to "music".
> >> The rules of engagement suck over there. They have to go through about a
> >> dozen factors before they can pull the trigger not to mention, most of the
> >> time, phoning home to ask mommy & daddy for permission first...
Whatever truth content your exaggerations have: one of the very best
reasons not to get into that kind of a "war". Lessons paid for in blood
and suffering, ignored.
> >> Surely was not like that in WWII. Do you remember how many civilians were
> >> killed in the Berlin et al. air raids?
Better examples: Dresden, Hiroshima. Known as "Terror Bombings".
> >> If you blowhards would make the same stink about civilian deaths in regards
> >> to other area in the world I might look at your whining as unbiased.
Are you complaining here about posters sticking to an admittedly OT
subject?
> Like many other pseudo-Marxist Bush bashers...
Marxist? Is that like Feminazi?
> Why do most semi-intelligent (at least), civilized people want to come to
> the US (if given the chance)
Could you provide some sort of citation or back-up for that wild
assertion, please?
> but it seems to be mostly those that were
> raised here that are jumping on the "America is always wrong and was
> responsible for all wrongs in the world, even before it existed" bandwagon
Another "run with it" rant. The same trick was used in the Vietnam
era-- "love it or leave it", etc.
> I am just sick of the liberal progressive bullshit.......
40 hour work week? Group health care, life insurance? Safety rules?
Prohibition of child labor? Women's sufferage? Elimination of poll
taxes, etc?
> Most liberal/progressive thinkers/voters are either in a lower
> socio-economic bracket and do not think they have the power (or brains,
> persistence) to raise above it
Spew. Or, give us a citation (different from a regurgitation, thanks).
> OR are those that think they are mentally &
> morally superior and know what is best for everyone else based on their
> emotionally thought out socialist views BUT do not think that system applies
> to any of THEIR piece of the "American Dream" pie....
MOS. "Morally superior"? You mean like the neocons who invaded a
country that didn't attack us?
> Live your life according to what you think is right but keep your fuckin
> hands on other peoples American Dream.
Didn't you just tell us to vote, above? "fuckin hands off"? What does
*that* mean, really? Is there any content there?
> If you feel guilty for others that
> have not or cannot achieve what you have give up some of yours.....
No guilt here. Recognition of institutionalized racism, etc. Door
opening, not handouts.
> Every once in a while I check things out here and I feel like I am on a
> moveon.org message board. You guys think you are the majority philosophical
> viewpoint in America?? Wrong!
Bush approval rating ~ 30%? I don't know about "philosophy" but the
subject was "the surge". The surge is not a winner.
> Fuck your polls!
FFFFFF BOMB!!!! INCOMING!!!!
> Why don't you look at the questions they ask and the choice
> of answers they offer you to pick from. Like this:
>
> Do you think President Bush is:
> A) completely wrong
> B) totally wrong
> C) A Dumbass
> D) A Religious Wacko
> E) All of the above...
Answer: D, D, D, D, D.
End Times Wacko who thinks he's gonna get max brownie points by helping
start the Battle of Armageddon.
Looks like we're close:
http://armageddononline.tripod.com/bible.htm
Takes a lot of guts to name a date, even a year's worth of dates (minus
15, of course) after all the failures to predict correctly down through
the centuries. --D-y
William Asher
I agree completely that the figure of a 1% overall casualty rate in Baghdad
is likely at least an order of magnitude too low. But as an exercise it is
instructive that even with the lower numbers you come up with a rate that
is really high for what are supposedly non-wartime conditions. A rate on
the order of 10% would be similar (although not quite as high) to the
casualty rate for London in 1940 at the height of the Blitz.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
You get the sense the people doing the kinds of analyses that got me
started are coprophilliacs, or maybe autocoprophagiasts. It would explain
a lot about Wolfowitz.
--
Bill Asher
Donald Munro
>>> Cherry-picking murder rates simply can't gild a turd that big.
Donald Munro wrote:
>> Anyone cherry picking a turd deserves what he finds.
William Asher wrote:
> You get the sense the people doing the kinds of analyses that got me
> started are coprophilliacs, or maybe autocoprophagiasts. It would explain
> a lot about Wolfowitz.
First use of coprophiliac on rbr; even master fatties prefer talking shit
to eating it.
Robert Chung
> I would think a reasonable estimate might be 6 to 7 times
> as many seriously wounded as killed
That turns out to be a reasonable estimate for US forces in Iraq: the ratio
of dead to (seriously) wounded is about 0.13. During Vietnam, the ratio for
US troops was 0.24.
Bill C
On Jan 16, 3:09 pm, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> William Asher wrote:
> > I would think a reasonable estimate might be 6 to 7 times
> > as many seriously wounded as killedThat turns out to be a reasonable estimate for US forces in Iraq: the ratio
> of dead to (seriously) wounded is about 0.13. During Vietnam, the ratio for
> US troops was 0.24.
Not sure what the ratio is but everything I've seen says that they are
saving a much higher percentage of seriously wounded. Most of whom
would've died even a decade ago. That's going to give you a much higher
ratio of seriously wounded to KIA. I've seen guesses between 20,000 to
35,000 from sources close to the military, though even they admit they
aren't sure of the numbers.
Bill C
William Asher
I don't know if they had a service over there for this guy:
By the time he died, he had retreated around the globe 73 times. That's
gotta be some sort of a record, even for a Frenchman.
--
Bill Asher
Robert Chung
> http://newsbusters.org/node/9932
That site sez that a total of 16,273 Iraqis died of violence in 2006, for a
violent death rate of 56 per 100,000. Meanwhile, we averaged around 140,000
US forces in Iraq during 2006 with a total of just under 900 deaths, for a
violent death rate of around 600 per 100,000. Yow. The Iraqis are kicking
our butts. And you want to send more Americans over there? FatBoy, why do
you hate America so?
Bill C
On Jan 16, 12:39 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com>
wrote:
>
> Takes a lot of guts to name a date, even a year's worth of dates (minus
> 15, of course) after all the failures to predict correctly down through
> the centuries. --D-y
I'll name a date, within a week of an American pullout all hell breaks
loose and what we've seen now isn't even a decent warm-up for what's
going to come.
Good read here. Got to read it all the way through, it's the whole war
in a nutshell.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901373.html
Bill C
William Asher
> Not sure what the ratio is but everything I've seen says that they are
> saving a much higher percentage of seriously wounded. Most of whom
> would've died even a decade ago. That's going to give you a much
> higher ratio of seriously wounded to KIA. I've seen guesses between
> 20,000 to 35,000 from sources close to the military, though even they
> admit they aren't sure of the numbers.
US non-mortal casualties here:
Nobody knows how many of the Wounded-Medical Air Transport Required are
"Johnny Got His Gun"-badly wounded.
And this is kind of a nice graph on the U.S. death rate as well:
http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm
--
Bill Asher
Robert Chung
> Not sure what the ratio is but everything I've seen says that they are
> saving a much higher percentage of seriously wounded. Most of whom
> would've died even a decade ago.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2471
Bill C
On Jan 16, 4:15 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Not sure what the ratio is but everything I've seen says that they are
> > saving a much higher percentage of seriously wounded. Most of whom
> > would've died even a decade ago. That's going to give you a much
> > higher ratio of seriously wounded to KIA. I've seen guesses between
> > 20,000 to 35,000 from sources close to the military, though even they
> > admit they aren't sure of the numbers.US non-mortal casualties here:
>
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
>
> Nobody knows how many of the Wounded-Medical Air Transport Required are
> "Johnny Got His Gun"-badly wounded.
>
> And this is kind of a nice graph on the U.S. death rate as well:
>
> http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm
>
> --
> Bill Asher
Might be my paranoia, but I'd bet the figures are higher and a lot of
the special ops / covert types arent in there, and neither are the
other "Government Employees" and "Civilian Contractors".
I figure anything coming out of the Pentagon is a lie in some fashion,
it's cultural there I think.
Bill C
Andre
ST wrote:
> On 1/15/07 3:54 PM, in article
> 1168905278.4...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
> <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Andre wrote:
> >
> >>> Dumbass -
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No it isn't.
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't matter anyways because the "victory" (or failure) will be
> >>> measured by what replaces Saddam Hussein's government and the true
> >>> measure of how that is how many Iraqis are dying. The Lancet study put
> >>> the figure at anywhere from 350,000 to 950,000. The vast majority of it
> >>> is sectarian violence and with that sort of bloodshed going on between
> >>> the tribes, it's pretty much guaranteed that the government will not
> >>> succeed.
> >>>
> >>> The Civil War, it's inevitable. The reason there are so many willing
> >>> suicide bombers is their culture dictates that slain relatives must be
> >>> avenged. So the suicide bomber kills more which engenders more
> >>> avengers. We can't stop it. Neither can they.
> >>>
> >>> Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
> >>> cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
> >>> a few more troops will somehow solve it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>>
> >>> K. Gringioni.
> >>
> >> Bush doesn't want to solve it. Just wants to make sure he retains all
> >> the stolen oil. The death count does not matter one bit to him. To him
> >> the Iraqi civilians and the invading American soldiers are not people
> >> just numbers.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> >
> > If only that were true.
> >
> > One of the problems with this administration is that they're ideologues
> > (ignoring data that doesn't fit their preconceived notions) and
> > actually believe they're doing the right thing.
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > K. Gringioni.
> >
>
> We were ideologues in WWI & WWII shithead....
> Over there they are major flaming ideologues. Where is the same bashing??
John Forrest Tomlinson
Howard Kveck
William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> autocoprophagiasts
Also a first use in rbr. Two in one post - our vocabularies are expanding by the
day. Just like some waistlines (or is that wastelines?).
Howard Kveck
"Bill C" <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
I've also seen it reported that a much higher percentage of seriously wounded are
surviving, due to better emergency medical techniques and supplies. But a lot of
those people are always going to be in seriously bad shape. Head injuries are quite
prevalent.
Howard Kveck
> On 1/15/07 8:01 PM, in article
> YOURhoward-F255A...@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
> <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <C1D160F4.1FEADF%n...@no.com>, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
> >> There are many cities were there are more than 5 deaths per day.
> >
> > Then it should be quite simple for you to name a few. It'll be even more
> > relevant if these cities have a population of about 150,000.
> Here ya go Professor Ass Bag........
>
>
> http://newsbusters.org/node/9932
> http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ViolDeathGraph1206.jpeg
I guess you didn't get the point. Robert's chart is about the deaths of US
troops. That's the point I'm making: there is a population of about 132,000 US
troops (not the 150,000 I mentioned, sorry for the error) and there are times when 5
of them have died in a day. Are there any cities in the US with a population of
about 132,000 that has a death rate that high? Of course not. Secondly, the charts
provided by your source are highly questionable, at best. The morgue in Baghdad
reported 16,000 bodies were brought in during '06. But that is likely very much a
short count, as many people found the body of a family member and took care of it on
their own because going to the morgue proved to be a danger: the militias hung out
by it and killed people who came to deliver or pick up bodies.
Anyway, the UN now says the totals reported have all been way too low. They said
today that more than 34,000 Iraqis had been killed in 2006.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0116/iraq.html?rss
As far as it being, as you seem to be implying, "not that bad," I believe that if
there were a city in the US that had a death rate as high as it is in Iraq, you'd be
complaining about how bad it was and blamng it on "liberals coddling criminals."
You mentioned to JT that if he didn't like things, then he should vote. Well, I
suspect he did. So did a lot of people. And on November 7, 2006, the people spoke.
While Iraq was but one part of the reason for it, the people seemed to repudiate the
Bush policy rather hard. Check the polls, Steve. They show a 70% disapproval rate on
Bush's Iraq policy. They also show he has a job approval rating in the very low 30%
area - and it's been there for many months. Lots of presidents get into those
numbers for short periods, but never for extended stays. The guy is unpopular for a
reason, Steve.
Howard Kveck
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The point about the civilian casualties in Iraq is when Bush prevented
> the Baathists from participating in the new "government" he created a
> power vacuum which has been filled by tribal militias. That's where all
> the casualties are coming from. We're not killing them. They're killing
> each other. There is no chance of "victory" in Iraq. The Democrats are
> lucky that Kerry lost the last election because he didn't have a plan
> any better than Bush's. The fundamental error was in eliminating the
> army and police force when we invaded in 2003. They would have
> cooperated. All of the sudden, their livelihoods were taken away and
> what were these trained killers going to do? Duh.
The army were all fired, but they got to keep their weapons - not the best
planning.
> In the meantime, the Iraqi "army" that we've been training is largely a
> Shiite militia. Whenever we leave, the newly empowered Shiites will
> attempt to eradicate the Sunnis who used to oppress them.
One of the main reasons for the miitias is that the government is not doing the
first job of any government: protecting the populace. So the militias will, at least
as far as their own sect or tribe are concerned. And they are obviously working on
the plan that the best way to protect their own is by trying to drive the other
groups out by killing a bunch of them.
The complete destruction of the Iraqi economy by the Coalition Provisional
Authority isn't helping matters either.
> Traditional conservatives such as Pat Buchanan and William F. Buckley concur
> with analysis that the war was in error. Unfortunately for all involved,
> they are correct.
Here's an interesting article on NRO writer Rod Dreher's awakening (via Glenn
Greenwald):
________________________
In Iraq, this Republican President for whom I voted twice has shamed our country
with weakness and incompetence, and the consequences of his failure will be far, far
worse than anything Carter did.
________________________
Robert Chung
> I guess you didn't get the point. Robert's chart is about the
> deaths of US troops.
You know, I'm actually kinda surprised that no one saw what I saw. I thought
the point of the graph was seasonality in US deaths. Since neither our
government nor the Iraqi government appear to be interested in knowing the
toll of the war, one of the few ways to assess the toll is by the deaths of
coalition forces. The President is sending in more troops and I wonder
whether the administration will point to any reduction in American deaths as
a justification for the escalation.
Kurgan Gringioni
ST wrote:
>
> We were ideologues in WWI & WWII shithead....
> Over there they are major flaming ideologues. Where is the same bashing??
Dumbass -
FDR wasn't an ideologue on foreign policy. He analyzed the situation
and made the correct decisions.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
SLAVE of THE STATE
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> FDR wasn't an ideologue on foreign policy. He analyzed the situation
> and made the correct decisions.
You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.
http://www.mises.org/story/2360
http://www.mises.org/books/aswegomarching.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Roosevelt-Myth-John-T-Flynn/dp/0930073274/
http://www.lfb.com/index.php?deptid=&parentid=&stocknumber=AH9049&page=1&itemsperpage=24
Bill C
On Jan 16, 7:35 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > Traditional conservatives such as Pat Buchanan and William F. Buckley concur
> > with analysis that the war was in error. Unfortunately for all involved,
> > they are correct. Here's an interesting article on NRO writer Rod Dreher's awakening (via Glenn
> Greenwald):
>
> http://tinyurl.com/tpg2c
>
> ________________________
>
> In Iraq, this Republican President for whom I voted twice has shamed our country
> with weakness and incompetence, and the consequences of his failure will be far, far
> worse than anything Carter did.
> ________________________
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Here's a good message for everyone to actually think about:
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Columnists/Gillespie_Ian/2007/01/17/3393681.html
Tell me, who is at fault?
By IAN GILLESPIE
Bill C
Jack Hollis
<kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>FDR wasn't an ideologue on foreign policy. He analyzed the situation
>and made the correct decisions.
Tell that to the East Europeans when he sold them down the river.
Fred Fredburger
> http://newsbusters.org/node/9932
> http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ViolDeathGraph1206.jpeg
>
>
Interesting links. However, estimates for deaths in Iraq have always
been wildly inconsistent. Here's an estimate that's double that used on
these pages:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything here, just noting that the
truth is hard to get at. Churchill once said that during wartime the
truth was such a precious commodity that it had to be accompanied by a
bodyguard of lies. Or something like that.
Fred Fredburger
> On 1/14/07 11:17 PM, in article
> 1168845456.7...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
> "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>
>> ST wrote:
>>> "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
>>>>
>>> Nice boxplot you got there......
>>> You do know what an outlier is don't you?
>>>
>>> Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops where
>>> you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?
>>>
>>> More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.
>> Robert's plot shows the average number of deaths of coalition
>> soldiers (who are mostly healthy young people) only. If you want
>> to compare deaths in major cities, an appropriate comparison
>> would be the number of civilian violent deaths (murders) per day
>> in a major US city versus, say, the number of Iraqi civilian violent
>> deaths per day in Baghdad. I am sure the comparison would not be
>> flattering. For example,
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1981434,00.html
>> The sad thing is that the country is such a mess we don't even
>> know by how much the number is an underestimate.
>>
>
> You assclowns are only looking at 1 area and saying it is fucked......
I respectfully submit that getting killed is a significant measure of
fucked-ness.
Fred Fredburger
> An admission?
> There culture is backwards and screwed up.
>
What does it mean if you're correct? I'm honestly trying to understand
your position.
If their culture is backwards and screwed up, then I guess we have
someone to blame for the deaths over there. OK, got that.
But if their "culture is backwards and screwed up", how is the US
military supposed to fix that? Wasn't it the knowledge that we couldn't
fix it the reason George H.W. stopped Schwarzkopf from visiting Baghdad
in the early 90's?
Robert Chung
> You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
> FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.
Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?
Donald Munro
>> You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
>> FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.
Robert Chung wrote:
> Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?
So Osama is FDR reincarnated. Instant karma is gonna get you.
William Asher
He didn't want to sound like a nutbar.
--
Bill Asher
Bill C
On Jan 17, 3:37 pm, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
> > FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?
Gotta agree with Curtis that FDR was horrible, but Bush is right there
with him. FDR at least, where he didn't have a plan used overwhelming
force to exterminate the problem. FDR would've allowed the current
version of Curtis Lemay or Arthur Harris surrounded Faluja and carpet
bombed it, napalm included, with everyone in it. Insurgents gone,
next...
Bush had no plan other than "Get Saddam" and wasn't smart enough to
pull right back out and drop it in the UN's lap. Didn't have anywhere
the number of troops needed to occupy and pacify the country, as has
been pointed out, turned most all the military loose with weapons
rather than inter them until the end of hostilities under Red Cross
supervision.
The list is endless where FDR KNEW what had to happen, and got people
to make it happen, and Bush has failed miserably extending the war and
getting more people killed in the long run, especially real civilians.
Total clusterfuck from cooked intelligence to sell the war to today.
Bill C
Bill C
On Jan 16, 6:46 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
I've also seen it reported that a much higher percentage of seriously
wounded are
> surviving, due to better emergency medical techniques and supplies. But a lot of
> those people are always going to be in seriously bad shape. Head injuries are quite
> prevalent.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
More good news, just from today:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,122282,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl
Military Faces Mental Crisis
USA Today | January 17, 2007
An experienced Navy psychologist warns that the U.S. military does not
have enough mental health professionals to meet the growing number of
emotionally damaged war veterans.
Moreover, Navy Cmdr. Mark Russell says, many of the mental health
professionals on staff lack formal training in core therapies for
post-traumatic stress syndrome. Russell predicts a "perfect storm" of
dire health care consequences.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,122281,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl
Commander Wants Afghan Tours Extended
Associated Press | January 17, 2007
KABUL, Afghanistan - The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said Tuesday
he wants to extend the combat tours of 1,200 Soldiers amid rising
violence, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he was "strongly
inclined" to recommend a troop increase to President Bush if commanders
believe it is needed.
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,122269,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl
Shi'ite-Doomed Surge
Ivan Eland | January 16, 2007
Although President Bush's escalation of the Iraq War has been opposed
by a substantial majority of the American people, many generals, the
Iraq Study Group, and most Democrats and some Republicans in Congress,
the most important opposition may come from Iraqis.
So tell me again how an overextended, almost mentally broken, under
equipped force with it's hands tied, that's being killed daily by
terrorists being protected by the government they are supposed to be
helping, and we are supporting, is supposed to continue to extend and
"surge" with no end in sight?
You know how big a cost to the troops, that's not being reported in
the mainstream press, in suicides, divorces, alcoholism and all the
other good things that hit stressed to the edge and over people who
have no way out, is out there.
Combine that with a totally SNAFU military mental health system which
IMO causes more problems than it fixes, Commanders who equate mental
health problems with failure to do the duty and abuse and prosecute
people rather than lose the body. I can't even begin to tell you how
low my opinion of the military's mental health service is.
Bill C
SLAVE of THE STATE
LOL. I was leaving that for Krugman and path dependence. Oh wait, FDR
wasn't a republican, but a democrat. Nevermind.
SLAVE of THE STATE
Bill C
On Jan 16, 6:29 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
The ending is so depressing.
>
> --
> JT
Here's another thing example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6272093.stm
Darfur aid 'on brink of collapse'
Malnutrition is on the rise again in Sudan's Darfur region
Fourteen UN aid agencies working in Sudan's troubled Darfur region have
warned that their relief operations will collapse unless security
improves.
Humanitarian workers, they said, are "holding the line" for the
survival and protection of millions in Darfur.
We just saw in Somalia what an impoverished country that's a
traditional enemy could accomplish with a little effort. Why couldn't
Nato, the UN and Albright do anything right a long time ago?
Pretty much the world sucks, but I'm more disappointed in the West
because we, at least, claim to be better. We are, but not by much.
It's all about power and money, for everyone. China is defending the
Sudanese government because of it's economic agreements. That's why
France was trying to have the UN sanctions lifted, despite Hussein's
miserable record of compliance. That's why Russia was providing
military equipoment and experts right up through the fall of Baghdad.
That's why both are supporting Iran. A Shia dominated Iraq and working
relationship with Iran will likely get them back in on the oilfield
contracts they lost with the war.
I don't think oil and profit were the key reasons Bush attacked Iraq,
but they were 2 and 2a.
Its going to be interesting to see how France reacts when their
Generals and politicians are hauled in front of the ICC for the
Rhwandan genocide. Wanna bet they, all of a sudden, sound like Bush?
The West talks Human Rights but continues to happily do business with
countries that have little to no freedom of anything, politcal
prisoners by the boatload, etc...
Cuba was kept afloat after the Soviet collapse by Canadian and
European money. This is what the paid for:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/01/09/cuba.rights.reut/index.html
HAVANA, Cuba (Reuters) -- Respect for human rights has not improved in
Cuba under interim leader Raul Castro, though the number of Cubans
jailed for political reasons has fallen to 283, the country's main
rights watchdog said Tuesday.
Cuba remains the nation in the Western Hemisphere with the most
political prisoners in proportion to its population, the Cuban
Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation said in its
year-end report.
Cindy Sheehan is there protesting the US while supporting the Cuban
government.
These people claim to care about Human Rights.
It's garbage. Everyone only cares when it's easy and fits their profit
margin and ideology; the US included.
If we really cared the UN would've had no problem getting together
500,000 troops to stabilise Somalia and Rhwanda under UN mandate while
people were brought to trial. We could still do that, and more, and
it's more desperate, in Sudan but they wont. China would veto anything
there and the UN won't act otherwise. Millions may well die while noone
does anything except make a profit on the misery.
We won't even go into UN corruption as another reason for not allowing
them to administer a country for the benefit of that country's people.
If we had decent people running things we'd put world multi-national
forces into countries where genocide is occurring, and manage them
totally for the benefit of their people and impose stability by force
while peace is worked out.
I'd have no problem with a massive, competent and committed UN force
occupying the Palestinian territories, including their land that
Jordan, Syr ia, and Israel are on now. Re-establish the 1948 borders
and agreement and stopping the attacks, but UNIFIL failed miserably and
is still failing miserably because the UN is gutless and rudderless.
It'd take a month to thumbnail all the disasters around the globe that
exist now, or are building.
The League of Nations cobbled together the modern state of Iraq out of
former Ottoman territory. When they did it, it was unstable due to the
Kurds, Sunni, and Shia. One of the first things the Iraqi governmenrt
did, after independence was massacre the Assyrian Christians. Sound
familiar?
The UN is as much a failure as the League was, it's just not dead yet,
but might as well be.
Now using civilians as human shields, and women and children as
combatants is standard procedure for a lot of the world. Attacking aid
workers is a standard tactic.
The sad part is that this is being excused and even rewarded by the
big human rights groups by their meek, at best, condemnations of these
tactics.
I still think we can change this shit, but people and governments are
going to have to be willing to fight, die, and sacrifice profit for and
power for it. Moral equivalency can't be used to accept genocide, human
trafficking, brutal abuse of women, forced child soldiers, etc...
I'm not sure that a politically correct West will do that.
Bill C
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
No need to nevermind, it's very simple:
FDR was a Democrat.
The Democrats were responsible, through sins of
omission or commission, for 9/11.
Therefore FDR was responsible for 9/11.
Professor of Blog Logic,
Benjamin Franklin
Bill C
On Jan 17, 7:37 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
Crap snipped
Nice job by the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/education/17education.html
It'a a pretty slanted story, but it shines a spotlight on the total
failure of the US information campaign.
We, as a government, in a strategic policy, should be doing everything
possible to bring these people here to the US so they can experience
the reality of a free society rather than their totally theocratically
controlled home, and see that, in comparison, Muslims here live better
than anywhere in the mid-east except possibly Kuwait.
Education, outreach, information, duh.... The biggest shackle is the
control of information and the mind, that's why totalitarian, ansd
theocratic states first control the press.
I'm babbling all most as much as Magilla and that's bad.
Bill C
dusto...@mac.com
>From above:
<World Bank economists Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer find that "trust
and norms of civic cooperation are stronger in countries with formal
institutions that effectively protect property and contract rights.">
Contract rights-- would that be where workers' contracts involving
pensions are protected and enforced, if necessary, not taken away?
What has the well-compensated brass of GM been doing with all that
money they knew they were going to need to meet their end of the
bargain ("contract") when this generation of workers retire? --D-y
Bob Schwartz
> Not sure what the ratio is but everything I've seen says that they are
> saving a much higher percentage of seriously wounded. Most of whom
> would've died even a decade ago. That's going to give you a much higher
> ratio of seriously wounded to KIA. I've seen guesses between 20,000 to
> 35,000 from sources close to the military, though even they admit they
> aren't sure of the numbers.
I never knew organizations like this existed, my wife found it.
http://www.sewmuchcomfort.org/
Much more satisfying than a car magnet. But you need to know
how to sew, buying a car magnet is a lot easier.
Bob Schwartz
Howard Kveck
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
Well, Dinesh D'Souza says that liberals are responsible for 9-11 in his new book.
But he's just echoing Kunich there. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/ccf15121e26b48d9?hl
________________________
"Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these people are
doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no responsibility for the
terrorism in the world. The same people who proclaim loudly that queers
should have the right to "marry" other queers (being a homosexual is a death
penalty in Islam), that women should have the right to wear anything that
they like, that pay big bucks for satellite TV to watch "Friends"
demonstrating every possible insult to the conservative Muslim populations
of the world in their own languages and who think that "Guess" jeans (ain't
they French?) that show a young girls ass-crack aren't the real cause of
terrorism and instead blame it on pumping oil out of the ground which has
brought about more social advancement in the Arab world than all past
history."
________________________
Amusingly, Steven Colbert got D'Souza to admit that he agrees with what bin Laden
said about Western culture. Oops.
Howard Kveck
"Bill C" <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 7:35 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Traditional conservatives such as Pat Buchanan and William F. Buckley
> > > concur with analysis that the war was in error. Unfortunately for all involved,
> > > they are correct.
> >
> > Here's an interesting article on NRO writer Rod Dreher's awakening (via Glenn
> > Greenwald):
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/tpg2c
> >
> > ________________________
> >
> > In Iraq, this Republican President for whom I voted twice has shamed our
> > country with weakness and incompetence, and the consequences of his failure
> > will be far, far worse than anything Carter did.
> > ________________________
> Here's a good message for everyone to actually think about:
> http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Columnists/Gillespie_Ian/2007/01/17/3393681.html
>
> Tell me, who is at fault?
>
> By IAN GILLESPIE
Speaking of the finger of blame:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12383
Robert Chung
> You've got to be kidding. Bush's policies in the Middle East have
> been so successful that that alone will insure his place as one of the
> US's great Presidents.
and
> Bush's polls are not very important in the Congressional elections.
> So it comes down to can the Dems hold all 9 of their empty seats
> and pick up 16 of the the 28 Republican seats. It's a tall order.
> Picking up 6 seats in the Senate is not going to happen.
Kurgan Gringioni
Bill C wrote:
> Bush had no plan other than "Get Saddam" and wasn't smart enough to
> pull right back out and drop it in the UN's lap.
Dumbass -
The UN would not have cooperated nor would they have been capable of
filling the power vacuum even if they were willing.
Bush could have actually succeeded if he would've sought the
cooperation of Baathist army units and put his own Baathist guy in
power.
The Baathists used to be our allies until Saddam got the dumb idea to
invade Kuwait.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Donald Munro
>> An admission?
>> There culture is backwards and screwed up.
Fred Fredburger wrote:
> What does it mean if you're correct? I'm honestly trying to understand
> your position.
Not a problem. You only need to understand the missionary position.
Bill C
On Jan 18, 2:06 am, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Bush had no plan other than "Get Saddam" and wasn't smart enough to
> > pull right back out and drop it in the UN's lap.Dumbass -
>
> The UN would not have cooperated nor would they have been capable of
> filling the power vacuum even if they were willing.
>
> Bush could have actually succeeded if he would've sought the
> cooperation of Baathist army units and put his own Baathist guy in
> power.
>
> The Baathists used to be our allies until Saddam got the dumb idea to
> invade Kuwait.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.
Yeah that might've worked but I think the Shia would've still revolted
and we aren't allowed to use Saddam's tactics to terrify them into
behaving, so even with the Baathists mostly intact, but operating under
Western restrictions I think we have the same mess, and maybe more. At
least right now we can't, reasonably, be accused of backing the
Militias and death squads. If we'd kept the Baathists then we'd be in
the position of publicly supporting one sides killers. Not that we
haven't done it before, but I just can't see that working.
Dumd idea? He may have had it, it's been standard policy in Iraq for
the whole century Kuwaitbelongs to Iraq, but he got the green light
from April Glaspie. The transcripts make that incredibly clear. Whether
she meant the things she said that way is another thing, but if she
didn't it was gross incompetence that started a brutal and bloody
disaster.
Bill C
Bill C
On Jan 17, 11:26 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> Speaking of the finger of blame:
>
> http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&article...
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
My only problem with this, and I have it with 99% of the groups he's
citing on Sudan. They have almost all screamed bloody murder on
unilateral US actions, insisted that things be handled through the UN,
and the US work with everyone else before it does anything.
Now that the US government, for whatever reasons, has left this in the
hands of the UN and world community we see the result; not a damned
thing.
Let's take a look at the "leadership' displayed by the European
nations who are constantly screaming over human rights at the US. There
is none. How many troops have those nations that don't have troops in
Afghanistan and Iraq offered? None that I can see. France and Germany,
especially under Schroeder, were the first to scream bloody murder, and
have the largest militaries in Europe. Why haven't they taken the lead
to deal with this as we have repeatedly stated we would help with
transportation and supplies whenever they chose to take action.
First the US is scum because we acted unilaterally, then we're scum
because we don't while Europe fiddles a whining tune at us.
Fuck the hypocrites, maybe they can help Chavez get his per capita
political prisoner ratio up to Castros.
Any idea why there wasn't a single word of blame in the article for
the UN or Europe? I have my ideas.
Bill C
Bill C
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6273629.stm
Sheikh Feiz Mohammed, who has spent the past year living in Lebanon,
talks on the controversial videotapes of his desire for children be
offered "as soldiers defending Islam".
"Teach them this," he says, "that there is nothing more beloved to me
than wanting to die as a Muhajid.
"Put in their soft, tender heart the zeal of jihad and the love of
martyrdom."
He also ridicules Jewish people as pigs and makes snorting noises,
saying they will go to hell.
Wonder how many of those were the "civilians" killed in Lebanon? His
teachings of children, women, and everyone else to fight and become
martyrs isn't rare. I still can't get any of the news agencies, the
BBC, or Guardian to tell me how they define civilian though they have
sent some interesting replies in the past.
The next time you see a report of "civilians" killed, think for a
while before reacting.
Bill C
Bill C
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16468032.htm
Terror suspect was terrorized in a Navy brigBY FRED GRIMM
fgr...@MiamiHerald.com
Gonna watch what I say here, but how the fuck does this happen to in
America???? Maybe they can give the same treatment to some 12yr old
who says Bush is a criminal too.
I'm not crying for terrorists, but this is beyond despicable. Like
pulling the eyes out of puppies for giggles. Padilla was a nobody with
no connections, that's been clear all along. There was no immediate
massive threat that he had information on to even begin to justify this
shit.
Time for the World Court to get off it's ass and start bringing
charges and trying people who are ordering and controlling this shit in
absentia. Time to start getting all of them, U.S. included starting
with Bush, Scumsfeld, Chirac, Putin, Al-Sadr, and the whole Sudanese
governement and their friends. They're at least doing trials in
Rhwanda.
Bill C
Jack Hollis
wrote:
> Be prepared to be pissed off and sick.
I'm neither.
fred....@yahoo.com
I read it, and it didn't sicken me at all. Nothing at all like pulling
the eyes from puppies. They kept him in seclusion. BFD. Maybe if
they'd let him mingle with the general population someone would've
shanked him by now and we wouldn't give half a shit.
Oh, and another thing... for those who are dismissing the president's
plan to send more combat troops to Iraq and who say it won't work, I
have to ask, what experience or training in the planning for or conduct
of counter-terrorist or counter-insurgency warfare do you have that
makes you know so much????
Oh, wait, one more thing... more troops doesn't necessarily mean more
deaths. It's not like they've killed 'em all and if we just send more
they'll kill them too.
If you don't already know it, you should come to grips with the reality
that we are at war with Iran. We're just fighting it in Iraq.
Fred
John Forrest Tomlinson
>I read it, and it didn't sicken me at all. Nothing at all like pulling
>the eyes from puppies. They kept him in seclusion. BFD.
I don't know whether to laugh or be appalled at your comment. Sort of
like Limbaugh (or was it O'Reilly) talking about Abu Gharaib as being
like fraternity pranks.
It's one thing to be alone for a long period of time.
It's quite another to be kept alone, with complete uncertainty of if
you will ever get out, or be allowed to live freely again, or perhaps
killed out of hand. It's torture.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
fred....@yahoo.com
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2007 15:50:43 -0800, fred....@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >I read it, and it didn't sicken me at all. Nothing at all like pulling
> >the eyes from puppies. They kept him in seclusion. BFD.
>
> I don't know whether to laugh or be appalled at your comment. Sort of
> like Limbaugh (or was it O'Reilly) talking about Abu Gharaib as being
> like fraternity pranks.
>
> It's one thing to be alone for a long period of time.
>
> It's quite another to be kept alone, with complete uncertainty of if
> you will ever get out, or be allowed to live freely again, or perhaps
> killed out of hand. It's torture.
> --
> JT
>
What's your point?
John Forrest Tomlinson
>What's your point?
That it is a big deal. It's really bad if it's true. I don't want my
government doing that. It's illegal and immol.
Fred Fredburger
I think you're definitely mistaken.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> On 18 Jan 2007 15:50:43 -0800, fred....@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >I read it, and it didn't sicken me at all. Nothing at all like pulling
> >the eyes from puppies. They kept him in seclusion. BFD.
>
> I don't know whether to laugh or be appalled at your comment. Sort of
> like Limbaugh (or was it O'Reilly) talking about Abu Gharaib as being
> like fraternity pranks.
>
> It's one thing to be alone for a long period of time.
>
> It's quite another to be kept alone, with complete uncertainty of if
> you will ever get out, or be allowed to live freely again, or perhaps
> killed out of hand. It's torture.
Be fair, JT. "Fred" already pointed out that none of us
have the right to give opinions on the surge because we're
not counter-insurgency experts, just dipshits who read the
newspaper. In keeping with this, perhaps Fred's opinions on
the effects of indefinite seclusion _are_ the opinions of an
expert. I think it's quite possible he was locked in the closet
under the stairs for years at a time. I don't know about the
bright lights and LSD though, unless he had a hippie mom.
As for Padilla, it's pretty clear that the government messed
with him for whatever its reasons were, and now would almost
rather that he go away than have to try him on whatever minuscule
charges are left and risk that the trial will publicize their treatment
of him. IOW, even the government thinks it tortured him. They're
only continuing with the trial as part of defending their claims
to be able to detain people without review.
http://www.slate.com/id/2157493/
http://www.slate.com/id/2156397/ (point #3 is on Padilla)
Ben
John Forrest Tomlinson
<b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> "Fred" already pointed out that none of us
>have the right to give opinions on the surge because we're
>not counter-insurgency experts, just dipshits who read the
>newspaper.
That might be true, but I thought the real reason is that giving
opinions embolden the enemy.
fred....@yahoo.com
I didn't say dick about you not having a right to your opinions. I DID
say you probably don't know what you're talking about, which leads to
the conclusion that you've probably made a knee jerk reaction not
guided by reason. An opinion of that nature carries little, no, make
that no weight.
You can proclaim any/all opinions you want about what you think
should/should not be done, but don't try to pass your opinions off as
facts.
Fred
Robert Chung
> That might be true, but I thought the real reason is that giving
> opinions embolden the enemy.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011994.php
John Forrest Tomlinson
LOL
John Forrest Tomlinson
You don't think prolonged isolation, combined with threats of death,
loud music and beatings constitute torture?
It's a fact -- if combined those things are torture.
Bill C
On Jan 18, 7:02 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2007 15:50:43 -0800, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >I read it, and it didn't sicken me at all. Nothing at all like pulling
> >the eyes from puppies. They kept him in seclusion. BFD.I don't know whether to laugh or be appalled at your comment. Sort of
> like Limbaugh (or was it O'Reilly) talking about Abu Gharaib as being
> like fraternity pranks.
>
> It's one thing to be alone for a long period of time.
>
> It's quite another to be kept alone, with complete uncertainty of if
> you will ever get out, or be allowed to live freely again, or perhaps
> killed out of hand. It's torture.
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
Hey JT I expected some of those reponses, but it wasn't just
isolation. It was years of sensory deprivation which is nasty shit.:
http://www.nacd.org/more_information/journal/article23.html
Selected bits:
<Snip>
But what happens to the brain's efficiency when the brain is deprived
of proper stimulation? Sensory deprivation studies show us that sudden
and nearly complete deprivation of stimulation through the five senses
can lead to dramatic changes in the brain's efficiency with a partial
loss of memory, a lowering of the I.Q., personality changes including
withdrawal, hallucinations, and in some people even an abnormal
electroencephalogram, a picture not unlike what is seen in the mentally
ill patient who becomes withdrawn and hallucinates.
<snip>
Let's look at some chronic or longer lasting forms of sensory
deprivation. Sadly, this country's recent history provides a number of
examples of just such deprivation with its sometimes tragic results.
Captured U.S. soldiers fighting in Korea were subjected to a prolonged
period of isolation by their captors. During such isolation they were
forced to listen to propaganda. Their brains, dulled by prolonged
isolation, were vulnerable to the propaganda to the degree that when a
truce was declared and prisoners exchanged, many U.S. soldiers refused
to return home. Later after being taken out of isolation and permitted
the normal stimulating effects of an active environment, their brains'
efficiency improved to the point that most of them wanted to, and
finally did, return home.
The Pueblo incident and the sad effects of isolation on Captain Bucher
and his crew should have taught us that none of us would be immune to
the adverse effects on the brain of other forms of sensory deprivation.
<more there and other places>
I guess it's OK that we are now acting just like the N. Koreans, that
makes me proud. Maybe we can set up some re-education camps here in the
US too and make people disappear.
Yep, I'm busting with pride.
One of the fun techniques we used to use was to take a prisoner who we
knew things about, such as a village leader in Vietnam whom we
suspected of being VC, or a collaborator, isolate and stress him. Then
let information get to him that we'd captured his family. We would hold
their families without abusing them, but the key was to have them,
gather basic info on them, and from them. Then you get someone with a
voice that's close to the wife or daughter's. You tie the prisoner into
a chair in a small room and gag them with another adjacent room that
allows the sound to come through, but not completely clearly. You tell
the prisoner that since he hasn't talked your friends are going to have
some fun with his wife. You stage a rape scene in the other room, loud,
but not too nasty and make him hear it.
When it's over you tell him that if he doesn't talk by tomorrow he
gets to hear her raped to death, then his daughters are next.
The reality is that there's never a mark on him. His family was never
harmed, but most likely he's been mentally destroyed. The key is to
never ask leading or specific questions, and to guarantee that you will
verify any information before releasing their families, or else.
Somehow we claimed that since they weren't physically abused this
wasn't torture. To be fair the Brits were the masters of psychological
manipulation and torture. The French were really good at it, but became
masters after enlisting a shitload of former Nazis into the Legion
after WW2.
Everybody does this shit unfortunately. There's tons of other goodies
out there on unconventional warfare, psyops, interrogation, chemical
interrogation, etc...
Maybe a couple times in a million is it actually justified. Padilla
was wrung out and exposed as nothing but delusional in days, anything
after that was torture for the joy of it.
The nice thing about isolation and depravation, from the "we can
rationalize anything" people inflicting it is that you aren't getting
covered in blood, breaking bones, or actively physically abusing them,
you're just leaving them alone and feeding them, and giving medical
care. What's wrong with that? Maybe even throw in some music and
"correct thinking" for them to listen to.
Bill C