Thank you, America!

Fo making the right choice. Ending the long dark road of Arrogance of Power, Fear, Corruption, Polarisation, Confrontation.

12 years of intensely divisive years, sending the US plummiting in global standing, has now been ended

Thank you, American Voters, from the bottom of my heart. Thank you for giving Rummy the Great the boot, now waiting for the demise of the other Prince of Darkness; Cheney. His heart condition might be a good excuse?

I appreciate your thanks but I wonder why you hold me responsible for Bush/Cheney when I did not vote for them nor approve of them or their policies, etc?

America is as diverse as any country. To say 'we voted the right way' is not exactly correct as there are still millions of those beasties you hate so much, the far-right Republican/Christians. To blame all of America for Bush is equal to thanking all of America for the current power shift, no? I can think of many, MANY Cellarites who voted Republican this Midterm.

Did YOU vote for Blair? Can I hold you responsible for him?
Shall I spew all my hatred for him at you? That seem right to you?

Did YOU vote for Blair? Can I hold you responsible for him?

......Noooooo! don't do that......don't start blaming us for Bliar.......okay I did vote for Blair.......but in the first election he really did not come across as a weak-willed, lying, war-mongerer.........and then after that it was the realisation that however bad Blair was, the Tories would be worse.

*grins*

OMG - like Kerry, or Gore for that matter would have done any better??? Puhlease. I'm not condoning anything that anyone did, but really people - would you rather be fighting those a**holes over here?? Don't forget THEY attacked US not the other way around.

I know that I am gonna get SLAMMED for saying that, but there is too much BS floating around not to have a grain or two of truth mentioned here somewhere.

yesman065 wrote:

but really people - would you rather be fighting those a**holes over here?? Don't forget THEY attacked US not the other way around.

Darling, the Brits don't see it that way at all. They only see it in terms of how it will effect them. They really don't even give a hang about us, in terms of individuals; they see us as one big mass of simple-minded, uncultured hicks who'd best do what they're told, or no pat on the head from them.

For them, we are a big, naughty toddler who needs a smack.
They don't care how our policies effect us, they only care how our policies effect THEM. IOW--we should not vote for what is best for ourselves and our country, we should vote for what will ultimately be best for Britain. They'll be happy to tell you how to vote! Just ask them!

yesman065 wrote:

OMG - like Kerry, or Gore for that matter would have done any better??? Puhlease. I'm not condoning anything that anyone did, but really people - would you rather be fighting those a**holes over here?? Don't forget THEY attacked US not the other way around.

I know that I am gonna get SLAMMED for saying that, but there is too much BS floating around not to have a grain or two of truth mentioned here somewhere.

yesman065 wrote:

This is exactly why I avoid politics like the plague..

;)

Just messin' with you, yesman!

yesman065 wrote:

Don't forget THEY attacked US not the other way around.

I think you are the one who forgets. Bin Laden, a Saudi, led a bunch of other Saudis in an attack against us. Iraq had NOTHING to do with it.

We aren't fighting the people who attacked us.

If you really honestly believe that glatt, then I am utterly speechless.

Are you saying Iraq was partially or wholly behind the attacks against us on 9/11/01?

Abso-freakin-lutely, as well as many many other atrocities against mankind. To think that there was no relation to Saddam whatsoever is incredulous.

Now I'm the one who is speechless.

Quit it you guys. Coz Hippikos will get lost in how stupid we continue to be and won't answer my fookin' questions.

Oh, who am I trying to kid? He won't answer them anyway.

Abso-freakin-lutely, as well as many many other atrocities against mankind. To think that there was no relation to Saddam whatsoever is incredulous.

Oh come on. Please tell me you don't actually believe that? All the evidence points to no involvement by Saddam whatsoever. The neo-cons have even admitted that. The fact that they couch such admissions in terms that then suggest the opposite doesn't change the facts.

would you rather be fighting those a**holes over here?? Don't forget THEY attacked US not the other way around

America is not facing, nor ever has faced an invasion from Iraq. Likewise the UK. Granted they are now very pissed off with us, given that we invaded their country, destroyed its infrastructure and killed several hundred thousand of their people, so now they probably have the motivation for invasion, but I don't think we left them with enough to actually mount it.

Darling, the Brits don't see it that way at all. They only see it in terms of how it will effect them. They really don't even give a hang about us, in terms of individuals; they see us as one big mass of simple-minded, uncultured hicks who'd best do what they're told, or no pat on the head from them.

That's not true. It's also interesting that having accused us of such gross generalisations, you then apply a gross generalisation to what we 'Brits' think of you Americans.

The problem isn't that people don't think America has a right to defend herself from attack. It's that people don't see America's defence as in anyway related to the invasion of a country which in no way posed a threat to either America, or Europe.

Iraq was not connected to 9/11. In no way was Iraq, or Saddam connected to the group who carried out that attack. It was not a war of self defence/protection. It was a war to remove Saddam's government from power. Now, whether or not that was right or wrong as a war aim is another debate. The point is, if the war was about removing another sovereign nation's leader and not because of that nation attacking America; how is there some kind of choice between fighting them over there and fighting them on home turf? The battle in America was never on the cards.

Brianna, when the 9/11 attack happened, Britain held out its hand to America. Our sympathy was assured and deepfelt. We were angry at what had been done to our friends. Do not read current anger at American and British leaders launching a war founded on lies, against a nation who posed no threat to either of us, as some kind of lack of interest or caring in what happens to America and Americans. There is a big difference between disagreeing with a country who went to war and wanting terrible things to happen to that country.

Check out this video. It's hosted by a lefty site, but the video is of Bush.

In it Bush says "nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq."

[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

Brianna wrote:

Oh, who am I trying to kid? He won't answer them anyway.

I figured there was nothing to answer. When you are right, you are right.

The country is still split 50/50. Is just a smidgen to the left now instead of a smidgen to the right.

DanaC: "There is a big difference between disagreeing with a country who went to war and wanting terrible things to happen to that country."

riiight. You love us.

It's not our fault. You guys kicked out all the religious nuts with guns and now you're surprised we're a bunch of religious nuts with guns!

glatt wrote:

Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq."

Nor did I, but he had been supporting training and offering a safe haven to them for decades.

This war is NOT against Iraq - its against Terrorists.

Can I justifiably break into your garage and steal your lawnmower, because of terrorists?

Nah - my ex moved out of the house last weekend and took it along with everything else & I mean everything right down to lightbulbs and toilet paper. But if I had one, you could.

[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

OK, I give up - you guys are all right and I'm nuts. (not the first time) Just let me make sure I get this correct, so when asked I have ALL the facts and can discuss this intelligently. We, America, as a country, invaded another country, Iraq, and committed the majority of our military manpower, jeopardizing 10's if not 100's of thousands of lives, included all facets of our defense programs, spent countless millions of dollars AND dragged our allies with us for absolutely no reason other than to just to siphon off money into the pockets of political and personal supporters. Is that right??

Sounds pretty close ;)

I think we had reasons for doing it, and I wish they could have been more up front about what they were, instead of cooking up a series of failed PR campaigns, and losing support for a war the reasons for which were never properly stated to begin with.

yesman065 wrote:

OK, I give up - you guys are all right and I'm nuts. (not the first time) Just let me make sure I get this correct, so when asked I have ALL the facts and can discuss this intelligently. We, America, as a country, invaded another country, Iraq, and committed the majority of our military manpower, jeopardizing 10's if not 100's of thousands of lives, included all facets of our defense programs, spent countless millions of dollars AND dragged our allies with us for absolutely no reason other than to just to siphon off money into the pockets of political and personal supporters. Is that right??

I still don't know why we invaded Iraq. It never made sense. Your reason isn't the best I've heard, but it's possible.

My goodness people - that is really really sad! I am ashamed to call myself an American if some of us actually believe that statement. I am done - there is no more. It really scares the hell outta me that anyone could convince someone of that.

glatt wrote:

Now I'm the one who is speechless.

I, too, am speechless.

The whole "they attacked us" where "they" == "Iraq" is a big red flag for me. I hear that and give the next ten seconds or so to gather the context--humor, sarcasm, rebuttal, or, gawd, righteous indignation. If the tone is serious belief, the speaker has lost considerable standing, perhaps permanently. This is on the order of saying "The earth is flat." with a straight face. Gonna be *hard* to recover from that one.

They = terrorists.

There were, and remain, strategic objectives to Iraq beyond simply WMD or even Hussein. But the strategic objectives are shot due to the unanticipated insurgency and continued sectarian violence.

Ok, nice recovery.

Question: Why are we fighting, no, who are we fighting in Iraq? The people we're shooting, the people shooting us, Who are they? Are they these "terrorists"?

There's a serious disconnect here about the terminology. Without some common ground here, we will continue to fumble blindly around this elephant, some claiming it's like a tree while others claim it's like a rope.

I love it when UT sets little boobie-traps in his posts:

Undertoad wrote:

...unanticipated insurgency...

BigV wrote:

...the terminology...

Vague terminology is like a blank check.

yesman065 wrote:

OK, I give up - you guys are all right and I'm nuts. (not the first time) Just let me make sure I get this correct, so when asked I have ALL the facts and can discuss this intelligently. We, America, as a country, invaded another country, Iraq, and committed the majority of our military manpower, jeopardizing 10's if not 100's of thousands of lives, included all facets of our defense programs, spent countless millions of dollars AND dragged our allies with us for absolutely no reason other than to just to siphon off money into the pockets of political and personal supporters. Is that right??

A primary reason we attacked Iraq was described by the PNAC in advance. They thought we'd be greeted as liberators, and the jubilant Iraqis would give us land for military bases. They'd become a shining beacon of democracy, inspiring the people in neighboring countries to overthrow their despotic leaders and spread democracy throughout the region. And as our new ally, Iraq would sell us oil that would bypass the OPEC cartel.

Terrorism had little to do with it, except for reducing the need for the administration to come up with another excuse. Of all the countries in the region, Iraq was pretty low on the list of terrorist support.

riiight. You love us.

You are mistaking my disdain for rightwingers as a disdain for Americans.

They = terrorists.

Terrorists cause terror, they put people in fear. Shock and Awe caused fear in Iraq. Iraq has never caused fear in America or Britain.

I think this thread has become nothing more than a slanging match between usually reasonable people.

Get a grip you lot.

All DanaC was trying to say was thankyou for doing what she was unable to do because she's not a US citizen. I'd like to say I'm happy with the outcome of the recent elections and it's a credit to the majority of US citizens.

As has been discussed in another thread recently, citizens of the world at large are affected by internal US politics. That's why there's interest in your elections and that's why others like to comment.

That's it.

I'm waiting for other shoe to drop once Americans find out that the Dems are as clueless about all this as the Reps. ("But it we were told it would all get better once the Republicans left office and we voted for the Dems! Why oh why!")

I don't think any reasonable person believes the Dems will cure all the ills. I think most people really just figured that the Republicans had their turn, and it is now time to bring in the guys on the bench.

Politics and social upheaval are a pendulum, not a massif. They swing from one side to the other over time, and do not remain embedded and immovable. The pendulum has reached its rightmost extreme, and will now swing back to the left for awhile. Lather, rinse, repeat.

9th Engineer wrote:

I'm waiting for other shoe to drop once Americans find out that the Dems are as clueless about all this as the Reps. ("But it we were told it would all get better once the Republicans left office and we voted for the Dems! Why oh why!")

:smack:

No, no, no, no... It was the PRESIDENT, in "campaign mode" who said a vote for the Democrats was a vote for defeat. sheesh. stop drinkin the kool aid, 'k?

I thought that was assinine when that was used then as well, k? I was commenting more on the idea that people I talk to seem to believe that if the Reps are kicked out of office then everything will be peachy.

Those people are deluded.

Government can do good, although some will say I'm deluded for saying so. The principal difference I see just now is that Democratic majorities permit a different set of ideas, a different agenda. I hope the good that can come will be in the form of a different method in Iraq. The previous "plan"--"victory over terrorists" was not working. It seemed clear to me that the decision to "stay the course" had a large component of ... what? Shame? Fear of appearing weak by confessing the obvious failure of the "plan".

I believe there's more relief to GWB's mind than he's willing to display, in that now he can change and save some face. That's it. There was a pathological fear of losing *face* that prevented some legitimate changes. Now he has some cover--I eagerly anticipate some action.

I don't think anyone believes a change of government is a quick fix or that all the people will be happy once it's done.

Don't mistake happiness at a chance for change for delusion.

The Democratic Party, lacking (and how!) a plan to win the war of its own, will have to execute the "Republican plan" they've been irresponsibly trying to resist and undermine these past several years.

Who wants to bet a nickel they'll still eff it right up and lose the war to a bunch of hemipygian Islamofascists?

Perhaps they'll conclude the conflict and develop a plan to actually find Bin Laden. :)

Getting bin Laden is more of a symbolic "nice-to-have," even if it's just getting him with an Atomic Wedgie w/a Half Twist. The defeat and discrediting of the entire terrorist impulse is of more importance, and this is not embodied in just one tall Saudi that the Saudis don't want back.

Aliantha, I didn't start this thread or thank America. I just jumped in when someone made a comment about fighting Iraqis over there rather than on American soil. That somehow equates to my not understanding or caring about the potential dangers faced by America. I just don't think America faced/s a threat from that particular quarter.

Brianna wrote:

I appreciate your thanks but I wonder why you hold me responsible for Bush/Cheney when I did not vote for them nor approve of them or their policies, etc?

America is as diverse as any country. To say 'we voted the right way' is not exactly correct as there are still millions of those beasties you hate so much, the far-right Republican/Christians. To blame all of America for Bush is equal to thanking all of America for the current power shift, no? I can think of many, MANY Cellarites who voted Republican this Midterm.

Did YOU vote for Blair? Can I hold you responsible for him?
Shall I spew all my hatred for him at you? That seem right to you?

I really don't know why you're so agro, Brianna. I get blasted for being anti-American if I bash the Bush guvmint and now I get blasted because I thank America (rethorically) for showing him that it does not approve his policies. Your Yanks are really to sensitive....*sigh*....

No I didn't vote for Bliar, as I'm not a UK citizin. And you're free to bash Bliar any time, as far as me concerns and thanks to UT and Bruce.

yesman065 wrote:

Abso-freakin-lutely, as well as many many other atrocities against mankind. To think that there was no relation to Saddam whatsoever is incredulous.

What planet did you live on th last 3 years?

Brianna wrote:

Quit it you guys. Coz Hippikos will get lost in how stupid we continue to be and won't answer my fookin' questions.

Oh, who am I trying to kid? He won't answer them anyway.

You know what, Brianna, I do have a life outside The Cellar :rolleyes:

Undertoad wrote:

There were, and remain, strategic objectives to Iraq beyond simply WMD or even Hussein. But the strategic objectives are shot due to the unanticipated insurgency and continued sectarian violence.

All that has been achieved strategically is that Iran is now the main regional power. Don't think that was the meaning, or wassit?

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

The Democratic Party, lacking (and how!) a plan to win the war of its own, will have to execute the "Republican plan" they've been irresponsibly trying to resist and undermine these past several years.

Who wants to bet a nickel they'll still eff it right up and lose the war to a bunch of hemipygian Islamofascists?

Which Republican "Plan" will win the war? The only plan left is to get out of there, pronto!

Aliantha wrote:

I think this thread has become nothing more than a slanging match between usually reasonable people.

Get a grip you lot.

All DanaC was trying to say was thankyou for doing what she was unable to do because she's not a US citizen. I'd like to say I'm happy with the outcome of the recent elections and it's a credit to the majority of US citizens.

As has been discussed in another thread recently, citizens of the world at large are affected by internal US politics. That's why there's interest in your elections and that's why others like to comment.

That's it.

Hear, hear! Never a truer word was said.

Hippikos wrote:

You know what, Brianna, I do have a life outside The Cellar :rolleyes:

I do so humbly apologize you arrogant fuck.

Anyone who can post six posts in a row can answer questions, don't you think? Oh! Don't answer that! You're far too busy.

I do so humbly apologize you arrogant fuck.

Anyone who can post six posts in a row can answer questions, don't you think? Oh! Don't answer that! You're far too busy.

ahuh.....*backs slowly out the room*

Brianna wrote:

I do so humbly apologize you arrogant fuck.

Hit a nerve here, Brianna, dear?

Anyone who can post six posts in a row can answer questions, don't you think? Oh! Don't answer that! You're far too busy.

trying to keep up with the messages, Brianna. Sorry for answering. You can always put me on the ignore list.

Hippikos wrote:

What planet did you live on th last 3 years?

I've been on this planet - the one called Earth, thank you. I know I have a very different view of things than most of you do - obviously. I think there are a lot of "sheep" in America that watch and listen to what the liberal media says and blindly follow. I am not one of them. I have views that are not unilateral with any particular party, but feel that many Americans cast votes this week to send a message to the President and although the message was received, I believe it will further complicate and compound some problems and issues not solve them.

I am not interested in getting into a pissing match with any of you here, this has started to turn very negative and personal - I am not blameless either, but I felt that someone had to offer a different point of view other than "Everythings gonna be great" now that the Dems have control of the house and Senate.

The above is just my opinion nothing more nothing less. Thank you for allowing me to vent.

Hippikos: You have not hit any nerve in me, ever. You are a plain and simple arrogant fuck who believes that voters in America vote with the thought of YOU in mind. Oh, it's really too, too funny.

Now. Your wish is granted and you are on my ignore list.

The above is just my opinion nothing more nothing less. Thank you for allowing me to vent.

No wucking forries, mate.

You might look into some US Congressional Investigations in which Iraq's role has been examined. Most if not all WH accusations you also mentioned have been refuted.

Re "Everythings gonna be great", won't say it'll be all nice and dandy from now on, but it's impossible to do worse after the last 6 years.

Now. Your wish is granted and you are on my ignore list.

Nice, that saves me a lot of time.

Can easily write this as you're not reading this. Or do you?

yesman065 wrote:

I felt that someone had to offer a different point of view other than "Everythings gonna be great" now that the Dems have control of the house and Senate.

I don't think anyone on the Cellar has said this. In fact there are many people who have specifically said this isn't the case.

I suspect Hipp won't be here too often, though.

After all, he DOES have a life outside the Cellar. :rolleyes:

I can appreciate how embarrassing it is for him to hold such a ridiculous opinion; that we vote with him in mind. He just can't address it. Too painful.

Glatt - its not that it was specifically said, its just the attitudethat seems to dominate. I knew going into this that my opinion would be very unpopular with the majority, but I still haven't heard anything that would cause me to alter my opinion. It SEEMS to me that the democrats didn't really WIN seats, the Republicans LOST them. And there is a huge difference there. I don't see where the democratic candidates direction or ideas (clears throat) were the reason for them being elected. It was simply a backlash against the Republican party.
Unfortunately, many of the republicans that were not re-elected are paying the price and not the person people were aparrently voting "against." Thats a serious flaw.

yesman065 wrote:

It SEEMS to me that the democrats didn't really WIN seats, the Republicans LOST them. And there is a huge difference there. I don't see where the democratic candidates direction or ideas (clears throat) were the reason for them being elected. It was simply a backlash against the Republican party.
Unfortunately, many of the republicans that were not re-elected are paying the price and not the person people were aparrently voting "against." Thats a serious flaw.

I'd agree with most of your post. But your conclusion doesn't make sense. It's not a flaw at all. The majority of those who voted think the country was headed in the wrong direction. So they voted (some of) the bums out. Bush is now seriously hindered in pushing his agenda. Thats what the majority wanted out of this election, and that's what they are getting.

The Democrats aren't going to be able to do jack now that they have Capitol Hill. Bush will fight them at every turn, and all the moderate republicans lost their seats. It's just fiercely partisan Republicans, fiercely partisan Democrats, and a smattering or moderate Democrats left now. Gridlock.

To use a car analogy, this election was about putting the brakes on. The next election will be about a new direction, if any. Or maybe taking the brakes off again. We'll see.

glatt wrote:

The Democrats aren't going to be able to do jack now that they have Capitol Hill. Bush will fight them at every turn, and all the moderate republicans lost their seats. It's just fiercely partisan Republicans, fiercely partisan Democrats, and a smattering or moderate Democrats left now. Gridlock.

Great and I'm supposed to be happy about that because. . . .? ? ? ? The big complaint after the 1st gulf war was that we pulled out too fast and didn't finish the job, now that we are trying to do that and germinate a democratic form of gov't into a part of the world that has known nothing other than dictatorships and tyranny for - like - ever, we should change directions and "put the brakes on." ?!?!? Thats where I differ I guess. The last thing we should be doing in this situation where we have deployed all these troops is to give them, the enemy and the rest of the world the impression that we are NOT going to finish what we started AGAIN. This election was a huge defeat for America not a political party per say, but the country as a whole. I couldn't give a rats ass about either party - its this amazing and wonderful country that I care about and this last election has made us look like a bunch of idiots with NO direction at all. Who would trust a gov't or a people that starts something and repeatedly changes after getting involed and finding that the work to be done is hard or messy or whatever. This is NOT an easy situation - it sucks, but it has to be done and we have to follow through with our, collective, word. Doesn't ANYONE else see that? Ugghh (not directed at anyone, just the situation as a whole)

Yup. The situation sucks. And the American public is fickle. They supported the Iraq war when it began, and now they don't.

But how long do you give it to win a war like this? And shouldn't you expect to see some progress? At some point, shouldn't you look at the lack of progress, and the fact that we don't control one square inch of Iraq outside of the airport base by Baghdad, and draw the conclusion that we aren't winning? At that point shouldn't you contemplate cutting our losses? The overwhelming majority of Iraqis now think that Iraq was better under Saddam than under the US. They all hate us, not just the insurgents. It's that bad there. We already lost the damn war. You can keep hanging on to save face and claim we haven't lost yet, but the reality is very grim. Is it worth 50 soldiers a month so we can claim we haven't lost yet?

The only way I see to get victory out of this war is to triple the number of troops. We should have done that in the first place. I don't see it happening . Neither party would support that.

And now we have an al-Qaeda honcho audibly though not visibly pleased that there are Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, in the expectation that these will be wimpier. Kiss of death -- to be compared with getting an endorsement from the Klan.

glatt wrote:

Yup. The situation sucks. And the American public is fickle. They supported the Iraq war when it began, and now they don't.

Is it worth 50 soldiers a month so we can claim we haven't lost yet?

The only way I see to get victory out of this war is to triple the number of troops. We should have done that in the first place.

#1 A fickle populous is why we have elected leaders. To decide upon, direct, and maintain a course of action.

#2 50,000 people die each year from traffic accidents alone. 50 a month is not very many (Although I think the actual number is more like 75 anyway)

#3 I couldn't possibly agree with you more.

Brianna wrote:

I suspect Hipp won't be here too often, though.

After all, he DOES have a life outside the Cellar. :rolleyes:

I can appreciate how embarrassing it is for him to hold such a ridiculous opinion; that we vote with him in mind. He just can't address it. Too painful.

I'm starting to worry about you Brianna. You talk to people who don't exist... :right:

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

And now we have an al-Qaeda honcho audibly though not visibly pleased that there are Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, in the expectation that these will be wimpier. Kiss of death -- to be compared with getting an endorsement from the Klan.

Aux contraire, mon ami. al-Qaeda only thrives on the WH's attention. They love the war in Iraq. You really need to pay more attention to the current events.

yesman06 wrote:

[QUOTE=glatt]The only way I see to get victory out of this war is to triple the number of troops.

#3 I couldn't possibly agree with you more.[/QUOTE] You are making an argument long ago discussed in greater detail when the option was still viable. We had only two options: 500,000 troops in for a whole year or get out. (A previous discussion on Charlie Rose involving Holbrook and Kristol put that number at 600,000 - you may want to read that previous discussion.) Those were the only two viable options. We did neither. Military intelligence is all but concluding the first option - 500,000 troops - is no longer viable. Military intelligence six months ago concluded Anbar province is lost and cannot be won. There is so way around that fact. Too late; that 500,000 man option is expiring.

Meanwhile, that option still remains to save Afghanistan. Afghanistan is also falling. As Iraq has demonstrated, by the time most citizens appreciate a need for that option, then that option has expired. We have precious little time left to save a losing war in Afghanistan. And yes, that should be obvious to you more than a year ago. Iraq is all but lost. And defeat in Afghanistan is not far behind - if you truly grasp military principals.

Yesman06 - your conclusions are presented without underlying reasoning. For example, what is the purpose of war? If you have a solution for Iraq, then the answer is easy, simple, and obvious. What is the purpose of war?

you understand that the dems are the same brand of scum and villainy as the reps, just a slightly different flavor?

The Onion gets it.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54918

Hippikos wrote:

snip~
No I didn't vote for Bliar, as I'm not a UK citizin. And you're free to bash Bliar any time, as far as me concerns and thanks to UT and Bruce.

Me? This is UT's doing, Wolf is the maid and I'm the gardener/pool boy.:o

yesman065 wrote:

snip~I am not interested in getting into a pissing match with any of you here, this has started to turn very negative and personal - I am not blameless either, but I felt that someone had to offer a different point of view other than "Everythings gonna be great" now that the Dems have control of the house and Senate.

The above is just my opinion nothing more nothing less. Thank you for allowing me to vent.

You said it, so don't try to back out you candyass. Just kidding, yesman. You're absolutely 100% right.

Just because a new crew has taken over this runaway train doesn't make everything all nice nice. It's going to take a a lot of time and effort to stop this train and get it safely back to the station. Don't forget Bush is still the conductor....lord of the train.:vader1:

Attention, attention please.
I know tw can be longwinded and repetitive but reread what he said about Afghanistan....please.

Then go to this safe for work link, http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-perfect-evil-2.htm and understand how we can still pull the rabbit out of the hat in Afghanistan.....and why. Time is very, very short, but we can still win. :thumb:

I usually stay away from the political stuff since it annoys me but here you go. As far as invading Iraq - don't you think just maybe after years of weakness it was finally decided to show that part of the world that we would stand up for ourselves and not capitulate like oh say Spain? Of course the execution left a bit to be desired. Why do I draw this conclusion? Look at the following:

1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.

1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.

1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)

2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.


Now we need someone to attack so they know we are not screwing around... who to choose, who to choose....

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

And now we add more fodder (thanks to the UK):

Iraq - its infrastructure of concealment,
deception and intimidation

This report draws upon a number of sources, including intelligence material, and shows organisations whose job it is to keep Saddam and his regime in power, and to prevent the international community from disarming Iraq.how the Iraqi regime is constructed to have, and to keep, WMD, and is now engaged in a campaign of obstruction of the United Nations Weapons Inspectors.

Part One focusses on how Iraq's security organisations operate to conceal Weapons of Mass Destruction from UN Inspectors. It reveals that the inspectors are outnumbered by Iraqi intelligence by a ratio of 200 to 1.

Part Two gives up to date details of Iraq's network of intelligence and security

Part Three goes on to show the effects of the security apparatus on the ordinary people of Iraq.

While the reach of this network outside Iraq may be less apparent since the Gulf War of 1990/1991, inside Iraq, its grip is formidable over all levels of society. Saddam and his inner circle control the State infrastructure of fear.

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page1470.asp


There is lots more information including reports from inspectors about meetings with reps from Bin Laden, attempted purchase of plutonium etc, they are all available with quick google searches but I think this post is long enough.

Didn't my government pinch that report from some graduate student?

there were "numerous sources" but yes that was one of them.

I think us Brits should start insisting that all our governmental and intelligence reports be submitted to an electronic plagiarism testing system, like 'turnitin'.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Me? This is UT's doing, Wolf is the maid and I'm the gardener/pool boy.:o

Well, if you look at it that way, drinks are on me at the next garden/pool party ;)

don't you think just maybe after years of weakness it was finally decided to show that part of the world that we would stand up for ourselves and not capitulate like oh say Spain?

Years of weakness??

You might have a look at this list...

And btw... foreign policy is a little different to a bar brawl.

WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.

I think that's my favourite. Man you guys could teach the British Empire a thing or two about suppressing dissent :P

It's nuanced, foreign policy. So nuanced that you can completely overlook Bruce's point and just put up a big list and declare yourself smarter.

Of course if you read the list you notice what the weak parts were, confirming Bruce's point.

Undertoad wrote:

It's nuanced, foreign policy. So nuanced that you can completely overlook Bruce's point and just put up a big list and declare yourself smarter.

Of course if you read the list you notice what the weak parts were, confirming Bruce's point.

Of course I know that nowhere can I outsmart both you and Bruce, you guys are way to smart for me and weak parts are usually your speciality, so you tell me?

Somehow I have difficulties with "nuances" and US foreign policy in one sentence...

I think that's my favourite. Man you guys could teach the British Empire a thing or two about suppressing dissent :P

DanaC, have a google on "bonus army mcarthur patton" and see what interesting facts will pop up...

John Adams wrote:

I usually stay away from the political stuff since it annoys me but here you go. As far as invading Iraq - don't you think just maybe after years of weakness it was finally decided to show that part of the world that we would stand up for ourselves and not capitulate like oh say Spain?

Strange how you neglect events that resulted in some of those events - such as unjustified attacks by the USS New Jersey on Lebanon or bombing a baby formula factory in Sudan. Or bombing of Al Jezerra offices in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc whenever we don't like what they report. Somehow you think western nations are only sheep. Your post all but says for have no idea of Military Science 101 - also called the 'smoking gun'.

This is how 'big dics' justify their actions. Your post reeks of one sided perspective - them is evil and we are good. That one sided thought process is dangerous and even created an American defeat in Vietnam.

LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

Things like this give pause to the point of the list. These aren't the only ones, just examples. :confused:

tw wrote:

Strange how you neglect events that resulted in some of those events - such as unjustified attacks by the USS New Jersey on Lebanon or bombing a baby formula factory in Sudan. Or bombing of Al Jezerra offices in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc whenever we don't like what they report. Somehow you think western nations are only sheep. Your post all but says for have no idea of Military Science 101 - also called the 'smoking gun'.

This is how 'big dics' justify their actions. Your post reeks of one sided perspective - them is evil and we are good. That one sided thought process is dangerous and even created an American defeat in Vietnam.

First let me thank you for the acknowledgment of my manhood, I am very proud of it.:cool:

Now as to my opinion - well of course it's one sided otherwise it wouldn't be my opinion.;)

Now let's look at your examples - first the USS New Jersey on Lebanon:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/XX/MidEast/Lebanon-1982-1984/USMC-Lebanon82/USMC-Lebanon82-A.html
nice timeline of events. I guess if you pick and choose what you want to look at you can make anyone look guilty of the first blow.

The Sudan thing - excerpt from an article:
"The US fired cruise missiles on the factory on 20 August of last year, in retaliation for the bombing of the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.

US President Bill Clinton ordered the attack because Washington suspected the factory of being linked to Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, the man accused of masterminding the embassy bombings. " Source - BBC

Like I said, we can go back and forth all day. And as far as Military science, you hit it on the head, I am just a low class american that doesn't understand the first thing about it.

John Adams wrote:

Now as to my opinion - well of course it's one sided otherwise it wouldn't be my opinion.;)

Now let's look at your examples - first the
USS New Jersey on Lebanon: ...

The Sudan thing - excerpt from an article: ...

US President Bill Clinton ordered the attack because Washington suspected ...

Your manhood nor anyone elses was discussed. 'Big dic' thinking is a concept often demonstrated in history and too often results in useless wars. For example, your one sided post predicated on 'we are always good' and 'they are always evil' implies classic 'big dic' thinking.

US attacked a completely innocent Sudan because 'big dic' thinking assumed them to be evil and therefore was seeking any justification to attack Sudan. Who was 'evil'? Who started it - which actually had nothing to do with American embassy bombings?

The excerpt from Lebanon 1982-1984 (one of the better timelines) demonstrates attacks both on and by unknowns because Americans were confronting an ill defined enemy in a clearly misguided operation. (BTW, note references to Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps - and who intentionally created that 5000 women and children massacre.)

There was no 'pick and choose' argument. Because one party is attacked, then attacking another party is an appropriate response? Some see a world only in terms of 'good verses evil'. And then there are others who first learn many perspectives. That 1982-1984 Marine timeline is repeatedly vague on who did what to whom. Not mentioned is the Maronite shell that killed Marines in their Airport base. Actions by USS New Jersey were classic of an American military force flaying at an unknown enemy without a strategic objective. When Syrians shot at what appeared to be an Israeli warplane, then Americans attacked Syrians who in turn shot down two American aircraft. So who really was the evil party here? Syrians?

Using Military Science 101, it is obvious that American operations during that period were badly planned and misguided. As a result, the USS New Jersey was only making more people hate America. Military Science 101 makes it obvious that American deployment in 1982-1984 Lebanon was foolish and wrongheaded. It is left to you to explain why or to deny it.

Opinions that are one-side are extremist. Same extremism is also characteristic of 'big dic' thinking. Those who are informed see a plethora of opinions by grasping for the various perspectives. This is where you demonstrate to others where you come from and who you are. Currently you have a list of one sided examples characterizing 'we' as only good and 'they' as always evil. That would be very extermist and classic 'big dic' thinking. That is the dangerous thinking that creates wars and destroys wealthy nations.

TW,
Thanks for that reply. As I stated in my reply to you we can go back forth for a long time as to who or what was done first (crusades anyone? Muslims were attacked with no provocation). You continue to point out that I am of the opinion that the US is all good and the rest are all evil, my question to you is why do you insist that it is the US that is all evil and everyone else is all good? As you can see the US went to Lebanon as part of a UN peacekeeping force, we did not wantonly deploy to that part of the world. Do I agree with everything that was done or the changes in policy after troops were deployed? No. But I also don't believe we are the big evil you make us out to be. The bombing of the factory in Sudan was based on intelligence from other countries including Israel. I do think we involve ourselves in other countries affairs too often but how often have we been asked to intercede?

I will say you seem like someone that would be fun to sit down to dinner with and converse.

John Adams wrote:

...You continue to point out that I am of the opinion that the US is all good and the rest are all evil, my question to you is why do you insist that it is the US that is all evil and everyone else is all good?

I think reasonable people understand that the reality is neither, but they speak out as a rebuttal to their perception of the status quo.

John Adams wrote:

my question to you is why do you insist that it is the US that is all evil and everyone else is all good?

I don't. But an America lead by those who even think there is 'good' and 'evil' simply get us in anti-American wars such as Vietnam and Iraq. There are perspectives. It goes right to the purpose of war and a world full of perspectives. A great America saw a world of perspective and was tolerant. An America that views in terms of 'good' and 'evil' will even insist we can impose democracy on all others - whether they want it or not.

Bombing of the Sudan factory is classic of one who assumes evil - and then reacts based upon zero resonsible evidence. Military action demands a smoking gun. The concept is even demonstrated by Sze Tzu in 500 BC. No smoking gun existed in Sudan.

Welcome to Vietnam and welcome to the mythical reason for 'Pearl Harboring' Iraq.

One final point that others have read previously (as a newcomer, you would not). We are all still here because Kennedy forcefully challenged the 'big dics' who viewed the world in 'good' and 'evil' terms. As a result, the world was not destroyed during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yes we came that close to total nuclear war over something that was only a 'world of perspectives' - made so dangerous because both sides had too many 'big dic' advocates in positions of power.

Appreciate why so many in the past four months have finally learned what should have been obvious four years ago. Appreciate why the Iraq war was clearly deja vue Vietnam.

tw wrote:

Appreciate why so many in the past four months have finally learned what should have been obvious four years ago. Appreciate why the Iraq war was clearly deja vue Vietnam.

Iraq is clearly deja vue Vietnam? In Vietnam the NVA and VietCong were tough enough to actually fight us, to commit to seizing and holding stategic positions. The only way Vietnam can be comparable to Iraq is if America cuts and runs from a fight because the mass of Americans are too weak and ignorant to fight a war. Personally I am against the Iraq war on the basis that Arabs can not have a democracy, nor do they deserve freedom paid for in Christian blood. That does not mean that I did not go down to the Recruiting Center yesterday and discuss my enlistment options in the Reserve. Because I was not born in America I take pride in being an American, perhaps patriotism should be something you should look into.

Geee...looks like UG has a new friend. :)

Who's UG?

Another cellar dwellar. You'll find heaps of posts from him in the politics thread. Very right wing kinda bloke.

I *think* he lives in LA too. What is it with righties on the left coast?

They're confused? lol

I am not a Republican, and in many issues not even conservative. I'm a Theocrat, I believe in things like Christian Socialism from what can be called the left and the abolishment of a National State from the right.

I couldn't explain to you why I live in California either. I hate this state, too hot for a thick skinned German like myself, and even though I was born in a Communist country I disagree almost on very topic with the native Californians

vonPrutz wrote:

perhaps patriotism should be something you should look into.

In another thread you show guilt for your family's role in helping Hitler come to power. In this thread you promote patriotism. Don't you know that Hitler relied heavily on patriotism as a tool to gain power? Didn't you learn the lesson of Hitler?

So you believe the church should have more power over how a society lives?

glatt wrote:

In another thread you show guilt for your family's role in helping Hitler come to power. In this thread you promote patriotism. Don't you know that Hitler relied heavily on patriotism as a tool to gain power? Didn't you learn the lesson of Hitler?

Hitler relied on the Prussians to get him into power, as every German leader before him had. Without our support no one rose to power above a state level in Germany. There is also a difference between blind patriotism and patriotism

I live next to King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Aliantha wrote:

So you believe the church should have more power over how a society lives?

I believe that the Church should take over Welfare duties and maintain a Nation's Armed Forces, as well as legal dealings and a high court. The Sectual State exists to educate, build public works, and maintain order.

vonPrutz wrote:

There is also a difference between blind patriotism and patriotism

Sure, but the line between the two can be blurry.

Undertoad wrote:

I live next to King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

I learned from wolf that it's named after an inn.

glatt wrote:

Sure, but the line between the two can be blurry.

Also in America it is impossible for a President to become a Dictator

You know, a lot of the towns around here are named for malls, rather than vice versa! I don't believe there was a Voorhees, NJ before there was a Voorhees Mall.

Actually I think thats the name of a Dutch or South Africa town. The name sounds familiar

That's amazing. I got married in Paramus, but we didn't hold the reception in the food court.

You were married in a Mall? My fiance and I planned on getting married in Prutz

We were married in a town that is famous (locally) for its mall. In a church near the mall.

I had 4 cousins who attended Voorhees High School back in the 70s-80s.

Oh now I understand, I thought it sounded a bit strange

In Plymouth Meeting they have a church in the mall. And they call it Church On the Mall.

In Arlington, VA, where I live, they have a church above a gas station. I think HappyMonkey has posted pics before.

I think that church moved, glatt. ;)

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

I think that church moved, glatt. ;)

Well, it's certainly possible. I haven't been over in that corner of town in several years. It's out of the way, and there's nothing there for me. But last time I was there, so was the church.

I read this pasted summer, that the church was moving because they were offered a pile of money by someone that wanted to build on the site. Did that fall through?:question:

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

I read this pasted summer, that the church was moving because they were offered a pile of money by someone that wanted to build on the site. Did that fall through?:question:

Beats me. I didn't know anything about it. It would be a shame.

It's still there at the moment. I pass it on my commute every day.

Happy Monkey wrote:

It's still there at the moment. I pass it on my commute every day.

You live in DC and work in Arlington? That's backwards. :)

I believe that the Church should take over Welfare duties and maintain a Nation's Armed Forces, as well as legal dealings and a high court. The Sectual State exists to educate, build public works, and maintain order.

In what way is the Church having control of Welfare duties, Armed forces, legal dealings and high court, different from an Islamic state where their religious body governs legal and military aspects of life?

Personally I am against the Iraq war on the basis that Arabs can not have a democracy, nor do they deserve freedom paid for in Christian blood. That does not mean that I did not go down to the Recruiting Center yesterday and discuss my enlistment options in the Reserve. Because I was not born in America I take pride in being an American, perhaps patriotism should be something you should look into.

You take pride in being an American, yet you would change the most fundamental tenet of American existence (government by the people, for the people) and you denigrate Arabs as not 'deserving' freedom and somehow being incapable of democracy, yet you suggest you would like to see democracy replaced with theocracy.

You are one confused fellow. Ignore that comment about your being like UG. UG is consistent and coherent in his arguments.......blatantly wrong most of the time, but at least he makes sense.

glatt wrote:

You live in DC and work in Arlington? That's backwards. :)

Falls Church, actually. The reverse commute is nice.

vonPrutz wrote:

That does not mean that I did not go down to the Recruiting Center yesterday and discuss my enlistment options in the Reserve. Because I was not born in America I take pride in being an American, perhaps patriotism should be something you should look into.

Well, send us your report as soon as you are in Eyerack and watch out for them Roadside Bombs.

BTW as for Iraqi insurgency, in war there's nothing such as pride or other Hollywood stuff. The only way to beat the Americans in Iraq is insurgency.

And the homefront being weak, perhaps it has something to do with all these lies and manipulation for a bloody war far outside US/UK homesoil, for what reason now the WMD's were a fairy story? Have you seen too many Rambo movies?

vonPrutz wrote:

Iraq is clearly deja vue Vietnam? In Vietnam the NVA and VietCong were tough enough to actually fight us, to commit to seizing and holding stategic positions.

vonPrutz - learn history. For example, why did Americans massacre villagers in MyLai? Because they were so frustrated by having so many friends killed in ambushes and boobytraps; not able to fight an enemy that repeatedly 'disappeared'. Your Nam is not accurate.

It scares me when one so self assured knows Vietnam and Iraq are not same. The similarities are stunning. But then it explains how this current lying president could get naive Americans to fall for all those Vietnam 'deja vues'.

I guess you are still young. This is when young learn from experience and unnecessary casualties. A critical number being 'how many years beyond the age of 16 are you?'

Iraq is a perfect example of how easy a Vietnam mistake was made - complete with violations of basic military science AND a president who intentionally lies. Appreciate why a concept called ‘big dic’ is frequently found among those who ‘turn to the dark side’. The young are easily enticed by violent solutions.

Another lesson from Vietnam - the president will do anything necessary to not have that defeat on his watch. That part from history is repeating in Washington now. "Mission Accomplished" cannot be won. So who suffers the defeat? Do you see this ongoing Vietnam deja vue? Again, watch what is happening to appreciate more lessons from history. Many ‘big dics’ who preach support for the troops are actually those soldiers worst enemy. This president's actions will be firstmost for his legacy than for the advancement of America. Another deja vue from history.

“Mission Accomplished” war is identical to Vietnam complete with “light at the end of a tunnel” or “stay the course”. Different words; same lies.

In Vietnam, we had two choices – millions of troops deployed (as Westmoreland demanded), or complete withdrawal. We had those same choices in Iraq last year. Instead Nixon knew Nam could not be won, but massacred another 35,000 only so that Nam was not lost on his watch. Nixon ‘stayed the course’.

Nixon was so ignorant as to even go to China in some belief that Vietnam was really a proxy war against China. Today's president probably believes his lies about Iraq as a "war against world wide terrorism". Different details. Same lies.

How do we defeat an enemy when we cannot be honest enough to accurately define that enemy? Deja vue.

Ignorance meant we continued to waste men, material, and money on a war that America could never win. As in Iraq, Nam was created on lies, fought without a strategic objective, and therefore had no exit strategy. Years later, bills for that war would force America into recession and stagflation. This is when you learn lessons of history. We are reliving Vietnam because so many did not see the obvious four years ago.

And then we have the murder of Bobby Kennedy. Any hope of getting America out of a war (that was already lost) died with Bobby Kennedy. Hopefully we need not relive that part of Nam again.

Scary are those 'big dics' who refused to accept defeat in Vietnam and also advocated murder of students in Kent State. Hope we need not relive that lesson from history.

Wow! Your facts are just like statistics.

yesman065 wrote:

Wow! Your facts are just like statistics.

Those facts from history are a prerequisitie necessary to be a patriotic American. You want to see why Iraq is such as mess? Read David Halberstam's "Making of a Quagmire". Published in 1965, it makes the Iraq debacle and a potential American defeat obvious because it defines facts and concepts - not 'big dic' thinking.

BTW, to appreciate how so many here thought differently back then, review those many "The Cellar" discussions in 2002 and 2003 in Politics and Current Events. Appreciate how obvious Iraq was back then and how much so many here have changed in the past year.

But then in 2002 and 2003, support for a mental midget president was based more in emotion - little on what we all should have learned from Nam. I repeatedly cite those post not to tout my horn - but to remind the so many Cellar Dwellers of how their own mindset was their own worst enemy - and therefore why they supported this lying president's war. Learn from your mistakes because history says in 30+ years, another anti-American president will again try to screw the world by wrapping himself in lies, Limbaugh propaganda, and the flag.

:notworthy

'big dic'

aaaaah, remember the good old days when every tw post contained "mental midget" and "7 minutes"? just seemed kinder and gentler somehow.

Hippikos wrote:

BTW as for Iraqi insurgency, in war there's nothing such as pride or other Hollywood stuff. The only way to beat the Americans in Iraq is insurgency.

Not only the Americans..... they are fighting, and killing more of, other insurgency factions, to solidify their positions....uncivil war. ;)

lookout123 wrote:

aaaaah, remember the good old days when every tw post contained "mental midget" and "7 minutes"? just seemed kinder and gentler somehow.

Any chance it is a hard-on for Pelosi .... scratch that thought.

Can anyone name an Arab democracy? I'm not sure if they can uphold our values of freedom myself, just watch the bloodbath when we pull out. The only reason that part of the world has any power at all is because they lucked out in sitting on the worlds largest supply of oil, how long do you think their 'modern' societies would last if the oil ran out? The Arab world is still stuck in the feudal era, you can't reason with a primitive society on modern terms, they just go back to their stupid clan wars. For that matter, can anyone name what exactly they produce? They buy a hell of alot, but nothing of value that isn't burnable ever seems to come out of that section of planet.

Aliantha wrote:

They're confused? :lol:

We just lend balance to a society that otherwise threatens to fall over leftwards into hideous ruin and combustion, down... :cool:

Some Arabic countries grow some really fine coffee.

Engineer does raise a point: I've heard elsewhere that absent petroleum production, the rest of the total GNP of all the nations of Araby summed together compares with the GNP... of Holland. Patents applied for? -- few.

Seems like they could at least be into banking, but when you look hard into that you find some Arabs tied in knots of business inefficiency over the issue of interest.

The only reason that part of the world has any power at all is because they lucked out in sitting on the worlds largest supply of oil, how long do you think their 'modern' societies would last if the oil ran out?

Probably about as long as our 'modern society' would last if our economy and industry vanished. Civilisation is as thin a veneer here as it is there, the beast just feels further away.

I'm not sure if they can uphold our values of freedom myself, just watch the bloodbath when we pull out.

I wonder if that bloodbath will kill more, or less, than the half a million+ deaths that we've caused? Also, the clue is in your definition of freedom as 'ours'. Why would they wish to uphold 'our' values?

The Arab world is still stuck in the feudal era, you can't reason with a primitive society on modern terms, they just go back to their stupid clan wars.

As opposed to our eminently sensible, and highly technological wars.

I'm thinking there may be something fundamentally debasing about an extraction economy. Folks don't learn to create when the easy money is in destruction.

In that case why are we in the West determinedly sending our manufacturing base to other countries?

Because Britons never never never shall be wage slaves.

Undertoad wrote:

Some Arabic countries grow some really fine coffee.

Is that what they mean when they say "arobatic coffee blend"?

*acrobatic

Flint wrote:

*acrobatic

(aromatic)

Never mind....

DanaC wrote:

In what way is the Church having control of Welfare duties, Armed forces, legal dealings and high court, different from an Islamic state where their religious body governs legal and military aspects of life?



You take pride in being an American, yet you would change the most fundamental tenet of American existence (government by the people, for the people) and you denigrate Arabs as not 'deserving' freedom and somehow being incapable of democracy, yet you suggest you would like to see democracy replaced with theocracy.

You are one confused fellow. Ignore that comment about your being like UG. UG is consistent and coherent in his arguments.......blatantly wrong most of the time, but at least he makes sense.

I'm a Theocrat, I support a Theocratic state based on Judaic Christian law. Democracy is weak and when the mass of Americans are uneducated it simply does not work. Arabs can not function in a democracy because they have been ruled by kings for the pass thousand years, they do not understand the workings of democracy and it is not their culture. Also Saddam was very helpful in doubling the value of my French investments. I'm a proud American and would like to see America survive to see another day, with the weak people who inhabit this nation we can not allow a government by the people.

Hippikos wrote:

Well, send us your report as soon as you are in Eyerack and watch out for them Roadside Bombs.

BTW as for Iraqi insurgency, in war there's nothing such as pride or other Hollywood stuff. The only way to beat the Americans in Iraq is insurgency.

And the homefront being weak, perhaps it has something to do with all these lies and manipulation for a bloody war far outside US/UK homesoil, for what reason now the WMD's were a fairy story? Have you seen too many Rambo movies?

I know theres none of the Hollywood bullshit in the movies, I'm a Prussian, we know how to fight wars. You destroy every village, burn every farm, slaughter every animal, tear down everything they built, and only once the world has forgotten them and they are completely destroyed them in every way can you claim victory. Perhaps if we were united as the Arabs we wouldn't have the problem of needing a reason to secure our future.

tw wrote:

vonPrutz - learn history. For example, why did Americans massacre villagers in MyLai? Because they were so frustrated by having so many friends killed in ambushes and boobytraps; not able to fight an enemy that repeatedly 'disappeared'. Your Nam is not accurate.

It scares me when one so self assured knows Vietnam and Iraq are not same. The similarities are stunning. But then it explains how this current lying president could get naive Americans to fall for all those Vietnam 'deja vues'.

I guess you are still young. This is when young learn from experience and unnecessary casualties. A critical number being 'how many years beyond the age of 16 are you?'

Iraq is a perfect example of how easy a Vietnam mistake was made - complete with violations of basic military science AND a president who intentionally lies. Appreciate why a concept called ‘big dic’ is frequently found among those who ‘turn to the dark side’. The young are easily enticed by violent solutions.

Another lesson from Vietnam - the president will do anything necessary to not have that defeat on his watch. That part from history is repeating in Washington now. "Mission Accomplished" cannot be won. So who suffers the defeat? Do you see this ongoing Vietnam deja vue? Again, watch what is happening to appreciate more lessons from history. Many ‘big dics’ who preach support for the troops are actually those soldiers worst enemy. This president's actions will be firstmost for his legacy than for the advancement of America. Another deja vue from history.

“Mission Accomplished” war is identical to Vietnam complete with “light at the end of a tunnel” or “stay the course”. Different words; same lies.

In Vietnam, we had two choices – millions of troops deployed (as Westmoreland demanded), or complete withdrawal. We had those same choices in Iraq last year. Instead Nixon knew Nam could not be won, but massacred another 35,000 only so that Nam was not lost on his watch. Nixon ‘stayed the course’.

Nixon was so ignorant as to even go to China in some belief that Vietnam was really a proxy war against China. Today's president probably believes his lies about Iraq as a "war against world wide terrorism". Different details. Same lies.

How do we defeat an enemy when we cannot be honest enough to accurately define that enemy? Deja vue.

Ignorance meant we continued to waste men, material, and money on a war that America could never win. As in Iraq, Nam was created on lies, fought without a strategic objective, and therefore had no exit strategy. Years later, bills for that war would force America into recession and stagflation. This is when you learn lessons of history. We are reliving Vietnam because so many did not see the obvious four years ago.

And then we have the murder of Bobby Kennedy. Any hope of getting America out of a war (that was already lost) died with Bobby Kennedy. Hopefully we need not relive that part of Nam again.

Scary are those 'big dics' who refused to accept defeat in Vietnam and also advocated murder of students in Kent State. Hope we need not relive that lesson from history.

You get your facts from a book, I get mine from my Vietnam/Angolan veteran father. He served 3 tours in Vietnam and then an additional 2 in Angola after him and my mother moved to South Africa. We could have easily won the Vietnam war, all we had to do bomb the North's ports, fuck what the Soviets or Chinese say about losing their ships. Brinkmanship is the only reason we won the Cold War, it was Carter's arms reductions, it was Reagan telling the Soviets that America was already ahead and could spend more on military technology and weapons then the entire Soviet income. Anyway my point is that the Vietcong were a much fiercer enemy then the Jihadists, how many combat deaths have been from direct engagement? A few hundred. In Vietnam it was all direct engagement because they actually fought us.

vonPrutz wrote:

We could have easily won the Vietnam war, all we had to do bomb the North's ports, fuck what the Soviets or Chinese say about losing their ships.

Preaching a classic 'big dic' agenda of Gen Westmoreland is far from complimentary. Reality: every intelligence service - including those in the DoD - said no useful targets existed in Vietnam. But since a classic 'big dic' mentality took hold, then we bombed like no man had ever seen. World record bomb tonnage was dropped. 10% of this nation’s nuclear bomber force was lost. What did that accomplish? Exactly what every intelligence analysis said would happen. Nothing useful. Your myths about bombing restrictions ignores the fact that every possible military target was bombed.

Meanwhile, your knowledge is not inherited by genes from your father. Only combat that provides knowledge is combat you did yourself. Apparently you have zero combat experience. Again, you demonstrated the 'big dic' mentality where genetics somehow makes one an expert. Reasoning based on such logic is not just defective - it is scary. Too many of my peers were killed by such scary thinking.

In Vietnam, most direct and major engagements ending with Tet. In direct contradiction to your post, Vietnam’s patriots changed tactics to great effect (ie MyLai). They were winning because, in part, they stopped using direct engagements AND because they owned the battlefield after every battle. If your knowledge from genetic inheritance is significant, then you grasp the significance of that last sentence explicitly AND your reply starts with that sentence. Why is that sentence so significant?

Probably about as long as our 'modern society' would last if our economy and industry vanished. Civilisation is as thin a veneer here as it is there, the beast just feels further away.

I see, so you are proposing that our economy and industry were already sitting here fully prepped when we settled the country? Building a strong economy and industry has nothing to do with finding huge oil deposits sitting under your feet.

I wonder if that bloodbath will kill more, or less, than the half a million+ deaths that we've caused? Also, the clue is in your definition of freedom as 'ours'. Why would they wish to uphold 'our' values?

Very likely more, watch for the media embargo once the head severing starts though. Wouldn't want the American public to feel guilty:greenface

I'm a Theocrat, I support a Theocratic state based on Judaic Christian law.

i'm one of those people that generally gets made fun of because i'm a bible believing christian. you know, salvation, mercy, grace, and the whole nine yards... that being said - ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID????

i wouldn't support a theocracy even if my own pastor was the leader. good man that he is, a theocracy is just plain wrong. UNLESS each and every single citizen of their own free will believes in the exact same theology then you are going to oppressing someone and that is perfectly counter to the idea of faith through free will that the christian faith is predicated upon.

I'm a proud American and would like to see America survive to see another day, with the weak people who inhabit this nation we can not allow a government by the people.

You are a proud American, yet you denigrate Americans as weak and uneducated.

Very likely more, watch for the media embargo once the head severing starts though. Wouldn't want the American public to feel guilty

Even if they go on a massive decapitation rampage, I seriously doubt they'll kill as many as we have with bombs.

You are a proud American, yet you denigrate Americans as weak and uneducated.

The vast majority are, this is not a good time to be an American.

DanaC wrote:

Even if they go on a massive decapitation rampage, I seriously doubt they'll kill as many as we have with bombs.

Ah, but do not doubt that Saddam had killed far more than we before we got there.

Does anyone know how many people are killed in car accidents or from smoking each year in this country alone? Perhaps tw could provide us with that fact. I'm willing to bet it is around 50,000 per year. How bout smoking - 440,000 deaths per year - JUST IN AMERICA! That is exponentially more deaths than all lives lost due to the war in Iraq.
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
If we put the number of deaths from the situation in Iraq into perspective, I believe we may have a different outlook. The media seems to barrage us with "Another death in Iraq" every day and makes it seem much worse than it really is - relatively speaking.
Sorry I put actual facts and figures in here, but I am growing very tired of those spouting misinformation as fact. Not anyone specifically here, especially not DanaC, just in general - the media mostly.

If we put the number of deaths from the situation in Iraq into perspective, I believe we may have a different outlook. The media seems to barrage us with "Another death in Iraq" every day and makes it seem much worse than it really is - relatively speaking.
Sorry I put actual facts and figures in here, but I am growing very tired of those spouting misinformation as fact. Not anyone specifically here, especially not DanaC, just in general - the media mostly.

I dispute your sources for the Iraqi death toll:


From the BBC News site.

Nevertheless, Iraq Body Count's methods and its ability to compile accurate statistics have been questioned by critics, with some arguing that it has greatly underestimated the number of casualties.

One study, published by the Lancet medical journal in October 2006, suggested that about 655,000 people had died in Iraq as a result of the 2003 invasion.

yesman065 wrote:

Ah, but do not doubt that Saddam had killed far more than we before we got there.

In no way does that make an invasion & occupation of a nation that was no threat right. Ever.:eek:

yesman065 wrote:

Ah, but do not doubt that Saddam had killed far more than we before we got there.

Does anyone know how many people are killed in car accidents or from smoking each year in this country alone?

Yesman065 - you claim knowledge using political beliefs. So yes, you would not have numbers. No wonder you post speculations as fact - just like your beloved Limbaugh.

Amazing is the Vietnam deja vue from right wing extremists. Since more people are killed in cars, then we should have no qualms about wasting American soldiers in a war that cannot be won? Why do right wing extremists so hate the American soldier as to advocate that political lie again? I tire of righteous anti-American extremists only doing what previous liars did to my generation in Vietnam. Shame on you Yesman065 for being so hateful of all Americans - especially American soldiers - as to speculate without bothering to first learn facts and numbers. Shame on you for lying that Saddam killed more. Shame on you for doing what others with your anti-American attitude did to justify four dead in Ohio.

Meanwhile Saddam killed about 55 per every day for 10 years. Iraqi civilian deaths only from torture and other violent deaths (dead bodies found abandon in the streets) is now somewhere between 80 and 120 Iraqis per day.

Yesman065 calls this moral? Then he also ignores thousands more dead from sewage in the streets, contaminated drinking water, no electricity, medicine shortages, and even repeated use of the same syringes. Clearly America did not create all this. Only Iraqis can be blamed for this. After all, we have wisdom from Yesman065 - who cannot be bothered to even learn numbers.

That is 80 to 120 deaths from violence and hundreds more per day from various unsanitary living conditions, unknown deaths in rural battles and air attacks, and .... well America has created far more deaths than Saddam did. Once we eliminate Yesman065 radical extremism and instead consult responsible sources (who use science), then Iraqi death rates created by "Mission Accomplished" is something around half a million. Eliminate the myths and lies from Yesman065's beloved Limbaugh and America is the bigger Satan.

Above numbers do not mention millions of Iraqi who have now left Iraq out of fear and who are living in poverty as refugees in other nations. Yes, that number is single digit millions from a country that Rumsfeld (and others here) for years have insisted is safer. Clearly they are in poverty only because it is all their fault.

Makes one wonder if it was god who chose George Jr to be president ... or the devil. We know Yesman065 approves. Shame on Yesman065 for so hating American troops as to speculate, claim that as knowledge, and not even know the numbers. Identified is a greater threat to America – just like those anti-Americans in 1970 who also so hated American troops as to ‘stay the course’; insisting that troops are expendable because more are killed on highways. Yesman065 – only the enemy of every American soldier would post as you just have. You even have the nerve to justify American deaths by citing the highway death rate - as those anti-Americans also did during Vietnam. But again we have a Vietnam deja vue. Yesman065 doing what so many did 30+ years ago to hate the American soldier.

Meanwhile, using Yesman065 logic - since more were dying on American highways that in Iraq, then Saddam really was not a bad guy. Amazing how Yesman065 can speculate because his political agenda somehow sanctifies him.

In no way does that make an invasion & occupation of a nation that was no threat right. Ever.

The same reason why we have no business in Darfur. (There's been alot of activism surrounding that here on campus recently)

We need to get the fuck out of everywhere.
Hell, it would solve a lot of our issues as an added-extra-plus too... our being on holy land is a lot of our problem with the stupid part of the Muslim population.

rkzenrage and 9th Engineer you both make valid points, yet I was not trying to justify the reasoning behind going to Iraq. It was an attempt to show that the number of casualties is not as great as the media makes it out to be.

tw - I am nothing like Rush Limbaugh and I am not a republican. So as usual, your statements are way off. Again, It is you making assumptions here, not I.

I love this country more than my own life and if you truly knew anything about me that would be blatently honest. You however appear to want to complain, pass judgement and criticize. YOU are an embarrassment to this country, your attitude is almost as bad as your hate & ignorance.

It was an attempt to show that the number of casualties is not as great as the media makes it out to be.

Nope, the numbers of Iraqi casualties are most likely greater than the media shows.

I love this country more than my own life and if you truly knew anything about me that would be blatently honest. You however appear to want to complain, pass judgement and criticize. YOU are an embarrassment to this country, your attitude is almost as bad as your hate & ignorance.

Blind love does not a patriot make. Every country needs critical and loving citizens, not those who will stand by silently whilst terrible and costly mistakes are made.

The number of casualties are FAR worse than the media shows.
They, the media or the military, do not count those wounded in-country who die later from their injuries in Germany, in transport or the US as a casualty of war (which is STUPID, there is no other word).

DanaC wrote:

Nope, the numbers of Iraqi casualties are most likely greater than the media shows.

Highly, Highly doubt that, but none of us know with any certainty. I am somehow being construed as a far left republican here and nothing could be further than the truth. I am simply stating that the media's glorification of the number of casualties and is skewed to the left. Thats all. I do not feel that the situation is anywhere near as good as one side says nor as bad as the other makes it seem. I am the only one here not jumping on the "Bush bashing bandwagon" and I've taken a lot of shit for it - thats fine, but lets ALL open our eyes and try to find the truth, which as usual, lies somewhere in between the two extremes.

DanaC wrote:

Blind love does not a patriot make. Every country needs critical and loving citizens, not those who will stand by silently whilst terrible and costly mistakes are made.

I am neither blind nor standing by silently - I am very active locally and very critical of the wrongs in our society that I believe need to be corrected. Just because we have differing views on them does not mean that I am not trying to do my part. In fact, I probably do a lot more than most here who simply choose to criticize me instead. I take your statement very personally and you could not be any more wrong about me.

yesman065 wrote:

I am simply stating that the media's glorification of the number of casualties and is skewed to the left.

There are casualties that the media doesn't cover, simply because the media isn't everywhere. And the casualties that the media does cover are confirmed. When they say "43 executed bodies were recovered today in Baghdad", that is the minimum, not the maximum, number of dead.

yesman065 wrote:

tw - I am nothing like Rush Limbaugh and I am not a republican. So as usual, your statements are way off. Again, It is you making assumptions here, not I.

It walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, and proclaim myths just like the duck. It is a duck no matter how many times the duck denies like George Jr.

You have posted classic contempt for the American soldier. Shame on you for being so anti-American as to spout George Jr lies and to justify the death of American soldiers using highway death numbers. Your contempt may be attributed to blindly believing political liars; unable to separate speculation and political spin from reality. Naivety would then explain why you have posted such contempt of American soldiers and why you preach a 'big dic' solution.

We know the death rates in Iraq are that high - somewhere in the neighborhood of one half million. But then Yesman065 who justified soldier deaths using highway statistics now magically knows those numbers cannot be known? Apparently Yesman065 also believes Saddam had a hand in 11 September.

Scary is that Yesman065 is so politically active when he does not first do simple things such as post supporting facts for his decrees. Same contrast was observed between the bourgeois and intellectual verses the brown shirts in 1930s Germany. The brown shirts were also very active - and blindly believed what they were told by their political extremist handlers. Being active does not mean being smart or informed. Being active and totally ignorant is why we have this lie called "Mission Accomplished" and why bin Laden roams free. When does Yesman065 repeatedly demand that we go after bin Laden? This always results in silence from those who listen and believe Limbaugh rhetoric.

Yes, the brown shirts also loved Germany which was sufficient to justify their actions? That is sufficient to justify Yesman065's comments? Yesman065 has posted classic contempt for the American soldier and does not even apologize for his fubar. Now he hide behind "I love this country". If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it also need not apologize?

tw wrote:

It walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, and proclaim myths just like the duck. It is a duck no matter how many times the duck denies like George Jr.

Careful tw - you are starting to speculate, guess and assume. Besides that you are, as usual, wrong.

tw wrote:

You have posted classic contempt for the American soldier. Shame on you for being so anti-American as to spout George Jr lies and to justify the death of American soldiers using highway death numbers. Your contempt may be attributed to blindly believing political liars; unable to separate speculation and political spin from reality. Naivety would then explain why you have posted such contempt of American soldiers and why you preach a 'big dic' solution.

No I have not. I have made no attempt to justify anything. I am not blind. I am done with you - you are an asshole and this simply proves it. I have NEVER had nor "spouted" ANY contempt for anyone serving this country. I cannot imagine even you believe the crap that you type.

tw wrote:

We know the death rates in Iraq are that high - somewhere in the neighborhood of one half million. But then Yesman065 who justified soldier deaths using highway statistics now magically knows those numbers cannot be known? Apparently Yesman065 also believes Saddam had a hand in 11 September.

I never said nor assumed as much - I even provided you with statistics from an independent source. No magic, no rhetoric, just printed statistics. And when they don't suit your needs you disregard them. Oh yeah - Go fuck yourself. America NEEDS a lot less Americans like you.

tw wrote:

Scary is that Yesman065 is so politically active when he does not first do simple things such as post supporting facts for his decrees. Same contrast was observed between the bourgeois and intellectual verses the brown shirts in 1930s Germany. The brown shirts were also very active - and blindly believed what they were told by their political extremist handlers. Being active does not mean being smart or informed. Being active and totally ignorant is why we have this lie called "Mission Accomplished" and why bin Laden roams free. When does Yesman065 repeatedly demand that we go after bin Laden? This always results in silence from those who listen and believe Limbaugh rhetoric.

Not only are you AGAIN completely inaccurate, but you have made rash and unsubstantiated assumptions again. Something which you routinely accuse and admonish others of doing. I NEVER said one word about Bin Laden, not one. Nor Limbaugh whom you despise so much. To know everything he thinks, believes and says, you must be listening to him an awful lot. Otherwise its just more assumptions or speculations, and we KNOW you wouldn't do that - After all you act so High & mighty even though you couldn't possibly act any lower.

tw wrote:

Yes, the brown shirts also loved Germany which was sufficient to justify their actions? That is sufficient to justify Yesman065's comments? Yesman065 has posted classic contempt for the American soldier and does not even apologize for his fubar. Now he hide behind "I love this country". If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it also need not apologize?

WHAT??? Is that even english? You are either seriously deranged or seriously deranged - you choose. I'm done.

yesman065 wrote:

I'm done.

Yesman065 has disparaged American soldiers and still will not apologize for his naive fubar. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck .... So classic of those who know only because Limbaugh told them it is so. So classic of those who blindly support a lying president and who always know without even grasping (or posting) supporting facts, reasons, and the numbers. This is the reason for "Mission Accomplished" and a latest contemptible spin - 'stay the course' also called 'go long'.

Notice the latest Yesman065 reply. Deny and accuse. Deny and accuse. Yesman065 still does not post an apology for justifying American troop deaths using highway statistics. Deny and accuse without facts and numbers. That brown shirt tactic is also a characteristic of Limbaugh logic. Even Limbaugh would backhand apologize for his attacks on Michael J Fox. Yesman065 still will not post an apology to America and the troops ... because is walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

tw wrote:

Yesman065 has disparaged American soldiers and still will not apologize for his naive fubar. (incorrect) If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck .... So classic of those who know only because Limbaugh told them it is so. So classic of those who blindly support a lying president and who always know without even grasping (or posting) supporting facts, reasons, and the numbers. This is the reason for "Mission Accomplished" and a latest contemptible spin - 'stay the course' also called 'go long'.

There you go again - quoting your buddy Rush again and making accusations. I don't, nor have I ever listened to Rush, but if he is the Anti-tw then I think I'll start. Anything is better than your bullshit. You think you know it all and the reality is that you don't know shit. Just what your sources or friends(if you have any) tell you to think. Ya know, your useless banter was almost entertaining at first, but now you are just a tiresome bore.

tw wrote:

Notice the latest Yesman065 reply. Deny and accuse. Deny and accuse. (incorrect) Yesman065 still does not post an apology for justifying American troop deaths using highway statistics. (incorrect) Deny and accuse without facts and numbers. (incorrect) That brown shirt tactic is also a characteristic of Limbaugh logic. Even Limbaugh would backhand apologize for his attacks on Michael J Fox. Yesman065 still will not post an apology to America and the troops ... because is walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

Your grammar needs help too - you should pay more attention to it.

No denial nor apology needed - especially to you. I thought this was a worthwhile thread to exchange ideas, philosophical thoughts and opinions. A place where those with differing points of view could maturely discuss and debate them. It actually was - till you started posting tw. You and your "I am RIGHT-eous and you are wrong" attitude. There are a lot of descriptive phrases for people like you - one of which is "threadkiller" and another of which is pompous ass. Then again, I am sure that you've heard the latter in some form many times already.

yesman065 wrote:

There you go again - quoting your buddy Rush again and making accusations. I don't, nor have I ever listened to Rush, but if he is the Anti-tw then I think I'll start. Anything is better than your bullshit. You think you know it all and the reality is that you don't know shit. Just what your sources or friends(if you have any) tell you to think. Ya know, your useless banter was almost entertaining at first, but now you are just a tiresome bore.

If you look through most of tw's posts, you will find that if nothing else, he is consistent. I mean, look at how many times he recycles the same arguement to fit whatever position he is taking. I think his favorite thing is to try and label people as operatives of Rush Limbaugh, even done it to me (though I work all day, couldn't possibly catch his show if I wanted). But not only does he recycle his arguements, he also likes to throw things around that don't logically flow with the thread to begin with. For the most part, I've learned to take anything tw say's with lots of salt, and I know that trying to challenge him with any sort of fact and he will just start to attack you personally as if you are just the stupidest p.o.s. to ever walk the earth. You can't change his mind, and you can't dispute his 'facts'. It is an excersize in futility. In over 3700 posts, find one tw changed his mind in or submitted that someone else knew more than him in any capacity.

*edit* and yes, I realize that by posting this I have no doubt incurred the wrath of tw. Check back soon to see his rebuttal!

Wrath? Oooowww, can I have some too? :yum:

Yesman, I understood your point. And yes, even with Dana's numbers, the dead in Iraq aren't humongous in the grand scheme of the Universe. Nor do they surpass the million(s) of deaths Saddam caused, directly and indirectly.

That said, my position is we have no business being there, so we shouldn't be causing any deaths at all.
We shouldn't be wasting our resources, including soldiers, international good will and our grandchildren's wealth, in the middle east. :(

Peer review says the second Lancet study is bogus as hell and probably even fraud

This is the first time I've mentioned the second Lancet study.

I thought it was very obviously bullshit, but it's good to see the status of the Emperor's clothes is finally covered in major media.

I pat myself on the back, as they ask the same question I did on day one.

Dr Garfield also queries the high availability of death certificates. Why, he asks, did the team not simply approach whoever was issuing them to estimate mortality, instead of sending interviewers into a war zone?

This was the point that stuck hard in my craw. If civil society has not declined to the point where bodies are not buried and death certificates not signed, that is one thing. But it never did. But the study specifically asked for death certificates as proof. If there are certificates, there is somebody official printing and signing them. Why not just go to that source and ask how many? Did it take ten toner cartridges or only one?

Another critic is Dr Madelyn Hsaio-Rei Hicks, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, who specialises in surveying communities in conflict. In her letter to The Lancet, she pointed out that it was unfeasible for the Iraqi interviewing team to have covered 40 households in a day, as claimed. She wrote: "Assuming continuous interviewing for ten hours despite 55C heat, this allows 15 minutes per interview, including walking between households, obtaining informed consent and death certificates."


Does she think the interviews were done at all? Dr Hicks responds: "I'm sure some interviews have been done but until they can prove it I don’t see how they could have done the study in the way they describe."


Professor Burnham says the doctors worked in pairs and that interviews "took about 20 minutes". The journal Nature, however, alleged last week that one of the Iraqi interviewers contradicts this. Dr Hicks says: : "I have started to suspect that they [the American researchers] don’t actually know what the interviewing team did. The fact that they can't rattle off basic information suggests they either don’t know or they don’t care."

The first Lancet study was released a week before the 2004 elections. It didn't rattle very hard until after the election. The second Lancet study was released a month before the 2006 elections. Did you smell something? One of the article's authors certainly understands the US election cycle:

If you factor in politics, the heat increases. One of The Lancet authors, Dr Les Roberts, campaigned for a Democrat seat in the US House of Representatives and has spoken out against the war.

"a Democrat seat"? I guess the Times is a Murdoch paper (checks- Yup).

Not that that has anything to do with the validity of the study, but it's funny.

I would not expect that the Times' British readership is aware of US partisan code-speak.

So they'll assume that's the way it's supposed to be said.

Happy Monkey;320271 wrote:

So they'll assume that's the way it's supposed to be said.

:redface: :redface: :redface:
I had no idea it was officially the Democratic Party. We have a Liberal Democrat Party and I just assumed it was along the same lines.

But aren't party adherents called Democrats? Meaning that the seat would be a Democrat seat?

Learn something new every day I guess. Like the fact we call the Conservatives "Tories" when they haven't officially been called that for about 200 years.

Happy Monkey;320271 wrote:

So they'll assume that's the way it's supposed to be said.

Brits will get the name wrong! Oh, how *horrible* THAT will be!

It's not horrible when it happens in the US, let alone the UK or anywhere else. It's just annoying and petty, and deliberately so. It was started by McCarthy, as a way to needle Democrats, and has enjoyed a resurgence in the past decade.

Sundae Girl;320272 wrote:

But aren't party adherents called Democrats? Meaning that the seat would be a Democrat seat?

A Democratic congressman from the Democratic Party is a Democrat and holds a Democratic seat. Democrat is the noun; Democratic is the adjective.

Followup: the Johns Hopkins University professor responsible for the Lancet studies on Iraqi deaths has now been censured for refusing to disclose basic facts about his research.

"This violated the standards of science, seriously undermines open public debate on critical issues, and undermines the credibility of all survey and public-opinion research," said Richard A. Kulka, the association’s president.

If one wants a polling study conducted on a much larger scale than the Lancet one, the Iraq Family Health Survey data published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year would be a place to look. It estimated a violent death toll of anywhere from 104,000 to 223,000 between March 2003 and June 2006. Even that range of figures, however, includes a significant amount of guesswork: the authors of the study increased the number of reported deaths in the survey by 36% to compensate for estimated under-reporting by poll respondents. But unlike the Lancet’s shotgun statistics, the data upon which these estimates were made are at least available to someone other than the study’s own authors.

From UT's link - very interesting read.

Damm.... dug from the depths.