OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Jan 14, 3:29*am, Bill C wrote:


And when we pull everyone, for all practical purposes, out like we did
in SE Asia who's gonna put a damper on the sectarian war we allowed to
get started, and enabled?
*That is the plan of Obama and the far left from everything I've seen.
There is NO sign of a plan to help stabilise Iraq. I don't consider
leaving 30,000 troops scattered in desert outposts a useful plan.
*The Liberal view will be the same as for SE Asia, I'm sure. "Millions
died", but hey we got our troops out of their so it's not our fault.

snip



Dumbass -


Millions died in Cambodia, but that wasn't because we left Vietnam.
And it was the COMMUNIST VIETNAMESE who kicked out the Khmer Rouge.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Jan 14, 9:14*am, wrote:

I kind of agree with this. Most proposals for withdrawal *being spewed
on the campaign trail lack a sense of reality or responsibility, imo.
But the US could not sustain its presence in Iraq even if it wanted
to. Unless -- how do you feel about the Draft?



Dumbass -


The draft should be reinstituted and there should be no college
deferments.

If the sons and daughters of Congresspeople/Presidents are getting
sent off to war too, perhaps they'll be more circumspect in engaging
in various conflicts around the globe.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Jan 14, 12:20*pm, wrote:
On Jan 14, 8:50 am, Bill C wrote:





We beat this to death. So I know mostly what you told me.

If so, then you haven't been a very good student.

No we still disagree. I think all the points you made about the
difficulty of doing an accurate study of the Vietnam aftermath, are as
valid in Iraq, and it's a more complicated situation on top of it with
multiple groups having tons of reason to lie to anyone conducting a
survey and very little way to verify their statements. Just because a
village leader with an axe to grind claims 100 people were killed,
gets the village to confirm it mostly, the hospital goes along because
they don't want to be tortured and killed, they point to 100 graves.
That doesn't mean anyone is in them, or doesn't mean there aren't 1000
in them.
*Several of the international news outlets admit that they don't run
stories, or ask questions that might get their people killed. What
about the survey folks, are they braver? More accurate?
*I don't think we've got any clue how many people have been killed,
and by whom. The most accurate statement I think we can make is "Lots,
and by a bunch of different people." .
*Anything else is a guess IMO, and it's unstable, and unverifiable
enough to come up with a study to support any position your paid to,
equally as validly. The Lancet study fits your politics, so you find
ways to justify it, others find the others more valid and find their
justifications. You can't build a temple on top of quicksand.
*Bill C

Well, evidently we do disagree, but the reason is because I actually
know what I'm talking about. Let's summarize:

1. There isn't one "Lancet study." There have been several studies,
two of which were published by The Lancet.
2. Soros didn't fund the Burnham study, although Fox News erroneously
claimed he did.
3. Fox News claimed the new WHO study estimated 151,000 deaths, when
it didn't.
4. Fox News claimed the new WHO study contradicts "the Lancet study"
when it actually affirms the original estimate from the Roberts study,
is consistent with the total overall excess mortality from the Burnham
study, and differs only with the Burnham study in the totals by causes
of death. Betcha you didn't get that info from your news sources.
5. Your little example about village leaders? Wrong, of course. None
of the studies surveyed village leaders to get their estimates, and
two of the studies verified the reported deaths with death
certificates.

But the fact that you are so ill-informed but so willing to say "a pox
on all their houses" is a success for the people who are trying to
obfuscate the issue. Congratulations to them. You've been had.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dude, I can make up death certificates. Politicians never lie? News
outlets, including FOX are accurate? People living under direct threat
of torture and murder always defy those people?
How's the accuracy of the political polling going here in the US?
Seems to me that ALL the news outlets have been asking "How could they
have been so wrong?". Those people lying to the pollsters are doing it
for the hell of it, not to save their lives. If you can't even get
that right, in a nice stable country, how do you do it in the middle
of the mess in Iraq?
Bill C

On Jan 14, 12:52*pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Jan 14, 3:29*am, Bill C wrote:



And when we pull everyone, for all practical purposes, out like we did
in SE Asia who's gonna put a damper on the sectarian war we allowed to
get started, and enabled?
*That is the plan of Obama and the far left from everything I've seen.
There is NO sign of a plan to help stabilise Iraq. I don't consider
leaving 30,000 troops scattered in desert outposts a useful plan.
*The Liberal view will be the same as for SE Asia, I'm sure. "Millions
died", but hey we got our troops out of their so it's not our fault.

snip

Dumbass -

Millions died in Cambodia, but that wasn't because we left Vietnam.
And it was the COMMUNIST VIETNAMESE who kicked out the Khmer Rouge.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

No ****, they shot the rabid dog in the neighborhood when it got too
out of control. Plain and simple, until then those were the folks
supporting their efforts against us in Vietnam.
Authoritarian govts. hate threats and competition.
Bill C

"John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:52:52 -0800, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

Although I'm not sure it really matters if it's 100,000 dead or
650,000.

Yeah. And many times the White House has refused to provide their own
estimates. After the Lancet study came out Bush was asked about it and
he said it was not credible but couldnt' say why he felt that way.

Tell you what John - if we had allowed the south to maintain slavery there
would have been a whole lot less "excess deaths".

So do you believe those "excess deaths" were worth it or not? And if you
believe that they were the price that had to be paid can't your enemies make
that sound like it's purely evil?

wrote in message
...
On Jan 13, 9:45 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
wrote in message

...

1. The Burnham study in question had been commissioned in the Fall of
2005 by MIT, using MIT's own internal funding.

I suggest you don't have any clue what the hell you're talking about.
Soros
needed only say that he would donate money later to start such a study.
But
that sure wouldn't stop you from claiming otherwise.

You can suggest that but not only is there no evidence of this, the
head of the MIT program that commissioned the study already denied
this:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008...comment-707686

I'm sure that he would jump to inform people like you that they had
contrived to obtain funding. And it would be such an exceptionally rare
event. The bottom line is this - MIT pumped out a "study" that supported the
leftist views to the most extreme and Soros paid money into MIT. I'm sure
you find nothing at all funny about that.

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" wrote in message
news:SBKij.2437$YW6.692@trndny07...

Tom, I'm going to restrict my comments not to the substance, but to the
tone of your postings to Robert. This is afterall, RBR.
Besides being offensive to me, I see no way that your discursive style is
likely to convince anyone that you have something to say.
IMO if you have a shred of judgment you'll think a bit before you hit
send.

Steve, I'm sorry that you are insulted by my tone. Personally I'm insulted
by the far left attitude of Chung. For that matter I'm insulted by a lot of
very highly educated people who are willing to screw the common man because
they believe their educations and positions will allow them to avoid the
results of following their suggestions.

"Bill C" wrote in message
...

And when we pull everyone, for all practical purposes, out like we did
in SE Asia who's gonna put a damper on the sectarian war we allowed to
get started, and enabled?

Enabled? Why is it that you don't seem to notice that the implication here
is that all of the Iraqis were MUCH better off under Hussein.

wrote in message
...

In large measure Iraq will descend into sectarian violence with or
without US troops present.

The real ugly thing here is that you have no connection with what is going
on in Iraq because the news refused to report anything but their left wing
anti-Bush presentation.

Psst - you're purposely being fed distorted information by our "free" press.

On Jan 14, 12:14*pm, wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:29 am, Bill C wrote:





On Jan 14, 5:06 am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Jan 13, 3:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html

"A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a
result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by
the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

snip

Dumbass -

The Iraq Study Group's data supported that figure.

The problem with the methodology adopted by the US military was it
only counted Iraqi casualties when they also involved US troops. If US
troops weren't involved, the incident was ignored. Therefore,
sectarian violence was included in US military figures.

The problem with that is: the US invasion enabled the sectarian
violence. Under Saddam, the Mukhbarat (secret police) kept that sort
of thing under control.

The Iraq Study Group found that only 1 in 12 deadly incidents involved
US soldiers. US figures for Iraqi casualties at that time was in the
upper 50 thousands. Multiply that by twelve and you get a similar
figure to the Lancet Study.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

And when we pull everyone, for all practical purposes, out like we did
in SE Asia who's gonna put a damper on the sectarian war we allowed to
get started, and enabled?
*That is the plan of Obama and the far left from everything I've seen.
There is NO sign of a plan to help stabilise Iraq. I don't consider
leaving 30,000 troops scattered in desert outposts a useful plan.
*The Liberal view will be the same as for SE Asia, I'm sure. "Millions
died", but hey we got our troops out of their so it's not our fault.
Then when pressed blame the prior administrations which is accurate,
but is accurate like the kid who threw buckets of gas on the burning
house saying I didn't start the fire.

I kind of agree with this. Most proposals for withdrawal *being spewed
on the campaign trail lack a sense of reality or responsibility, imo.
But the US could not sustain its presence in Iraq even if it wanted
to. Unless -- how do you feel about the Draft?

In large measure Iraq will descend into sectarian violence with or
without US troops present. The current lull is not due to increased US
troop presence as many seem to think, but due to alignment of Sunni
insurgents against Islamist factions like al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and
due to orders from Sadr for his Mahdi Army to stand down. This is all
temporary. There will continue a large civil war unless the Kurds,
Shiites, Sunnis can achieve through some other process what each
thinks they can achieve through violence. They are not going to just
get along with all that oil at stake. And that's to say nothing of the
Islamists, who may prove to be as resilient in Iraq as they have been
in other places.

I see the right-wing talk radio crowd is gearing up to blame the
unfolding disaster on the Democrats, just as they have convinced a
large portion of their drooling followers that we would have won in
Viet-Nam if only the damn liberals didn't get in the way. I would say
to people to believe this, stop being so retarded.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah yes, the "We don't need no stinkin' cops, or peacekeepers,
anywhere, anytime, to create a space for negotiations to occur"
theory. You don't seem to object to it in Bosnia, and Haiti? Why?
Your points are all valid, except the conclusion. Most all of the
sides are sure that with the US out of the way, and the support from
their sponsoring Nations they could, and would win the whole pot based
on violence. What is clear to all of them is that the most intelligent
strategic tactic they can employ is to lay low, re-arm, and re-
organize for the fight after the US leaves.
Worked pretty well for Hezbollah despite the fact that the cease fire
was based on the UN preventing and stopping exactly what they have
allowed to happen. Which is them rearming and digging in even better
than they had before the war.
Gerald Ford stated that his biggest regret was abandoning our ally
when the North Vietnamese tore up the peace treaty and continued the
war on the South. He said that there was NO WAY he could uphold our
end of the treaties due to the fact that the left would've impeached
him, and the riots here would've been incredible.
Proud of that?
I'll take the S. Korean record over what you gave the Vietnamese, or
Cubans for that matter.
Checked Amnesty, HRW, andFreedom House on them?
I loved the anti-Guantanamo protests, in Cuba, just miles from the
Cuban prisons which are full of evil people like human rights
campaigners, democracy activists, and other "enemies of the State"
which never got mentioned despite their being massively more of them
and for decades, in much worse conditions. We wont even talk about all
of the torture of vile doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc...who were all
enemies of the State and slaughtered, primarily by Gueverra and his
closest associates after trials that make the military tribunals look
legit.
Nope none of that matters to the left who keep calling Castro a
"Great Man".
If you think I'm a right wing nutjob, you are either new here, missed
a lot, or can't read for comprehension.
I admit, like Hillary Clinton, that I bought what Bush was selling,
and I even voted for him. I can do what almost noone on the left seems
to be able to do, admit I ****ed up royally and was wrong.
I'm all for bringing charges where they can against everyone in this
administration once they are out of office.
Now that we broke it, based on the lies of this administration, we
have a moral obligation to help provide stability, as well as we can,
for as long as it takes until they can come up with a negotiated
solution. It is sustainable in the long run. The military today is
less than half the size it was for most of the cold war. The
volunteers would be there too if they were treated to better
conditions, less lies, reasonable compensation and medical treatment,
etc...
We also need to create a seperate "peacekeeping corp", and very
likely expand the hell out of the Peace Corp, or something similar to
accomplish the rebuilding/community aid type of stufff that Dion and
the Liberals in Canada want to move towards.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...769654-ap.html
Bill C