|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
"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? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
"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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
"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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who's Surprised? | [email protected] | Racing | 39 | October 22nd 07 05:38 PM |
I'm surprised... | MagillaGorilla | Racing | 3 | September 5th 06 03:50 AM |
Surprised it hasnt been said but... | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | February 19th 06 11:07 PM |
Surprised, not surprised | db. | Recumbent Biking | 0 | January 23rd 06 10:48 PM |
Surprised you people aren't talking about this | Lame Acer | Racing | 1 | August 20th 04 06:53 PM |