"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:52:08 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Perhaps you should take some remedial courses in military history,
geopolitics and concentrate on the History Channel before showing your
ass here.

Maybe while you are calling me stupid YOU could cite some examples of
how
I am so wrong instead of just saying I don't know history. I am
generalizing


Generalizing? No ****.

A similar type of generalization you promoted...

"The Earth is green"

Sure is..except for the ****ing deserts and the 75% of the planet that
is water.

I didn't call you stupid.
I called you ignorant and uneducated.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

Am now I am awaiting for you to educate me. Show what you got. How does it
go? put up or what?

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:17:50 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

A study in the Lancet said the majority of the victims were women and
children.

Dancing in the streets over it, are you?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:17:50 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

The Lancet admitted the research was based on a small sample - under
1,000 Iraqi households - but said the findings were "convincing".
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/10/300266.html

Same survey.

I wonder if that survey was taken in Mosel or Tangrit. Strongholds of
Baathist activity, and targets of both ground and air action. Lots of
house to house fighting in those areas.

My, what a drooler.
Read the cites .... such were explicitly excluded.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:17:50 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

The US Center for Disease Control has been a strong
antigun propaganda organ for years.

They probably noted all the deaths by gunfire and that
it's a leading cause of death.
What's your guess?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:17:50 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

The US Center for Disease Control has been a strong
antigun propaganda organ for years. Until recently when their feet
were held to the fire..and they released an admittion that there was
no gun problem and their figures were bad.

snicker

Been reading too many lying winger blogs again?

They do count the dead, you know.

Or are you making Zombies and not counting them?

BTW, Are gun deaths WAY up recently? Wingers
on the loose again?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:17:50 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:04:09 -0500, Beaner eater
wrote:

Cliff piddled around and finally wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:22:52 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

The families of the 100,000+ dead civilians should be thanking the US for
liberating their country and getting rid of that evil dictator Sadam instead
of wanting an harm to come to their liberators.

Which 100,000 dead civilians might that be? Ok...Ill play. Cites?
No leftwing blogs are allowed btw.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

ONDON, England -- Public health experts have estimated that around
100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the United States invaded Iraq
in March last year.

In a survey published on the Web site of the Lancet medical journal on
Friday, experts from the United States and Iraq also said the risk of
death for Iraqi civilians was 2.5 times greater after the invasion.

There has been no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed
since the conflict began 18 months ago, but some non-government
estimates have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000.

Odd..how they extrapolate 100,000 from 10-30,000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct28.html

Article using the same extrapolated survey as above

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

Same survey.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3964311.stm

Same survey
The UK Government will "examine with very great care" claims 100,000
Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US-led invasion, Jack
Straw has said.

A study in the Lancet said the majority of the victims were women and
children.

The UK foreign secretary told BBC's Today that another independent
estimate of civilian deaths was around 15,000.

The Lancet admitted the research was based on a small sample - under
1,000 Iraqi households - but said the findings were "convincing".
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/10/300266.html

Same survey.

I wonder if that survey was taken in Mosel or Tangrit. Strongholds of
Baathist activity, and targets of both ground and air action. Lots of
house to house fighting in those areas.

It would appear to me, that they did the same thing as taking the
crime rate from downtown East LA on a Saturday night, and extrapolated
that to the entire US.

Seems the Lancet has once again..screwed the pooch. It appears that
when civilian health organizations get involved in such things..they
tend to blow it. The US Center for Disease Control has been a strong
antigun propaganda organ for years. Until recently when their feet
were held to the fire..and they released an admittion that there was
no gun problem and their figures were bad. You will be hearing about
causes of death rates in the next day or two. Seems they have been
claiming that being overweight was the #2 Cause of Death...today they
revised their figures to 58 times LESS..making obesity #7.

The Lancet also has a history of such...interesting claims and then a
correction.

Now when Clitt can provide a more accurate and better set of
numbers..he will continue to be an ignorant twit.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/
The Lancet study's headline figure of "100,000" excess deaths is a
probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most
of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the
entire Iraqi population. Only those actual, war-related deaths could
be included in our count. Because the researchers did not ask
relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the
civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet
website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after
Iraq invasion", [link] the authors clearly state that "many" of the
dead in their sample may have been combatants [P.7]). Iraq Body Count
only includes reports where there are feasible methods of
distinguishing military from civilian deaths (most of the uncertainty
that remains in our own count - the difference between our reported
Minimum and Maximum - arises from this issue). Our count is purely a
civilian count.

One frequently cited misapprehension is that IBC "only can count
deaths where journalists are present."[link] This is incorrect, and
appears to arise from unfamiliarity with the variety of sources which
the media may report and IBC has used. These sources include hospital
and morgue officials giving totals for specific incidents or time
periods, totals which in turn have sometimes been integrated into
overall tolls of deaths and injuries for entire regions of Iraq as
collated by central agencies such as the Iraqi Health Ministry (see
KRT 25th September 2004 [link]); these are all carefully separated
from more "direct" as well as duplicate media reporting before being
added to IBC's database. The Lancet's survey data was itself gathered
without journalists being present, and yet is widely reported in the
press. Were the Lancet study a count and not a projection, it too
could after appropriate analysis become part of the IBC database.
Little-known but impeccably reported death tolls in fact constitute
the larger part of IBC's numbers (as can be seen by sorting IBC's
database by size of entry). We believe that such counts - when freely
conducted and without official interference - have the potential to
far exceed the accuracy and comprehensiveness even of local press
reporting. It is after all the job of morgues and hospitals to
maintain such records, and not the media's, who simply report their
findings.

Hummm the Lancet author admits that many of the casualites may have
been combatants......

That seems a bit disengenious of Cliff AND the Lancet now doesnt it?

Snicker

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

Did gummer make a huge tactical error?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 02:58:52 GMT, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

I guess I incorrectly assumed that this was common knowledge. Our
government run schools have apparently seen to it that most Americans
are utterly clueless in such matters.

No, most of us are well aware of this, and most of us recognize that Iraq was
not complying with the post Desert Storm conditions.

Per the UN?

They were probably too busy buying illicit Iraq oil to notice!

Using those Halliburton pipelines? To Saudi Arabia? To Kuwait?
To US oil firms?

Clue: Looks like those winger lies have been debunked.
The UN's inspectors had reported what was going on to the UN
security council ..... looks like the US did not want to interfere ...

Put simply, aggressive war is immoral, defensive war is not.

In the case of Bush's present war against Iraq, it's plain to see that
it's immoral...it takes no sophisticated moral reasoning, IMO.

You think we should not have thrown Iraq out of Kuwait? This is one war, not two.


Bush & Cheney & Rumsfled should not have approved the invasion
in the first place then.

You mean the return?

Missing more clues?
Sounds like Saddam just took over a but more of Kuwait than he was
supposed to ... or it was a trap to later justify a war ....

Obviously, that would depend very much on the circumstances, no? It may
ultimately boil down to what's in the heart of the person who does the
killing, i.e., it may not be possible for an observer to always
determine whether a certain action taken by a certain person was
morally proper on not.

This is in part why, in my view, the most important qualification of a
politician or statesmen is his moral competency; his experience in
matters of state, is secondary, at best.

Unfortunately, our political system has demonstrated an inability to select
moral, competent leaders. Since Truman, anyway.


So don't be praising any wingers ....

Does your knee hurt when it jerks that hard? Funny how Cliff and jerk go so well
together.

But here I am, replying to a buggy piece of software.

And a bit confused too G.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:39:02 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:51:16 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:04:56 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:45:31 -0400, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
No "WMDs", eh?

So, little Cliffie, if you had a wife and you came home and caught her in bed
with two men, could she try that lie with you? "Well, gee, Cliffie, it was only
2 men. It's practically the same thing as NO men, isn't it?"

Your denial is amusing.

Yours isn't.

No "WMDs", eh?

Depends on how you define "NO", eh, Cliffie? Does "NO = 0 in your book or does
NO = 2? Since 2 were found in Iraq it must equal 2. Hey, that matches the number
of versions of the lie you told in this thread too, doesn't it? Isn't that neat.

They found TWO old sandwiches?

But you had problems with your "wife", did you?

Nope.

Was it an issue of your sanity?

Nah, it was an issue of your running from questions you couldn't handle.

Found any "WMDs"?

Tell us some more lies. Try hard now ...
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:40:06 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:51:15 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:04:57 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:45:31 -0400, Cliff wrote:
(snip)
Your denial is amusing.

BTW, I see you're still hiding from the FACT that you've changed your lie in
this thread.

You are the one that keeps claiming that you know all about those
"WMDs", right? And that the wingers don't live for lies? Or do they?

Is that squirming getting uncomfortable, Cliffie? You can't seem to hold still
long enough to answer that question. What's wrong, little Cliffie? Cat got your
tongue?

Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:41:17 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:51:15 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:04:57 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:45:31 -0400, Cliff wrote:
(snip)
Your denial is amusing.

BTW, I see you're still hiding from the FACT that you've changed your lie in
this thread.

You are the one that keeps claiming that you know all about those
"WMDs", right? And that the wingers don't live for lies? Or do they?

I notice even your buddy Dan seems to have deserted you now that he's seen your
lies are so transparent. :/

He's on the road it seems.
You don't pay any attention to details & facts, right?

Poor little Cliffie. Nobody here to watch your back for you.

Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:25:39 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:27:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


As I told Proto..you might want to check out the history of warfare,
and you can stick to the 20th century if you wish.

I'm not asking about the history of warfare. I'm asking you about THIS war,
the one in which we allegedly were protecting ourselves from an immanent
threat of destruction by means of WMDs, and then, after killing tens of
thousands of people over them, we found that they weren't there.

What do you think? Was it worth it? Are you still proud?


Yes Eddy..it was worth it, and yes, Im still proud.

And NOW it's safe for you to walk down the streets there,
like it was before, right?
And for them too.

And NOW you & your ilk are not despised worldwide, eh?

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

A fool & his "mind" ....
--
Cliff

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:24:40 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"George Willer" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:
I think a lot of people watched the first Gulf
War and had the same reaction. The recent one was a little different,
but
we've become used to more brutal movies in the meantime, as well.

--
Ed Huntress

I see now! His highness, Ed thinks there were two separate wars, rather
than a continuation of the same one. What a jerk!

So what are you saying, George, that we had a 10-year-long half-time show?

Unless I'm mistaken, the first war was about making Iraq pull back from
their attempted conquest of Kuwait. The second one allegedly was about
taking out supposed chemical, biological, and soon-to-be nuclear weapons
that, somehow, were a direct threat to us.

Do I have that right? Or was there some underlying theme going on that
connected the two -- like, maybe, that the Bushes and Saddam just don't
get
along?

Oh, they did get along quite well at one time. I think it is more hurt
feelings over rejection. Hell hath no fury like a Bush scorned.

I think someone lost some money on an oil deal ..... perhaps
a really dumb one ...... wasn't Jr. going bankrupt in the oil
business with his secret deals?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:24:46 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

But they weren't dumb enough to go to war over it.

They were occupied with Clintons Impeachment and damage control

So the lying scum wingers & neocons tricked them with more lies?
And you are proud of it?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:04:29 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

But they weren't dumb enough to go to war over it.

They were occupied with Clintons Impeachment and damage control

Oh, Gunner, you have no idea what they were thinking. A war would have been
just the thing to distract attention, for chrissake.

You're so deep into full-time bull**** and your *own* damage control that
you don't even know what you're saying anymore. Why don't you just get some
sleep and give it a rest? You're trying to hold up about ten threads at once
and the smoke is blowing out of every orifice in your body.

But *I* LIKE watching him work at digging those holes !!!
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:51:42 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

They were mislead by George Bush. Yeah, pass the buck. That'll work. Blame
Bush.

Gee .... Guess who was in charge?
Guess who had an entire department set up to create
& spread lies?

And NOW you want to blame Clinton & suchlike for his
dumb blunders?
Do you REALLY think he's THAT stupid?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:20:31 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:20:24 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


Tonkin Gulf..hum...wasnt that a Democrat at the helm?

This brings images to mind of daddy Bush sitting on AF-1 with his son and
Clinton on the way to the Pope's funeral discussing politics. The million
dollar question is, "Will gummer ever figure out that both political
parties
are bought out by big business?" It makes no difference which party is
in
control, the corporate interests will be served.

And gummer & the wingers will praise the lies .....

More interesting is the denial that they will exhibit to belive the lies.

Many of the more crazed ones are looking on Mars for WMDs ...
others are trying to rewrite history or blame poor little Monica.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 05:22:03 -0400, "Proto" wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:52:08 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Perhaps you should take some remedial courses in military history,
geopolitics and concentrate on the History Channel before showing your
ass here.

Maybe while you are calling me stupid YOU could cite some examples of
how
I am so wrong instead of just saying I don't know history. I am
generalizing


Generalizing? No ****.

A similar type of generalization you promoted...

"The Earth is green"

Sure is..except for the ****ing deserts and the 75% of the planet that
is water.

I didn't call you stupid.
I called you ignorant and uneducated.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

Am now I am awaiting for you to educate me. Show what you got. How does it
go? put up or what?


Educate yourself, then get back to me. Its not my job to teach you all
the things you have missed out on.

Might I suggest finding a good library on military histories?

Sigh...Ok..Ill give you a starting place

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM
http://www.rnrc.org/Html/default.htm (needs high speed for best
viewing)
http://www.geocities.com/nankingatrocities/
http://www.gotrain.com/dan/nanking2.htm
http://militaryhistory.about.com/cs/...enfirestor.htm
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...of_dresden.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm
http://history.designerz.com/by-time...rld-war-ii.php

Come back to me in a few months and we shall discuss the issues.

Gunner


Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:12:09 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Clip-clip, snip-snip, eh, Gunner?

So Ed....is 22,000 the same as 100,000 or not? Your and the Lancets
claim is 100,000 dead.


Lacking reading comprehension it's all over your head.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:20:39 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:09:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"George Willer" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:
I think a lot of people watched the first Gulf
War and had the same reaction. The recent one was a little different,
but
we've become used to more brutal movies in the meantime, as well.

--
Ed Huntress

I see now! His highness, Ed thinks there were two separate wars, rather
than a continuation of the same one. What a jerk!

So what are you saying, George, that we had a 10-year-long half-time show?

Unless I'm mistaken, the first war was about making Iraq pull back from
their attempted conquest of Kuwait. The second one allegedly was about
taking out supposed chemical, biological, and soon-to-be nuclear weapons
that, somehow, were a direct threat to us.

You seemed to have missed out on the 10 yrs of continual violations of
the Cease Fire agreement.

All the ones violated by the US?

and UN 1441 among others.

[
Baghdad accepted the new resolution November 13, and it must submit a
declaration of its prohibited weapons programs by December 8, 2002.
Inspections are scheduled to begin November 27, and the inspectors are
required to update the Security Council on their progress 60 days
later.
]

Then Herr shrubbie evicted the inspectors ....

WHO violated UN 1441, exactly?

And the UN said??
Oops ... their phones were tapped so they were not asked ....

Squirm, gummer, squirm ....
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:17:49 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

But they weren't dumb enough to go to war over it.

They were occupied with Clintons Impeachment and damage control

Oh, Gunner, you have no idea what they were thinking. A war would have been
just the thing to distract attention, for chrissake.

Ayup..only problem Ed..is that the Republicans controlled Congress.

So it was ALL the fault of the Republicans again, was it?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:04:29 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You're so deep into full-time bull**** and your *own* damage control that
you don't even know what you're saying anymore. Why don't you just get some
sleep and give it a rest? You're trying to hold up about ten threads at once
and the smoke is blowing out of every orifice in your body.

http://tinyurl.com/757cy 85 posts a day? Seems like the normal amount
of smoke to me. Nothing to be alarmed about unless it goes over 100,
or turns white. G

Wayne

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:58:26 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

Hmmm, maybe you should reword that, and waffle a bit. Surely there are
some
weasel words you could come up with that could obscure it a bit more so
that it
would look like they didn't REALLY vote "in favor" of anything. Maybe they
only
thought they were thinking of voting in favor of something. Yeah, that
could be
it. They were mislead by George Bush. Yeah, pass the buck. That'll work.
Blame
Bush.

Bush as the CNC of the military made the decision to invade Iraq. He made
it alone and he alone should take responsibility for his actions.

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:20:31 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:20:24 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
m...


Tonkin Gulf..hum...wasnt that a Democrat at the helm?

This brings images to mind of daddy Bush sitting on AF-1 with his son
and
Clinton on the way to the Pope's funeral discussing politics. The
million
dollar question is, "Will gummer ever figure out that both political
parties
are bought out by big business?" It makes no difference which party is
in
control, the corporate interests will be served.

And gummer & the wingers will praise the lies .....

More interesting is the denial that they will exhibit to belive the lies.

Many of the more crazed ones are looking on Mars for WMDs ...
others are trying to rewrite history or blame poor little Monica.

Monica has been the blame for everything for he past 10 years of so. To
hear them tell it, the Bush legacy will be that the presidency was actullay
ran by Bill Clinton.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:01:19 -0400, "Bob Brock" wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:58:26 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

Hmmm, maybe you should reword that, and waffle a bit. Surely there are
some
weasel words you could come up with that could obscure it a bit more so
that it
would look like they didn't REALLY vote "in favor" of anything. Maybe they
only
thought they were thinking of voting in favor of something. Yeah, that
could be
it. They were mislead by George Bush. Yeah, pass the buck. That'll work.
Blame
Bush.

Bush as the CNC of the military made the decision to invade Iraq. He made
it alone and he alone should take responsibility for his actions.

And NOBODY voted to give him the authority to do that, eh? So NOBODY else should
share in the responsibility for what Bush did, right? I guess if Bush has all
the power and takes all the blame, maybe we should just get rid of all those
other money-wasting jobs in Washington. We don't need them. Why pay them if we
don't need them? We could sure use that money somewhere else.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 06:18:57 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:40:06 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:51:15 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:04:57 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:45:31 -0400, Cliff wrote:
(snip)
Your denial is amusing.

BTW, I see you're still hiding from the FACT that you've changed your lie in
this thread.

You are the one that keeps claiming that you know all about those
"WMDs", right? And that the wingers don't live for lies? Or do they?

Is that squirming getting uncomfortable, Cliffie? You can't seem to hold still
long enough to answer that question. What's wrong, little Cliffie? Cat got your
tongue?

Found those "WMDs" yet?

Why, yes, we found 2 of them. But I notice you haven't found the balls to admit
you lied yet. Gonna answer that question, Cliffie? Or are you gonna keep
pretending you don't see it? Squirm little Cliffie, squirm.
Even your friends aren't helping you now.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 06:19:59 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:41:17 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:51:15 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:04:57 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:45:31 -0400, Cliff wrote:
(snip)
Your denial is amusing.

BTW, I see you're still hiding from the FACT that you've changed your lie in
this thread.

You are the one that keeps claiming that you know all about those
"WMDs", right? And that the wingers don't live for lies? Or do they?

I notice even your buddy Dan seems to have deserted you now that he's seen your
lies are so transparent. :/

He's on the road it seems.

Yeah, amazing how that happens when somebody does something blatantly stupid. :/

You don't pay any attention to details & facts, right?

Speaking of facts, when will you admit to the fact that you changed your lie?

Poor little Cliffie. Nobody here to watch your back for you.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

Yep, but I still see you haven't found the integrity to admit you changed your
lie.

Cliff, wondering how all this works, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:17:50 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

A study in the Lancet said the majority of the victims were women and
children.

Dancing in the streets over it, are you?

Hell yeah! Why not? ****, but you're one pussy-assed whinin' bitch.

So what are you saying, George, that we had a 10-year-long half-time show?

No, your Highness, I didn't say that. It was only 8 years... the klinton
years.

George Willer

Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 05:22:03 -0400, "Proto" wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:52:08 -0400, "Proto"
wrote:

Perhaps you should take some remedial courses in military history,
geopolitics and concentrate on the History Channel before showing
your ass here.

Maybe while you are calling me stupid YOU could cite some
examples of how
I am so wrong instead of just saying I don't know history. I am
generalizing


Generalizing? No ****.

A similar type of generalization you promoted...

"The Earth is green"

Sure is..except for the ****ing deserts and the 75% of the planet
that is water.

I didn't call you stupid.
I called you ignorant and uneducated.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

Am now I am awaiting for you to educate me. Show what you got. How
does it go? put up or what?


Educate yourself, then get back to me. Its not my job to teach you all
the things you have missed out on.

Might I suggest finding a good library on military histories?

Sigh...Ok..Ill give you a starting place

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM
http://www.rnrc.org/Html/default.htm (needs high speed for best
viewing)
http://www.geocities.com/nankingatrocities/
http://www.gotrain.com/dan/nanking2.htm
http://militaryhistory.about.com/cs/...enfirestor.htm
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...of_dresden.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm
http://history.designerz.com/by-time...rld-war-ii.php

Come back to me in a few months and we shall discuss the issues.


Sorry to if I don't subscribe to the Gunner school of upbringing. I leaned
as much about war and killing as was required. I found no fascination in
becoming any more educated in that regard as I never considered it a career
of opportunity. I can see now all that I have missed. I feel shame.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:16:19 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 06:18:57 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:40:06 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:51:15 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:04:57 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:45:31 -0400, Cliff wrote:
(snip)
Your denial is amusing.

BTW, I see you're still hiding from the FACT that you've changed your lie in
this thread.

You are the one that keeps claiming that you know all about those
"WMDs", right? And that the wingers don't live for lies? Or do they?

Is that squirming getting uncomfortable, Cliffie? You can't seem to hold still
long enough to answer that question. What's wrong, little Cliffie? Cat got your
tongue?

Found those "WMDs" yet?

Why, yes, we found 2 of them. But I notice you haven't found the balls to admit
you lied yet. Gonna answer that question, Cliffie? Or are you gonna keep
pretending you don't see it? Squirm little Cliffie, squirm.
Even your friends aren't helping you now.

Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:17:56 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 06:19:59 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:41:17 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:51:15 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:04:57 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:45:31 -0400, Cliff wrote:
(snip)
Your denial is amusing.

BTW, I see you're still hiding from the FACT that you've changed your lie in
this thread.

You are the one that keeps claiming that you know all about those
"WMDs", right? And that the wingers don't live for lies? Or do they?

I notice even your buddy Dan seems to have deserted you now that he's seen your
lies are so transparent. :/

He's on the road it seems.

Yeah, amazing how that happens when somebody does something blatantly stupid. :/

You seem unusually clueless today.
Is it the Lithium?


You don't pay any attention to details & facts, right?

Speaking of facts, when will you admit to the fact that you changed your lie?

1234?

Poor little Cliffie. Nobody here to watch your back for you.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

Yep, but I still see you haven't found the integrity to admit you changed your
lie.

Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:13:16 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:01:19 -0400, "Bob Brock" wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:58:26 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

Hmmm, maybe you should reword that, and waffle a bit. Surely there are
some
weasel words you could come up with that could obscure it a bit more so
that it
would look like they didn't REALLY vote "in favor" of anything. Maybe they
only
thought they were thinking of voting in favor of something. Yeah, that
could be
it. They were mislead by George Bush. Yeah, pass the buck. That'll work.
Blame
Bush.

Bush as the CNC of the military made the decision to invade Iraq. He made
it alone and he alone should take responsibility for his actions.

And NOBODY voted to give him the authority to do that, eh? So NOBODY else should
share in the responsibility for what Bush did, right? I guess if Bush has all
the power and takes all the blame, maybe we should just get rid of all those
other money-wasting jobs in Washington. We don't need them. Why pay them if we
don't need them? We could sure use that money somewhere else.

Nobody else set up a secret group to fabricate & tell lies &
propaganda, now did they?

IOW They KNEW that they were telling blatent lies.

http://tinyurl.com/bfmfy

As did the UN ... why do you think that they were afraid
of the UN?

Your "Bush & the neocons are too dumb" defense of their
lies & actions falls a bit short, does it not?

And, as it was based on lies and NOT on any sort of "self defense"
ALL of those that have so far died as a result or wil die in the
future are the result of mass murder & terrorism.

See what sort of fundie winger loons you lick?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:59:25 -0400, "George Willer"
wrote:


So what are you saying, George, that we had a 10-year-long half-time show?

No, your Highness, I didn't say that. It was only 8 years... the klinton
years.

Eight years of no war? No actual legal need to murder
people?

We cannot have that continue, now can we?
--
Cliff

"George Willer" wrote in message
...

So what are you saying, George, that we had a 10-year-long half-time
show?

No, your Highness, I didn't say that. It was only 8 years... the klinton
years.

George Willer

Oh, so it was an *8-year* half-time show.

So, does it all sort of run together in your mind, George? Sort of a
continuation of The Great Granada War, isn't it? g

Too bad Clinton got in the way. You could have had a 15-year war. Or maybe a
20-year war.

--
Ed Huntress

"Why" wrote in message
...

Neocons are the people who want to convert the world into something like
Texas. Most Republicans aren't neocons.

Damn ED, please leave Taxes (Texas) out of it. I'm to old to move all
my WWII Brownies to another state

I'm sorry, Dave, I don't mean to pick on you. But you keep sending us these
presidents with their staffs full of neocons. After they've established
"democracy" in some foreign country at gunpoint, the next thing they want to
do is to make them all play high-school football and hold chili cook-offs.

--
Ed Huntress

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:58:26 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
dress.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Thanks for snipping the links

http://www.kerryoniraq.com
http://www.republicanfilms.com

Next time you want something not snipped, tell us what not to snip, so
that
those of us who object to endless reiterations of previous exchanges
don't
clog up the joint.


But they weren't dumb enough to go to war over it.

Yes they did.

Clinton's presidential address ordering attacks on Iraq's WMD:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...ton_12-16.html

And how many American troops or Iraqi civilians were killed in that
"war,"
Willcox? How small do these things have to be, and still convince you
that
they should be called "wars"?


And Kerry voted for the 2nd Gulf War, so blame him too.

No he didn't.

Ooh, now that's some good politicking. Give him credit and help him dodge
the
blame at the same time.

That's exactly what I would have done, if I had a vote on it. You have to
give the president the lattitude to act if it should be needed -- unless
you're convinced and ready to declare war already. If that circumstance ever
became true, the conventional way of declaring war would put an end to any
chance of using surprise, unless the president had the power to act
beforehand.

It's not the first time Congress has done it. It's an attempt to make the
clumsy old mechanism of instituting war something that's quick enough for
21st century realities.

However, it requires a president with the judgment to use it only if and
when needed. Too bad, we had a lemon in that department.


Get your facts straight. He voted to give the President
authority to do so.

Plausible deniability, eh? NO bucks stop there, eh? Teflon John Kerry.
Nothin'
sticks to him.

No, the fact. You said he voted to declare war.


Hmmm, maybe you should reword that, and waffle a bit. Surely there are
some
weasel words you could come up with that could obscure it a bit more so
that it
would look like they didn't REALLY vote "in favor" of anything. Maybe they
only
thought they were thinking of voting in favor of something. Yeah, that
could be
it. They were mislead by George Bush. Yeah, pass the buck. That'll work.
Blame
Bush.

If the cowboy boot fits, wear it. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Proto" wrote in message
...

Come back to me in a few months and we shall discuss the issues.


Sorry to if I don't subscribe to the Gunner school of upbringing. I
leaned
as much about war and killing as was required. I found no fascination in
becoming any more educated in that regard as I never considered it a
career
of opportunity. I can see now all that I have missed. I feel shame.

Don't worry, you won't become more educated if you follow Gunner's
Google-Dilettante School of Historical Dabbling. g No syllabus, no canon,
just a shotgun load of miscellaneous ramblings, unexamined and unconnected
bits and pieces of history and ideas woven into a crazy quilt.

You're safe.

--
Ed Huntress

Your opinion is noted, Ed... as ridiculous as it is, it doesn't address the
topic of this thread, and your comments are complete nonsense. We all know
that opinions are like assholes... we all have one and you ARE one.

George Willer

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"George Willer" wrote in message
...

So what are you saying, George, that we had a 10-year-long half-time
show?

No, your Highness, I didn't say that. It was only 8 years... the klinton
years.

George Willer

Oh, so it was an *8-year* half-time show.

So, does it all sort of run together in your mind, George? Sort of a
continuation of The Great Granada War, isn't it? g

Too bad Clinton got in the way. You could have had a 15-year war. Or maybe
a
20-year war.

--
Ed Huntress

"George Willer" wrote in message
...
Your opinion is noted, Ed... as ridiculous as it is, it doesn't address
the
topic of this thread, and your comments are complete nonsense.

George, your posts are nothing BUT nonsense. Saying that the two Iraq wars
were "one war" is about as stupid as anything you've said.

What you meant, if you could hold a complete idea together all in one place,
is that, in your opinion, not taking out Saddam the first time is the cause
of the second Iraq war. That's certainly true, in a de facto way, but it was
NOT one war all about the same thing.

The first was about Saddam flexing his muscles to become the dominant power
in the Middle East. In fact, based on what he'd been told by the US
ambassador, he (and others) felt that the US had given him the go-ahead on
Kuwait. Big mistake on both our parts.

The second war supposedly was about the threat of his supplying weapons that
can kill millions of people in the West to terrorists from other Middle East
countries. At least, that's what we, and the rest of the world, were told.

But most of the world knew at the time that doing so was NOT part of
Saddam's plan. His coercion of the West, if he could accomplish it, would
come from controlling almost all of the Middle East's oil. That was his
planned route to Middle East domination and to becoming a major power center
on the world stage.

Colluding with terrorists to attack the US was not only counterproductive to
the strategy that he pursued throughout his career, it would have been a
huge risk with no payoff at all. He didn't have any strategic interest in
attacking the US and he had no reason to expose himself to crushing
retaliation even if he succeeded. Unlike the Islamists, he is not such an
idiot that he would bring on a self-destructive war for the sake of
religion-based, vengeful insanity. His strategic interest was in coercing us
and the rest of the West by controlling the flow of oil.

So the first war was fought because we (and major European countries) didn't
want Saddam to get his hands on all that oil. The second one was fought
because George Bush II was ****ed off.

I realize this is a challenge for you, but, with a little study, you can
figure out why the French, Germans, and others who had an interest in the
first war had no interest in the second. Thus, we had two wars, the second
one fought largely on our own, with no close and powerful allies but the
Brits -- most of whom looked askance at the whole enterprise, anyway.

--
Ed Huntress

Look, asshole... your superiority complex is getting in your way again. On
this thread as well as some others you have gone to great lengths to type
what you mistakenly think others think and try to make a case for your
superior intellect. It isn't working. You don't have to power to discredit
anyone but yourself, and you're doing a bang-up job of that.

Your confusion may be because of your basic misunderstanding of the
situation in Iraq. Please don't expect others to educate you in areas you
could research for yourself.

Most intelligent people don't have problems comprehending that the first
phase brought hostilities to a halt with a number of conditions that weren't
met. Some of those conditions were the disarming and the inspections to
confirm that the conditions were met. Here's a flash for you, asshole, the
conditions were NOT met. That's primary the reason hostilities were
resumed.

I'm finished with you. You aren't worth the trouble.

George Willer

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
"George Willer" wrote in message
...
Your opinion is noted, Ed... as ridiculous as it is, it doesn't address
the
topic of this thread, and your comments are complete nonsense.

George, your posts are nothing BUT nonsense. Saying that the two Iraq wars
were "one war" is about as stupid as anything you've said.

What you meant, if you could hold a complete idea together all in one
place,
is that, in your opinion, not taking out Saddam the first time is the
cause
of the second Iraq war. That's certainly true, in a de facto way, but it
was
NOT one war all about the same thing.

The first was about Saddam flexing his muscles to become the dominant
power
in the Middle East. In fact, based on what he'd been told by the US
ambassador, he (and others) felt that the US had given him the go-ahead on
Kuwait. Big mistake on both our parts.

The second war supposedly was about the threat of his supplying weapons
that
can kill millions of people in the West to terrorists from other Middle
East
countries. At least, that's what we, and the rest of the world, were told.

But most of the world knew at the time that doing so was NOT part of
Saddam's plan. His coercion of the West, if he could accomplish it, would
come from controlling almost all of the Middle East's oil. That was his
planned route to Middle East domination and to becoming a major power
center
on the world stage.

Colluding with terrorists to attack the US was not only counterproductive
to
the strategy that he pursued throughout his career, it would have been a
huge risk with no payoff at all. He didn't have any strategic interest in
attacking the US and he had no reason to expose himself to crushing
retaliation even if he succeeded. Unlike the Islamists, he is not such an
idiot that he would bring on a self-destructive war for the sake of
religion-based, vengeful insanity. His strategic interest was in coercing
us
and the rest of the West by controlling the flow of oil.

So the first war was fought because we (and major European countries)
didn't
want Saddam to get his hands on all that oil. The second one was fought
because George Bush II was ****ed off.

I realize this is a challenge for you, but, with a little study, you can
figure out why the French, Germans, and others who had an interest in the
first war had no interest in the second. Thus, we had two wars, the second
one fought largely on our own, with no close and powerful allies but the
Brits -- most of whom looked askance at the whole enterprise, anyway.

--
Ed Huntress