Giftzweig chimes in with:

"Bush's Iraq Liberation! Almost as sob! deadly as falling outta bed!"

That's a lame and disingenuous and meaningless analogy. You're too
intelligent not to know that.

What - exactly - is "lame" or "disingenuous" about it?

Come now. Far from "meaningless," the analogy is decisively on-point;
several hundred casualties per year is entirely to be expected when the
enterprise in question is liberating 26 million people from the worst
sort of tyranny. If anything is "disingenuous," it's the effort on the
part of the pro-Saddam lobby to suggest that a piffling few hundred
casualties represents something terrible that America should be
concerned about.

You're asserting that 261 deaths in six months is a crushing,
significant figure that justifies radical changes in foreign policy and
government. I'm asserting that we must consider 261 deaths in the
appropriate context, and I'm proposing contexts for consideration.

For example, in a single year (2000), "accidental drowning and
submersion" claimed 3,482 American lives. 341 of these were accounted
for by "drowning and submersion while in or falling into bath-tub."

First, you're writing of a full year. Second, you're writing of a population of
300,000,000 where the 341 deaths occured, not a population of 140,000 or fewer,
which is where the 261 deaths occured.

As he said, disingenuous. It is not at all on-point.

What you're doing is something along the order of saying the 55,000 American
deaths during the Vietnam war wasn't much more than a single year's total from
auto accidents in the U.S., so, because the deaths in 'Nam occured over about
11 years, that's not so bad. Which is utter nonsense, just as your argument is.

Charlie Self
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use
our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

AndroGel babbles:


Retards like Ann Coulter and (so called) "Reverend" Al Sharpton are what
makes the USA the laughing stock of the planet.

You guys really scrape the bottom of the barrel.

Laugh on. I can agree with your opinion of Sharpton, who is a master scammer,
but I'd never heard of Coulton until a week or 2 ago...she does sound retarded,
but so do many of the politically committed on any side...and in any country.

The USA may well be the laughing stock of the planet: that speaks poorly for
the judgment of a great many people, though, and really isn't a judgment that
is yours to make.

At least we've not come up with any Genghis Khans, Chamberlains, Mussolinis,
Hitlers or their ilk, yet. Plenty of damfools, but that's not an America-only
trait. It's a part of human make-up.



Charlie Self
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use
our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

"Tom Zielinski" wrote in message
k.net...
"Interviewing Vice President Dick Cheney on 'Meet the Press'
about a month ago, Tim Russert echoed the [Democratic] theme,
asking: 'What is our plan for Iraq? How long will the 140,000
American soldiers be there? How many international troops will
join them? And how much is this going to cost?" When will we
be there, Daddy? Can I go to the bathroom? Are we there yet?"
- Ann Coulter


So help me understand this other thing Ann, 'cuz maybe it's me, maybe I'm
a
little ****ed up, maybe.

George W. Bush initiated three-year trade tariffs on imported steel in
March
2002, in an attempt to "help" ailing U.S. steelmakers. Bush signed off on
these inarguably anti-conservative, laissez-faire tariffs, to aid steel
producers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan - all swing
states in the 2004 election.

So, to analyze the strategy: Put in place tariffs that increase the cost
of
steel (and thousands of durable goods) for all Americans in an attempt to
"give struggling domestic steel producers breathing room from
international
competition while they restructured." What is wrong with this picture? A
tariff that flies in the face of conservative economic theory, initiated
in
an attempt to get more conservatives elected in "swing states", so that
(presumably) the conservative agenda can be furthered? How does that
work?

Already, the EU is contemplating their own tariffs on billions of dollars
of
U.S. exports, including food and textiles. Japan, South Korea, China, New
Zealand, Brazil, Norway and Switzerland have also complained to the WTO,
which is likely to uphold their demands of entitlement to levy sanctions
against U.S. goods. So, to protect one U.S. industry, many others are
threatened.

The policy is misguided, backward, shortsighted, and ultimately,
dangerous.
Some strategy. It is no wonder we are enduring a sickly economy.

Further, it is no wonder that we are in a precarious and dangerous
position
in Iraq, where another U.S. casualty today (November 14, 2003) brings the
total to 261 deaths since that arrogant "Mission Accomplished" banner was
waving behind a smirking George on the flight deck of that aircraft
carrier
in May. And 195 U.S. deaths since the ignorant and dangerous "Bring 'em
on!" statement in July.

Funny how? I mean what's funny about that?

"When will we be there, Daddy"? **** you, Ann Coulter. If/when (and I
pray
it is "when") the Democrats can put forth a viable candidate, this country
will usher in a new Administration next year. George II will suffer the
same one-term legacy embarrassment that his father is assuredly still
bitter
about. And the country will be better for it.

Yeah, and then we can go back to (tax the hell out of the rich and give it
to the poor) wishy-washy socialism.....I can hardly wait............

Robin Hood was, after all, just a thief........

TmFoLCB0aGVyZSBhcmVuJ3QgZW5vdWdoIGNpZ2FycyBsZWZ0Li 4uLi4NCg0KIldpbGxpYW0gR3Jh
aGFtIiA8d2VnOUBjb21jYXN0Lm5ldD4gd3JvdGUgaW4gbWVzc2 FnZSBuZXdzOkJvQXRiLjE1OTI4
MyRtWjUuMTA5ODk2NUBhdHRiaV9zNTQuLi4NCj4gDQo+IFllYW gsIGFuZCB0aGVuIHdlIGNhbiBn
byBiYWNrIHRvICh0YXggdGhlIGhlbGwgb3V0IG9mIHRoZSByaW NoIGFuZCBnaXZlIGl0DQo+IHRv
IHRoZSBwb29yKSB3aXNoeS13YXNoeSBzb2NpYWxpc20uLi4uLk kgY2FuIGhhcmRseSB3YWl0Li4u
Li4uLi4uLi4uDQo+IA0KPiBSb2JpbiBIb29kIHdhcywgYWZ0ZX IgYWxsLCBqdXN0IGEgdGhpZWYu
Li4uLi4uLg0KPiANCj4g

In BoAtb.159283$mZ5.1098965@attbi_s54, on 11/16/2003
at 01:28 AM, "William Graham" said:


"Tom Zielinski" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Interviewing Vice President Dick Cheney on 'Meet the Press'
about a month ago, Tim Russert echoed the [Democratic] theme,
asking: 'What is our plan for Iraq? How long will the 140,000
American soldiers be there? How many international troops will
join them? And how much is this going to cost?" When will we
be there, Daddy? Can I go to the bathroom? Are we there yet?"
- Ann Coulter


So help me understand this other thing Ann, 'cuz maybe it's me, maybe I'm
a
little ****ed up, maybe.

George W. Bush initiated three-year trade tariffs on imported steel in
March
2002, in an attempt to "help" ailing U.S. steelmakers. Bush signed off on
these inarguably anti-conservative, laissez-faire tariffs, to aid steel
producers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan - all swing
states in the 2004 election.

So, to analyze the strategy: Put in place tariffs that increase the cost
of
steel (and thousands of durable goods) for all Americans in an attempt to
"give struggling domestic steel producers breathing room from
international
competition while they restructured." What is wrong with this picture? A
tariff that flies in the face of conservative economic theory, initiated
in
an attempt to get more conservatives elected in "swing states", so that
(presumably) the conservative agenda can be furthered? How does that
work?

Already, the EU is contemplating their own tariffs on billions of dollars
of
U.S. exports, including food and textiles. Japan, South Korea, China, New
Zealand, Brazil, Norway and Switzerland have also complained to the WTO,
which is likely to uphold their demands of entitlement to levy sanctions
against U.S. goods. So, to protect one U.S. industry, many others are
threatened.

The policy is misguided, backward, shortsighted, and ultimately,
dangerous.
Some strategy. It is no wonder we are enduring a sickly economy.

Further, it is no wonder that we are in a precarious and dangerous
position
in Iraq, where another U.S. casualty today (November 14, 2003) brings the
total to 261 deaths since that arrogant "Mission Accomplished" banner was
waving behind a smirking George on the flight deck of that aircraft
carrier
in May. And 195 U.S. deaths since the ignorant and dangerous "Bring 'em
on!" statement in July.

Funny how? I mean what's funny about that?

"When will we be there, Daddy"? **** you, Ann Coulter. If/when (and I
pray
it is "when") the Democrats can put forth a viable candidate, this country
will usher in a new Administration next year. George II will suffer the
same one-term legacy embarrassment that his father is assuredly still
bitter
about. And the country will be better for it.

Yeah, and then we can go back to (tax the hell out of the rich and give
it to the poor) wishy-washy socialism.....I can hardly wait............

Robin Hood was, after all, just a thief........

Robin Hood stole form those who stol first. Learn the lesson if you have
the brain power. Oh, and enjoy this life. The promise is the next one
will warm as hell for you.

puzzla reckons:

But what if the 'people', who they miscalculated into
thinking would welcome us, what if they elect every Hussein cronies on
the planet?

Oh, and is Bush saying that Husseins cronies are worse than Chalabis?
They seem to be getting all the contracts to rebuild Iraq. And the
people shrug.


Yeah, well...I'm willing to bet that within 6 months to 2 years (way outside)
of the time we get out of Iraq, regardless of what happens between now and
then, some scumbag similar to Hussein is in power and will be just as bad as
ol' Saddas Insane the day we take our eyes off the place.

Why Bush, or anyone else, believes we're going to change a 20 century old
"culture" is baffling. Democracy is not something many in the Middle East
understand, at least on terms similar to those we understand it in.

Overall, our best bet all round is to make sure no one there has weapons that
can threaten us, then leave 'em the hell alone to do as they wish, which is
what's going to happen anyway.


Charlie Self
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use
our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:44:50 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

Yeah, well...I'm willing to bet that within 6 months to 2 years (way outside)
of the time we get out of Iraq, regardless of what happens between now and
then, some scumbag similar to Hussein is in power and will be just as bad as
ol' Saddas Insane the day we take our eyes off the place.

Why Bush, or anyone else, believes we're going to change a 20 century old
"culture" is baffling. Democracy is not something many in the Middle East
understand, at least on terms similar to those we understand it in.

Overall, our best bet all round is to make sure no one there has weapons that
can threaten us, then leave 'em the hell alone to do as they wish, which is
what's going to happen anyway.

That may all be true, but the same arguments could have been made about
Japan after WWII. And our "exit strategy" there and Germany and Korea and
Kosovo and ... was? The only place we totally exited in recent history
was Viet Nam, and that wasn't after a victory. I think the reason you
stated is precisely why the US can't "take our eyes off the place", along with
the lesson the world learned about our involvement with Germany after WWI as
opposed to WWII (evacuate and let bad guys take power because of a chaotic
state of affairs vs. the Marshall Plan and all).

-Doug