11 Sept

Robert Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/11sep06.png

That plot demonstrates how America-haters like you distort reality to fit
your euro-trash fantasies. Sure, the overall trend is steadily increasing,
but you don't even mention that for most of the time, all of the time
really, coalition deaths do not increase. If you plot only the times when
there are no deaths on your graph, which is really all of the time, the
situation looks much better in terms of coalition fatalities. So it's just
like I hear on right-wing public radio, the good news isn't being reported
and everyone who hates freedom and liberty, including you, focuses on the
negative.

--
Bill Asher

William Asher said:

Robert Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/11sep06.png

That plot demonstrates how America-haters like you distort reality to fit
your euro-trash fantasies. Sure, the overall trend is steadily increasing,
but you don't even mention that for most of the time, all of the time
really, coalition deaths do not increase. If you plot only the times when
there are no deaths on your graph, which is really all of the time, the
situation looks much better in terms of coalition fatalities. So it's just
like I hear on right-wing public radio, the good news isn't being reported
and everyone who hates freedom and liberty, including you, focuses on the
negative.

--
Bill Asher

Hey we all know that the real "war on terror" was in Iraq, they told
us so. Of Course they were squashing any military or intel professional
who disagreed, but all those folks were obviously terrorist
sympathizers.
Of course the Saudi's aren't bankrolling any of it and jhave total
freedom of religion. The Pakistanis really are moderate, and our
allies. They can't be hiding any senior terrorists because they say so.
Afghanistan really does have plenty of troops and aid because we won
there, right?
Bill C

William Asher said:

Robert Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/11sep06.png

That plot demonstrates how America-haters like you distort reality to fit
your euro-trash fantasies. Sure, the overall trend is steadily increasing,
but you don't even mention that for most of the time, all of the time
really, coalition deaths do not increase.

Except when one of the soldiers W. sends to their deaths is killed, on a
daily basis. I detest W. more for his cowardice than his stupidity. He
was a coward when he dodged the draft as a kid, and he's a coward now
for refusing to admit he made a mistake in invading Iraq.

I come from a military family, and the idea of him throwing away the
lives of good people so he can strut around in a flight suite infuriates
me.

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php.

At least in the American civil war the aristocrats were public about
hiring poor people to fight in their places.

Robert Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/11sep06.png

Graphs like that give aid and comfort to the enemy.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Jay S. Hill said:

William Asher said:

Robert Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/11sep06.png

That plot demonstrates how America-haters like you distort reality to fit
your euro-trash fantasies. Sure, the overall trend is steadily increasing,
but you don't even mention that for most of the time, all of the time
really, coalition deaths do not increase.

Except when one of the soldiers W. sends to their deaths is killed, on a
daily basis. I detest W. more for his cowardice than his stupidity. He
was a coward when he dodged the draft as a kid, and he's a coward now
for refusing to admit he made a mistake in invading Iraq.

He didn't dodge a damn thing. His father was a congressman and after John McCain
got captured nobody who was the son of anybody was ever going to be sent to
Vietnam. Al Gore and his dad pulled every string they had to get him assigned as
a correspondent and then only with full time guards and only for a couple of
months.

Quoted message said:

I come from a military family, and the idea of him throwing away the
lives of good people so he can strut around in a flight suite infuriates
me.

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php.

At least in the American civil war the aristocrats were public about
hiring poor people to fight in their places.

Not saying GWB would've amounted to much had he gone, but he really didn't have
the option.

Ron

RonSonic wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Not saying GWB would've amounted to much had he gone, but he really
didn't have the option.

And yet there is that pesky quote by him about his not being willing to
blow out his eardrum with a shotgun to avoid military service so instead
choosing to better himself by learning to fly airplanes. That sort of
kinda makes it sound a teeny bit like he personally was trying to avoid
serving in combat.

http://tinyurl.com/2y5pj

Cheney on the other hand, he just had more important things to do, so
that's ok.

--
Bill Asher

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Robert Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/11sep06.png

Graphs like that give aid and comfort to the enemy.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

And stories like this!

http://tinyurl.com/kwsov

Obviously the REPORT is incorrect, and they really didn't do their
homework, and if there might possibly be some truth to it then
obviously some clerks at DOD were mistaken in what they were supposed
to report and the General was misinformed by his staff.
Those clerks will be severely disciplined.
Reasonable people know that the only thing that likely would be true
is the last sentence.
Bill C

William Asher said:

RonSonic wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Not saying GWB would've amounted to much had he gone, but he really
didn't have the option.

And yet there is that pesky quote by him about his not being willing to
blow out his eardrum with a shotgun to avoid military service so instead
choosing to better himself by learning to fly airplanes. That sort of
kinda makes it sound a teeny bit like he personally was trying to avoid
serving in combat.

It also sounds like a smartass answer more than true confession.

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/2y5pj

Cheney on the other hand, he just had more important things to do, so
that's ok.

So did Bill Clinton and gee, didn't Al Gore leave early to go drop out of
divinity school and John Kerry found himself a whole new career and a whole new
side of the war to represent after a four month ticket punch. I don't think the
sanctimonious thing works.

Ron

RonSonic said:

So did Bill Clinton and gee, didn't Al Gore leave early to go drop out of
divinity school and John Kerry found himself a whole new career and a whole new
side of the war to represent after a four month ticket punch. I don't think the
sanctimonious thing works.

Dude,

None of the other guys ever, for example, described themselves
as a "war president." That and everything that goes along with
it is why people keep bringing it up. If GWB or Cheney had gone
on to be oil or baseball executives who never ran for elective
office and never did a photo-op in a flight suit, nobody would give
a [censored] about what they did from 1968-1973 or thereabouts.
Lots of people made ethically questionable or simply
not-brave decisions back then. It's only the ones that seem
to take a contradictory position later that get the treatment.

That said, though John Kerry can come off as really annoying,
comparing his service to GWB's or describing his tour as a
four month ticket punch is a major rewrite of history.

Ben

On 11 Sep 2006 20:10:13 -0700, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

RonSonic said:

So did Bill Clinton and gee, didn't Al Gore leave early to go drop out of
divinity school and John Kerry found himself a whole new career and a whole new
side of the war to represent after a four month ticket punch. I don't think the
sanctimonious thing works.

Dude,

None of the other guys ever, for example, described themselves
as a "war president."

None of those other guys are or were.

Quoted message said:

That and everything that goes along with
it is why people keep bringing it up. If GWB or Cheney had gone
on to be oil or baseball executives who never ran for elective
office and never did a photo-op in a flight suit, nobody would give
a [censored] about what they did from 1968-1973 or thereabouts.
Lots of people made ethically questionable or simply
not-brave decisions back then. It's only the ones that seem
to take a contradictory position later that get the treatment.

So if he did something dumbass in 1971 he is required to continue to be a
dumbass? But it isn't the seventies anymore and he doesn't have a job title that
permits being anymore of a dumbass than he inevitably will be, so it doesn't
much matter what he did then.

Quoted message said:

That said, though John Kerry can come off as really annoying,
comparing his service to GWB's or describing his tour as a
four month ticket punch is a major rewrite of history.

It was a ticket punch. If he wants to prove otherwise he can produce a DD-214.
It's real easy, just write to St Louis and they'll send him a copy. Every
veteran has one.

Ron

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Robert Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/11sep06.png

Graphs like that give aid and comfort to the enemy.

No, but graphs like that are a waste of data ink, as Robert well knows.

As a notorious right-wing kook who doesn't like confronting the grim
numbers, I of course find a peripheral argument (in this case, the data
representation) to discuss.

The cumulative coalition deaths are always going to rise on a graph like
this; a declining line is impossible. If you want a reasonable measure
of how things have been going, you want to plot the coalition death rate
in Iraq, which can be used as a time-to-time plot of whether the
situation in Iraq is getting more or less deadly (to coalition forces)
than previously.

I'm pretty sure this graph shows a stable situation: the death rate in
Iraq for coalition forces has been a roughly constant number since
Baghdad was captured.

The info this Chung Chart was trying to express would be concisely
described by a table with two numbers in it:

Number of people killed by the 9/11 terrorist attack: 2973
Coalition forces killed in Iraq since March 20, 2003: 2800 (or whatever
number it is).

I decline to say more on this topic here. Well, I'll probably get baited
back into it, but I'll try not to.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

RonSonic wrote:

[snip]

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/kool_aid.jpg

William Asher said:

Robert Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/11sep06.png

That plot demonstrates how America-haters like you distort reality to fit
your euro-trash fantasies. Sure, the overall trend is steadily increasing,
but you don't even mention that for most of the time, all of the time
really, coalition deaths do not increase. If you plot only the times when
there are no deaths on your graph, which is really all of the time, the
situation looks much better in terms of coalition fatalities. So it's just
like I hear on right-wing public radio, the good news isn't being reported
and everyone who hates freedom and liberty, including you, focuses on the
negative.

Dumbass -

Do you really believe that the situation there is positive, that our
involvement in Iraq will turn out well?

just wondering,

K. Gringioni.

William Asher said:

Robert Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/11sep06.png

That plot demonstrates how America-haters like you distort reality to fit
your euro-trash fantasies. Sure, the overall trend is steadily increasing,
but you don't even mention that for most of the time, all of the time
really, coalition deaths do not increase. If you plot only the times when
there are no deaths on your graph, which is really all of the time, the
situation looks much better in terms of coalition fatalities. So it's just
like I hear on right-wing public radio, the good news isn't being reported
and everyone who hates freedom and liberty, including you, focuses on the
negative.

Nice one Bill. Your talents are wasted on RBR :-)

Jeff

William Asher said:

Quoted message said:

That plot demonstrates how America-haters like you distort reality to fit
your euro-trash fantasies. Sure, the overall trend is steadily increasing,
but you don't even mention that for most of the time, all of the time
really, coalition deaths do not increase. If you plot only the times when
there are no deaths on your graph, which is really all of the time, the
situation looks much better in terms of coalition fatalities. So it's just
like I hear on right-wing public radio, the good news isn't being reported
and everyone who hates freedom and liberty, including you, focuses on the
negative.

Jeff Jones said:

Nice one Bill. Your talents are wasted on RBR :-)

But I am a little worried about the end-of-the-world status. Hopefully he
is a Kazakh agent posing as an Iranian double agent and not really an
American.

RonSonic said:

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/2y5pj

Cheney on the other hand, he just had more important things to do, so
that's ok.

So did Bill Clinton and gee, didn't Al Gore leave early to go drop out of
divinity school and John Kerry found himself a whole new career and a whole new
side of the war to represent after a four month ticket punch. I don't think the
sanctimonious thing works.

Here's the thing. Even if there was some equivalence between, say
John Kerry and George Bush on military service (which there isn't --
Kerry was under fire in Vietnam which is a very serious thing -- but
just for the sake or argument let's pretend there is) -- we could say
that Kerry is a chicken whereas Bush and Rumfeld are chicken *hawks*
who are far to willing to throw away other people's live and other
parents lives.

I'm a chicken myself -- I would try very hard to not get drafted if it
had come to that when I was younger. And that's far more honest than
doing so while beating the drum for other people to fight.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On 11 Sep 2006 20:10:13 -0700, "[email hidden]"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
[comparing Kerry, Gore, Clinton to Bush II]

Quoted message said:

None of the other guys ever, for example, described themselves
as a "war president." That and everything that goes along with
it is why people keep bringing it up. If GWB or Cheney had gone
on to be oil or baseball executives who never ran for elective
office and never did a photo-op in a flight suit, nobody would give
a [censored] about what they did from 1968-1973 or thereabouts.
Lots of people made ethically questionable or simply
not-brave decisions back then. It's only the ones that seem
to take a contradictory position later that get the treatment.

That said, though John Kerry can come off as really annoying,
comparing his service to GWB's or describing his tour as a
four month ticket punch is a major rewrite of history.

Well said.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 04:31:21 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The cumulative coalition deaths are always going to rise on a graph like
this; a declining line is impossible.

I thought they could level off if the coalition leaves.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Kurgan Gringioni said:

William Asher said:

Robert Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/11sep06.png

That plot demonstrates how America-haters like you distort reality to fit
your euro-trash fantasies. Sure, the overall trend is steadily increasing,
but you don't even mention that for most of the time, all of the time
really, coalition deaths do not increase. If you plot only the times when
there are no deaths on your graph, which is really all of the time, the
situation looks much better in terms of coalition fatalities. So it's just
like I hear on right-wing public radio, the good news isn't being reported
and everyone who hates freedom and liberty, including you, focuses on the
negative.

Quoted message said:

Do you really believe that the situation there is positive, that our
involvement in Iraq will turn out well?

He has too -- otherwise a house of cards collapses.

Though if he changes his assesement, the one saving grace will be the
cause of the invasion not working out. It won't be the lack of
post-invasion planning, it won't be the lack of sufficient manpower,
it won't be the fact that the war was based on false pretences and it
won't be the fact that we went to war w/o getting enough allies on
board to help with manpower.

No, it will be the liberal media playing into the enemy's hands and
undermining our ability to get the job done.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************