Iraq again

Quoted message said:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2879&id=10983-466117-XX4bCY&t=2

Nice video. Hard to believe he's the same guy pushing the buttons for
the US in Iraq, Iran, and Halfgonistan today.

Jobst Brandt

This is clearly ot, and a big lie by the left wing wackos. that is
clearly not [censored] chenney but an impostor. I think that it is ed
ashner, patric stewart or vin diesel. it is a saturday night live
recording.

Andres

Quoted post said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2879&id=10983-466117-XX4bCY&t=2

Quoted message said:

Nice video. Hard to believe he's the same guy pushing the buttons for
the US in Iraq, Iran, and Halfgonistan today.

Quoted message said:

Jobst Brandt

This is clearly ot, and a big lie by the left wing wackos. that is
clearly not [censored] chenney but an impostor. I think that it is ed
ashner, patric stewart or vin diesel. it is a saturday night live
recording.

Jane "Tank Girl" Fonda in prosthetics to be clear--hoping to redden
this country till we all wear those cute little green hats.

Why not, I'll give up my liberty for some good dim sum any day.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2879&id=10983-466117-XX4bCY&t=2

Nice video. Hard to believe he's the same guy pushing the buttons for
the US in Iraq, Iran, and Halfgonistan today.

Jobst Brandt

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S.
involvement in Iraq, here's a sobering statistic.

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in
the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22
months, and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a
firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers per
month.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per
100,000 persons for the same period. That means that
you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in
the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.

"RBrickston" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per
100,000 persons for the same period.

Has it more than tripled since 2004, or am I looking at dodgy data? I've got
146 firearms deaths in a population of 554239 in the District of Columbia
for 2004, and 2006 isn't that different - which gives about 25 per 100,000.
Still pretty darn poor, but rather below what you're saying.

cheers,
clive

RBrickston said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2879&id=10983-466117-XX4bCY&t=2

Quoted message said:

Nice video. Hard to believe he's the same guy pushing the buttons for
the US in Iraq, Iran, and Halfgonistan today.

Quoted message said:

Jobst Brandt

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S.
involvement in Iraq, here's a sobering statistic.

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in
the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22
months, and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a
firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers per
month.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per
100,000 persons for the same period. That means that
you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in
the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.

Sorry. Why don't you include Iraqi civilian deaths? Firearm death
rate in Washington presumably include peace officers as well as
civilians.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

RBrickston said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2879&id=10983-466117-XX4bCY&t=2

Quoted message said:

Nice video. Hard to believe he's the same guy pushing the buttons for
the US in Iraq, Iran, and Halfgonistan today.

Quoted message said:

Jobst Brandt

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S.
involvement in Iraq, here's a sobering statistic.

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in
the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22
months, and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a
firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers per
month.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per
100,000 persons for the same period. That means that
you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in
the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.

Sorry. Why don't you include Iraqi civilian deaths? Firearm death
rate in Washington presumably include peace officers as well as
civilians.

But you have no qualms of the U.S. pulling out of Washington? The article
is a joke, literally.

"RBrickston" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S.
involvement in Iraq, here's a sobering statistic.

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in
the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22
months, and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a
firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers per
month.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per
100,000 persons for the same period. That means that
you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in
the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.

That's for US soldiers. That's a nonsensical statistic. What is the
likelihood of being killed in Iraq if you are a civilian?

Even more interesting:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314944.ece

250k bullets per insurgent killed in Iraq.

[email hidden] wrote:
<snip [censored]>

TROLL.

Quoted message said:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2879&id=10983-466117-XX4bCY&t=2

Nice video. Hard to believe he's the same guy pushing the buttons for
the US in Iraq, Iran, and Halfgonistan today.

Nothing's changed since 1994, of course.

Ever read the President's speech before initiating action against Iraq?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
(Oh, THAT President.)

Ever read Hillary's speech on the Senate floor in 2003? She didn't just
vote for the war, she went BEYOND administration claims to make the CASE for
the war.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaida
members." -- Hillary

Ever read the Clinton Admin's indictment of OBL? It said in part, "Al Qaida
reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not
work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically
including weapons development, al Qaida would work cooperatively with the
Government of Iraq."

Partly why they made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the
U.S...in the '90s.

Lots of people eating their words nowadays, I guess.

Bill "guess I'll just start posting Ann Coulter essays and Mark Levin
diatribes" S.

PS: JOBST BRANDT ONCE CHASTISED A PERSON FOR POSTING A /RIDE REPORT/
BECAUSE IT BELONGED IN A DIFFERENT REC NEWSGROUP. YET THIS IS ACCEPTABLE IN
HIS OPINION?!? CAN YOU SAY, "H Y P O C R I S Y"?

Bill "sick of ideologues" S.

Quoted message said:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2879&id=10983-466117-XX4bCY&t=2

Nice video. Hard to believe he's the same guy pushing the buttons for
the US in Iraq, Iran, and Halfgonistan today.

He's clearly delivering that video through gritted teeth because it's
the official line (at that time) which he doesn't believe a word of.

What's not so hard to believe is that this is the man who planned 9-11.

RBrickston said:

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.

America loves a winner and hates a loser. I say stay the course in DC
until victory. Don't be a surrender monkey stabbing our troops in the back.

Jambo' [email protected] said:

250k bullets per insurgent killed in Iraq.

That's a terrible ROI.

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 21:25:31 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ever read the President's speech before initiating action against Iraq?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
(Oh, THAT President.)

He whacked them with a stick. I don't recall ground forces going in.
Maybe I missed that.

Quoted message said:

Ever read Hillary's speech on the Senate floor in 2003? She didn't just
vote for the war, she went BEYOND administration claims to make the CASE for
the war.

She's an typical principle-less politician who swings with whatever
political winds s'he thinks will be best to win the next personal
battle.

Quoted message said:

Partly why they made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the
U.S...in the '90s.

Still no $400b invasion with no end plan. Check Cheney's remarks on
why it was a bad idea to go in.

Quoted message said:

Bill "sick of ideologues" S.

Now there's the height of hypocrisy.

still clueless said:

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 21:25:31 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ever read the President's speech before initiating action against
Iraq?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
(Oh, THAT President.)

He whacked them with a stick. I don't recall ground forces going in.
Maybe I missed that.

Based on that speech, he's either a liar or feckless. Or both. Get a clue.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ever read Hillary's speech on the Senate floor in 2003? She didn't
just vote for the war, she went BEYOND administration claims to make
the CASE for the war.

She's an typical principle-less politician who swings with whatever
political winds s'he thinks will be best to win the next personal
battle.

And yet you'll vote for her. Here, I'll put back her remarks that you
deleted:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaida
members." -- Hillary

Get a clue.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Partly why they made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the
U.S...in the '90s.

Still no $400b invasion with no end plan. Check Cheney's remarks on
why it was a bad idea to go in.

Gee, nothing changed since 1994. Get a clue.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill "sick of ideologues" S.

Quoted message said:

Now there's the height of hypocrisy.

Do I post right-wing OT stuff? Have I *ever* started a political thread?
Get a clue.

As for hypocrisy, you're the one who's going to vote for someone you claim
to disdain. Get a clue.

BS (piling up)

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:28:52 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He whacked them with a stick. I don't recall ground forces going in.
Maybe I missed that.

Based on that speech, he's either a liar or feckless. Or both. Get a clue.

Whatever. He's irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

She's an typical principle-less politician who swings with whatever
political winds s'he thinks will be best to win the next personal
battle.

And yet you'll vote for her. Here, I'll put back her remarks that you
deleted:

No I won't. But you're too much of an ideologue to understand that.
(I've deleted her worthless remarks that you worthlessly reinserted).

Quoted message said:

Get a clue.

Maybe you should pull your head out of George Bush's butt and get a
clue yourself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now there's the height of hypocrisy.

Do I post right-wing OT stuff? Have I *ever* started a political thread?
Get a clue.

When you are complaining about ideologues, that's hypocrisy. But,
you're too much of an ideologue to see it.

Quoted message said:

As for hypocrisy, you're the one who's going to vote for someone you claim
to disdain. Get a clue.

No, I won't. But again, you're too much of an ideologue to see it. Not
everyone who thinks George and his neo's suck is a Democrat. But,
you're not sharp enough to see past your own biases.

"still me" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:28:52 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He whacked them with a stick. I don't recall ground forces going in.
Maybe I missed that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Based on that speech, he's either a liar or feckless. Or both. Get a
clue.

Quoted message said:

Whatever. He's irrelevant.

But the POINT is that he (and many, many others) said the exact same things
that eventually prompted action years later (post 9-11 world), yet somehow
only "Bush Lied" in your world.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

She's an typical principle-less politician who swings with whatever
political winds s'he thinks will be best to win the next personal
battle.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And yet you'll vote for her. Here, I'll put back her remarks that you
deleted:

Quoted message said:

No I won't. But you're too much of an ideologue to understand that.
(I've deleted her worthless remarks that you worthlessly reinserted).

I simply don't believe you. If it's Hillary versus Rudy, Mitt or Fred, what
are you going to do, write in Bill Mahre?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now there's the height of hypocrisy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do I post right-wing OT stuff? Have I *ever* started a political thread?
Get a clue.

Quoted message said:

When you are complaining about ideologues, that's hypocrisy. But,
you're too much of an ideologue to see it.

I wrote "sick of ideologues" because Jobst -- who flames people for posting
off-topic things like RIDE REPORTS for God's sake -- can't seem to help
himself from posting [censored] like this thread every month or so. And hardly
anyone calls him on it -- why, because he intimidates them? Only thing
worse than a zealot is a BULLY.

If I start posting thread-opening links to right-wing sites or videos, then
I'd be guilty of blind ideologuery. As it is, I merely have the temerity to
speak up in a hostile environment. Sue me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for hypocrisy, you're the one who's going to vote for someone you claim
to disdain. Get a clue.

No, I won't. But again, you're too much of an ideologue to see it. Not
everyone who thinks George and his neo's suck is a Democrat. But,
you're not sharp enough to see past your own biases.

Maybe you're being truthful and maybe not; regardless, nice strawman.
(Hint: I never said a word about Dems.)

BS (Out)

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:30:17 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whatever. He's irrelevant.

But the POINT is that he (and many, many others) said the exact same things
that eventually prompted action years later (post 9-11 world), yet somehow
only "Bush Lied" in your world.

The POINT is that there were several more years of UN inspections
which resumed after that speech, and they FOUND NO WMD's. None. Zippo.
Instead of believing several years of inspector's reports, Bush and
Karl worked to discredit any and all inspectors.

When Bush looked ready to invade - even though the UN Inspectors had
once again found nothing at all - Chile put a proposal on the table at
the UN suggesting that we spend just 30 days more extending the
inspections. Bush refused and invaded two days later. Why? He rushed
because was more concerned that another 30 days would again find
nothing of concern, more than he was about them finding something
dangerous). He had a plan he was bent on executing no matter what the
evidence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No I won't. But you're too much of an ideologue to understand that.
(I've deleted her worthless remarks that you worthlessly reinserted).

I simply don't believe you. If it's Hillary versus Rudy, Mitt or Fred, what
are you going to do, write in Bill Mahre?

If you don't believe me, that't your problem.

Quoted message said:

If I start posting thread-opening links to right-wing sites or videos, then
I'd be guilty of blind ideologuery. As it is, I merely have the temerity to
speak up in a hostile environment. Sue me.

You're guilty of "blind ideologuery", you just didn't start this
thread.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, I won't. But again, you're too much of an ideologue to see it. Not
everyone who thinks George and his neo's suck is a Democrat. But,
you're not sharp enough to see past your own biases.

Maybe you're being truthful and maybe not; regardless, nice strawman.
(Hint: I never said a word about Dems.)

No, but you infer it by assuming everyone who despises Bush and his
violations of the Constitution does it because they're ideologically
bound and tied liberal Democrat. You assume they all read blogs. You
assume they all listen to talk radio all day and watch "liberal news".

In other words, you assume they all act like you, but they belong to
the traditional "other side".

still me said:

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:30:17 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whatever. He's irrelevant.

But the POINT is that he (and many, many others) said the exact same
things that eventually prompted action years later (post 9-11
world), yet somehow only "Bush Lied" in your world.

The POINT is that there were several more years of UN inspections
which resumed after that speech, and they FOUND NO WMD's. None. Zippo.
Instead of believing several years of inspector's reports, Bush and
Karl worked to discredit any and all inspectors.

You mean the Iraqi chemical weapons that were just found stored...AT THE
U.N.?!? LOL

Good one.

Bill Sornson said:

still me said:

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:30:17 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Whatever. He's irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But the POINT is that he (and many, many others) said the exact same
things that eventually prompted action years later (post 9-11
world), yet somehow only "Bush Lied" in your world.

Quoted message said:

The POINT is that there were several more years of UN inspections
which resumed after that speech, and they FOUND NO WMD's. None. Zippo.
Instead of believing several years of inspector's reports, Bush and
Karl worked to discredit any and all inspectors.

You mean the Iraqi chemical weapons that were just found stored...AT THE
U.N.?!? LOL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083000978.html?hpid=sec-world

One small vial.

That would be "sample vial", not "chemical weapon", let alone
"chemical weapons".

Not to mention the circumstances being different-- the UN not being
searched for several years, and so forth.

Allow me to post a link to an old favorite, which I hope you will
favor with a more careful reading than you apparently afford
newspapers or online news services:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

Which begs the question: If Bushco was really trying to get Iraq to
stand on its own feet, why were the Bremer Barriers (had they been
subsequently needed, of course) not cast from Iraqi produced
concrete? With all the civilian "contractors" over there, in numbers
said to equal or perhaps exceed those of our men and women in bona
fide USA military uniform as actual members of the USA military, was
there not even one connection (perhaps as simple as a phone call or
two to the halls of Haliburton) made to provide needed maintainance
parts and know-how to get a fundamental part of the Iraqi economy back
up and functioning? --D-y