It becoming clearer and clearer...
The reason we were attacked in New York and Washington
was because we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and
bring democracy that these suicide bombers hate to pieces.
OK, we were mistaken about Saddam having Nukes, but the
Al Queda - Mohammed ATTA clearly wanted to defend Saddam
and stop us from bringin him to justice.
There. Its THAT simple.
[email protected] wrote:
> It becoming clearer and clearer...
>
> The reason we were attacked in New York and Washington
> was because we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and
> bring democracy that these suicide bombers hate to pieces.
Well, no. If you're referring to the attacks on September 11 2001 they
predate the invasion of Iraq. Of course, you might mean the First Gulf
War in Kuwait, where Iraq wasn't invaded.
> OK, we were mistaken about Saddam having Nukes, but the
> Al Queda - Mohammed ATTA clearly wanted to defend Saddam
> and stop us from bringin him to justice.
But Al Quaeda, whatever that is (a chimera in my opinion) had no
documented contact with Saddam prior to the Second Gulf War. Saddam
was a secular despot, with no religious under- or overtones, and had no
truck with terrorism so far as we can determine. He may have been a 24
carat, ocean-going shit to his own people, but he was no threat to the
West.
> There. Its THAT simple.
No, it's not simple.
Will.
Will wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > It becoming clearer and clearer...
> >
> > The reason we were attacked in New York and Washington
> > was because we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and
> > bring democracy that these suicide bombers hate to pieces.
>
> Well, no. If you're referring to the attacks on September 11 2001 they
> predate the invasion of Iraq. Of course, you might mean the First Gulf
> War in Kuwait, where Iraq wasn't invaded.
Actually, in the 1991 war Iraq was invaded, but a cease fire
was established very shortly after Coalition troops _officially_
crossed the border into Iraq. Of course that was also very shortly
after Coalition troops crossed the border into Kuwait.
Shortly after the September 11 attacks it was widely reported
that bin Laded was friendly toward the US, and grateful for
US assistance to the Aghanistani Mujahadeen, but did a 180 when
the US established a military base in Saudi Arabia. Right
after the attacks on Sept 11 the Saudis began hinting that the
base was no longer needed, presumeably in part at least to
appease bin Laden.
Clearly were the US not involved in the region, Saddam Hussein
would have been second only to Israel (or maybe Kadaffi) on
bin Laden's enemies list.
>
> .. Saddam
> was a secular despot, with no religious under- or overtones, and had no
> truck with terrorism so far as we can determine. He may have been a 24
> carat, ocean-going shit to his own people, but he was no threat to the
> West.
Agreed he was no threat to the West. He was accused of quite openly
funding Palestinian suicide bombers. As such, he was an obstacle to
peace in the region. Now we are too, though of course in different
way.
--
FF
Splash!
Rising to strike obvious troll-bait ...
Yet another in denial. W thought he could extend his term by winning a
war on the cheap. (Colin Powell didn't.) He forgot that getting into
it with folks in that region was like walking into a dog-fight- they
all turn on you.
So we pay in blood and billions- hundreds of billions. And have no
clue about how to turn enemies into eventual friends. (Consider
Germany.)
We won the Cold War- all of us- not a group of neo-cons. Now if we can
adapt to a wider world-view, where we're not buying or bullying for
control and profit ...
J
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
> On 19 Jul 2005 03:21:21 -0700, "Will"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> >Well, no. If you're referring to the attacks on September 11 2001 they
> >predate the invasion of Iraq. Of course, you might mean the First Gulf
> >War in Kuwait, where Iraq wasn't invaded.
>
> Yes, Iraq was invaded.
Momentarily.
> >> OK, we were mistaken about Saddam having Nukes, but the
> >> Al Queda - Mohammed ATTA clearly wanted to defend Saddam
> >> and stop us from bringin him to justice.
> >
> >But Al Quaeda, whatever that is (a chimera in my opinion) had no
> >documented contact with Saddam prior to the Second Gulf War. Saddam
> >was a secular despot, with no religious under- or overtones, and had no
> >truck with terrorism so far as we can determine. He may have been a 24
> >carat, ocean-going shit to his own people, but he was no threat to the
> >West.
>
> That is highly debatable.
Then debate it.
Will.
Will wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > It becoming clearer and clearer...
> >
> > The reason we were attacked in New York and Washington
> > was because we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and
> > bring democracy that these suicide bombers hate to pieces.
>
> Well, no. If you're referring to the attacks on September 11 2001 they
> predate the invasion of Iraq. Of course, you might mean the First Gulf
> War in Kuwait, where Iraq wasn't invaded.
No, no, no, you gots it all wrong! The reason Al Qaeda attacked our
Lesbian troops in the 80's was because Madame Cleo told them that we
was gon' KILL SADDAM!! See--Bush really DID start the war with Al
Qaeda!! Those peace-luvers, especially Osaka, NEVER wanted to harm
innocent Xtians and Jews! THEY LUV US!
>
> > OK, we were mistaken about Saddam having Nukes, but the
> > Al Queda - Mohammed ATTA clearly wanted to defend Saddam
> > and stop us from bringin him to justice.
>
> But Al Quaeda, whatever that is (a chimera in my opinion) had no
> documented contact with Saddam prior to the Second Gulf War. Saddam
> was a secular despot, with no religious under- or overtones, and had no
> truck with terrorism so far as we can determine. He may have been a 24
> carat, ocean-going shit to his own people, but he was no threat to the
> West.
>
> > There. Its THAT simple.
>
> No, it's not simple.
>
> Will.
Rudy Canoza wrote:
Evidently reproduced without permission from:
http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?next=2&ColumnsName=miv
So I'll only reproduce _brief_ exerps, consistant with fair use
doctrine:
>
>
> The high-end estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths in
> this war is 100,000, according to a Johns Hopkins
> University study published in the British medical
> journal The Lancet last October,
False.
The Lancet study did not estimate 'civilian deaths in this
war'. The Lancet study was an epidemiological study of excess
post-war mortality in Iraq, meaning mortality different
(greater or lesser) than expected from pre-war trends.
Further, the Lancet study estimated the excess mortality
(from memory here) to be approximately between 12,000 and
198,000 for a 95% confidence interval.
...
> According to Human Rights Watch, Hussein killed
> several hundred thousand of his fellow citizens. The
> massacre of the Kurdish Barzani tribe in 1983 killed
> at least 8,000; the infamous gas attack on the
> Kurdish village of Halabja killed 5,000 in 1988; and
> seized documents from Iraqi security organizations
> show 182,000 were murdered during the Anfal ethnic
> cleansing campaign against Kurds, also in 1988.
Got a cite?
Did those specific numbers come from "Human Rghts Watch?"
Was it Human Rights Watch that reported on the seized
documents or someone else?
Given the author's misrepresentation of the Lancet paper,
I'm less than confident in there statements too. Mind
you, I find the numbers credible even though the immediate
source is not...
>
> In 1991, following the first Gulf War, both the
> Kurds and the Shiites rebelled. The allied forces
> did not intervene,
False.
The US and UK, though bound by the cease fire agreement to
NOT intervene, did intervene by creating no fly zones over
Norhtern and Southern Iraq.
IMHO, it was better that we broke our word than it would have
been to keep our word and stand by while the rebels were slaughtered.
One consequence of that intervention was that the Kurds achieved
autonomy in two large enclaves in Northern Iraq, effectively
independent of the Hussein government. Were it not for the
concerns of teh Turkish Government, the US might even have
recognised Iraqi Kurdistan as an independent nation after 1991.
As it stands, the Kurds bring to the current Iraqi government
their experience with Democratic government and as such provide
the best guidance to a peaceful and prosperous Iraq. This is
also ironic as prior to the 2003 invasion Iraqi Kurdistan was
the only part of Iraq hospitable to Al Queda.
> There have been estimates as high as 1 million
> civilians killed by Saddam,
Cite?
> though most agree on the
> 300,000 to 400,000 range,
Cite? (Again, I'm not skeptical of the number, I'm skeptical that
the author obtiained it via any process other than typing it into the
article.)
Are we ready to consolidate this thread into the single newsgroup
most approriate to the subject matter? Nettiquette anyone?
--
FF
Gunner wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2005 11:58:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Further, the Lancet study estimated the excess mortality
> >(from memory here) to be approximately between 12,000 and
> >198,000 for a 95% confidence interval.
>
>
> They were 95% confident that the dead was between 12,000 and 198,000?
>
It's a standard two-sigma confidence interval. As you know from
your education in statistics, the significance is that the entire
two-sigma confidence interval lay to the right of zero. E.g. the
conclusion is that mortality in post-invasion Iraq today is all but
certainly higher than it was in pre-invasion Iraq shortly before the
invasion.
> Now there is a points spread that the bookies would love to take bets
> on....
>
> Snicker
Oh, perhaps you have no education in statistics. Evidently YOUR
opinions are founded in ignorance, stupidity or both.
--
FF
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > As it stands, the Kurds bring to the current Iraqi government
> > their experience with Democratic government and as such provide
> > the best guidance to a peaceful and prosperous Iraq.
>
> Excuse me? What planet are these Kurds from?
Earth.
> These are surely not the same Kurds that are known for the PKK guerilla,
> or who killed off each other en masse based on which Kurd party (KDP or
> PUK) they were supporting? Or who's supporting Jihad through Ansar
> Al-Islam (a splinter group of a National Assembly represented party, and
> responsible for suicide bombings and accused of harboring terrorists).
In fact, they are. Ironic isn't it?
>
> Your democratic Kurds must be well hidden, because I sure can't find
> them.
>
Aren't we the same Americans who provided intelligence and direct
military intervention to support Saddam Hussein in his unprovoked
invasion of Iran?
Do you suppose that simple straightforward morality and basic human
decency, are NOT significant motivating factors for typical
politicians?
> Then again, I don't want to /force/ people into democracy either -- if
> they want something else instead, that should be up to *them*, not us.
>
Problem is, absent Democracy people do NOT get to decide how they
are governed which is not to say that people can be Democratised
at gunpoint, just that living otherwise is _never_ a matter of
_free choice_.
--
FF
The Watcher wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2005 06:55:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
>
> >It's a standard two-sigma confidence interval. As you know from
> >your education in statistics, the significance is that the entire
> >two-sigma confidence interval lay to the right of zero. E.g. the
> >conclusion is that mortality in post-invasion Iraq today is all but
> >certainly higher than it was in pre-invasion Iraq shortly before the
> >invasion.
>
> And that "all but certainly" is based on reliable information from credible
> sources, right. Maybe sources like Baghdad Bob?
False.
First of all, whether through ignorance or dishonesty you
misquote me. "the conclusion is that mortality in post-invasion
Iraq today is all but certainly" is not equivalent to
"all but certainly"
Secondly, the standard interpretation of a two-sigma confidence
interval is independant of Baghdad Bob or anyone else.
Third, Baghdad Bob and his ilk were in custody and not consulted
by the authors of the Lancet paper.
Finally, I made no comment on the accuracy of the author's
sources. I will comment now. They authors derived their
data, IIRC primarily or exclusively by conducting interviews
with rank and file Iraqi citizens, to estblish the dates of
deaths among their friends and family members in recent years.
One bias the authors identified was that for safety reasons
they could not conduct interviews in the areas where
fighting was most intense which would lead to an underestimate
of more recent mortality. OTOH, it has been suggested that
there are cultural influences favoring exaggeration and
emphasis on more recent losses. Deaths between the commencement
of hostilities in 2003 up until sometime after major combat
operations were declared to have been concluded were omitted.
It is not clear to me if the estimated probability distribution
is normal. That is to say that I am not confident that the
often quoted median value of approximately 100,000 is the
most probable.
> Got any good numbers from the
> Democratic Underground? How about something from Michael Moore? I hear h's
> pretty unbiased when it comes to anything dealing with George Bush. :/
> >
No, unlike yourself, I learned something about the subject PRIOR
to commenting on it. You should try it yourself, it might make
you look less like the asshole you so evidently are.
Then again, why emulate Bush by working to deceive your audience?
--
FF
Strabo wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> >Aren't we the same Americans who provided intelligence and direct
> >military intervention to support Saddam Hussein in his unprovoked
> >invasion of Iran?
>
> The same America. Only a relative few Americans were involved.
Rumsfeld and Cheney among them. Though George Shultz says he opposed
military aid for Saddam Hussein and it was the Commerce Department,
not the DOD that convinced Reagan to support Hussein.
>
> >Do you suppose that simple straightforward morality and basic human
> >decency, are NOT significant motivating factors for typical
> >politicians?
>
> I suppose that power corrupts politicians and power trumps
> morality.
Uh huh.
>
> We already know that "democratization" of third world cultures
> is a code word for "instillation of an acceptable dictator",
> one that will accede to American political and commercial
> demands.
In the past, yes. If that is Bush's intent in Iraq today it is
better hidden than in past history. OTOH this administration
may be the most secretive and deceptive in living memory.
--
FF
The Watcher wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2005 10:01:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >The Watcher wrote:
> >> On 21 Jul 2005 06:55:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >It's a standard two-sigma confidence interval. As you know from
> >> >your education in statistics, the significance is that the entire
> >> >two-sigma confidence interval lay to the right of zero. E.g. the
> >> >conclusion is that mortality in post-invasion Iraq today is all but
> >> >certainly higher than it was in pre-invasion Iraq shortly before the
> >> >invasion.
> >>
> >> And that "all but certainly" is based on reliable information from credible
> >> sources, right. Maybe sources like Baghdad Bob?
> >
> >False.
> >
> >First of all, whether through ignorance or dishonesty you
> >misquote me. "the conclusion is that mortality in post-invasion
> >Iraq today is all but certainly" is not equivalent to
> >"all but certainly"
>
> Looks like somebody is being dishonest here, but it isn't me. You accuse me of
> being dishonest by misquoting you. I'd like to examine that claim. I quoted from
> your post above mine, using just 3 words. When I examine the 3 words I quoted,
> it appears that I quoted those 3 words correctly. Let me cut them and paste them
> for comparison purposes here.
>
> Your post all but certainly
>
> My quote all but certainly
>
> Looks like somebody's accusation of an ignorant or dishonest misquote was made
> through ignorance or dishonesty. Which was it?
When an honest person competently quotes another he sees to it that
the context of the matieril is preserved. A dishonest or incompetent
person may present a quote out-of-context so that it does not
accurately reflect what was said.
In the instant case, I explained the objective interpretation of
a two-sigma confidence interval, you extracted and quoted only
three words which created a distorted impression that I had
been preenting a personal opinion about the accuracy of the
result.
>
> >
> >Secondly, the standard interpretation of a two-sigma confidence
> >interval is independant of Baghdad Bob or anyone else.
> >
> >Third, Baghdad Bob and his ilk were in custody and not consulted
> >by the authors of the Lancet paper.
> >
> >Finally, I made no comment on the accuracy of the author's
> >sources. I will comment now. They authors derived their
> >data, IIRC primarily or exclusively by conducting interviews
> >with rank and file Iraqi citizens, to estblish the dates of
> >deaths among their friends and family members in recent years.
> >One bias the authors identified was that for safety reasons
> >they could not conduct interviews in the areas where
> >fighting was most intense which would lead to an underestimate
> >of more recent mortality. OTOH, it has been suggested that
> >there are cultural influences favoring exaggeration and
> >emphasis on more recent losses. Deaths between the commencement
> >of hostilities in 2003 up until sometime after major combat
> >operations were declared to have been concluded were omitted.
>
> In other words, you don't know much about the sources of the numbers, but what
> you DO know makes you confident that they would agree with what you want them to
> say. Big surprise. :/
Evidently your remarks owed more to ignorance than to malice, but
that may be changing now. I suggest you read up on the meaning of
'confidence interval.'
> >
> >It is not clear to me if the estimated probability distribution
> >is normal. That is to say that I am not confident that the
> >often quoted median value of approximately 100,000 is the
> >most probable.
>
> Another big surprise. :/
Why?
--
FF
The Watcher wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2005 10:14:12 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> (snip)
> >> Looks like somebody's accusation of an ignorant or dishonest misquote was made
> >> through ignorance or dishonesty. Which was it?
You misquoted me by omitting what was necessary to understand the
proper context. It was a misquote by omission.
...
>
> So, it still stands that your accusation was wrong. It was NOT a misquote. Yet,
> though ignorance or dishonesty, you chose to present it as one. You didn't
> answer my question earlier. Which one was it?
As noted previously:
Evidently your remarks owed more to ignorance than to malice, but
that may be changing now.
> (snip)
> >Evidently your remarks owed more to ignorance than to malice, but
> >that may be changing now. I suggest you read up on the meaning of
> >'confidence interval.'
>
> And I suggest you get some of that ego removed. Your superiority exists only in
> your imagination.
My advantage was not due to 'superiority' imagined or otherwise.
It was due to a real familiarity with the subject. Someone more
knowledgible in epidemiology could no doubt take exception to some
of what I said and much of how I said it. OTOH, you have not yet
demonstrated that you understood what I said at all.
> >
> >> >
> >> >It is not clear to me if the estimated probability distribution
> >> >is normal. That is to say that I am not confident that the
> >> >often quoted median value of approximately 100,000 is the
> >> >most probable.
> >>
> >> Another big surprise. :/
> >
> >Why?
>
> Because people who go around overestimating themselves often make the same
> mistakes again and again. They ASSume they know more than they do and they try
> to sneak their ASSumptions past other people as facts because they think they're
> so much smarter. Then they keep getting blindsided when their "inferiors" aren't
> fooled by their posing.
Well I'm sure you are relieved that I didn't make THAT mistake.
--
FF
actually it's becoming clearer and clearer ur a stupid fool.
it isn't clear to even you that 9/11 happened WAY before the invasion of
Iraq? your post would be funny if it weren't so sad to know that there are
people like you that believe this crap. The reason we were attacked on 9/11
is because Osama Bin Goatscrewer was emboldened by the lack of response by
Bill Clinton. He had 3 chances to take him and refused 3 times.
Don't the people of Iraq deserve to determine their own destiny by
democratic vote? I think they kinda like that idea. What will really be
fun is watching the trial of Saddam and his ultimate public execution. Then
the Iraqi's will really begin to feel like they are free. As they should be.
God Bless George Bush
a fellow Texan, and a man who tells you what he is going to do and then does
it. How refreshing.
"JB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>It becoming clearer and clearer...
>>
>>The reason we were attacked in New York and Washington
>>was because we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and
>>bring democracy that these suicide bombers hate to pieces.
>>
>>OK, we were mistaken about Saddam having Nukes, but the
>>Al Queda - Mohammed ATTA clearly wanted to defend Saddam
>>and stop us from bringin him to justice.
>>
>>There. Its THAT simple.
>>
>>
> "Oh no, please Mr. Troll, I'm
> only the smallest Billy Goat Gruff. I'm much too tiny for you to eat, and
> I wouldn't taste very good. Why don't you wait for my brother, the second
> Billy Goat Gruff ? He's much bigger than me
> and would be much more tasty. "
>
Tue, Jul 19, 2005, 2:50am (EDT-3) [email protected] the little troll
burbled:
It becoming clearer and clearer... <snip>
Ah yes. To quote: It becoming clearer and clearer...
Just one of the reasons I quit coming around here. Trolls. Not clever,
certainly not literate, can't even get facts straight. Just another
dreary little troll. How sad. And, as was to be expected, the pathetic
little goober just "had" to cross-post this "masterpiece". It wouldn't
be quite so bad if it was even vaguely suggestive of being entertaining
- but it's not. I'm sooo underwhelmed.
JOAT
Blessed are the flexible; for they shall never be bent out of shape.
- Unknown
Thomas wrote:
> actually it's becoming clearer and clearer ur a stupid fool.
> it isn't clear to even you that 9/11 happened WAY before the invasion of
> Iraq? your post would be funny if it weren't so sad to know that there are
> people like you that believe this crap.
Perhaps you didn't see the prequel under George Bush Senior.
--
Rob Bannister
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> There have been estimates as high as 1 million
> civilians killed by Saddam, though most agree on the
> 300,000 to 400,000 range, making my comparison to
> 20,000 civilian dead in this war pathetically wrong.
The 70 m attributed to Mao in the latest book puts all these other
killers in the shade.
--
Rob Bannister
Will wrote:
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > It becoming clearer and clearer...
> >
> > The reason we were attacked in New York and Washington
> > was because we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and
> > bring democracy that these suicide bombers hate to pieces.
>
> Well, no. If you're referring to the attacks on September 11 2001 they
> predate the invasion of Iraq. Of course, you might mean the First Gulf
> War in Kuwait, where Iraq wasn't invaded.
>
> > OK, we were mistaken about Saddam having Nukes, but the
> > Al Queda - Mohammed ATTA clearly wanted to defend Saddam
> > and stop us from bringin him to justice.
>
> But Al Quaeda, whatever that is (a chimera in my opinion) had no
> documented contact with Saddam prior to the Second Gulf War. Saddam
> was a secular despot, with no religious under- or overtones, and had no
> truck with terrorism so far as we can determine. He may have been a 24
> carat, ocean-going shit to his own people, but he was no threat to the
> West.
>
> > There. Its THAT simple.
>
> No, it's not simple.
I have an irony detector I'm willing to sell cheap. Interested?
Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>
> The Watcher wrote:
>
> > A misquote by omission? Did you learn that one from Bill Clinton or do you just
> > re-define words when you feel the urge? You're the new Queen of Hearts, right?
> > Words mean just what you want them to mean, nothing more, nothing less, eh? I
> > guess that answers my question, then. It's a little ignorance mixed with a
> > little dishonesty.
>
> Please cut the crap. You know what you did, and we all know, as well.
> You purposely misrepresented the position of another by selective and
> malicious quotation of three words stripped of their context. That, as
> you well know, is more than "a little dishonesty." It makes you a
> bald-faced liar and deceiver.
He's no scholar, either. The quotation about words comes from Humpty
Dumpty, not the Queen of Hearts, who is best known for "Off with
his/her head!"
[ ... ]
--
Bob Lieblich
Yeccch!
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:01:36 -0400, "Arthur Hagen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thomas <scythicon311@yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Don't the people of Iraq deserve to determine their own destiny by
>> democratic vote?
>
>No, they deserve more than that. They deserve to determine their own
>destiny by whatever means *they* want, whether it be democracy,
>oligarchy or theocracy.
>
>> I think they kinda like that idea.
>
>What matters isn't what *you* think but what *they* think.
>
>> What will really be fun is watching the trial of Saddam and his
>> ultimate public execution.
>
>It's worth noting that more Iraqi civilians have been killed *since* the
>occupation than during the whole time Saddam Hussein ruled there.
It's worth noting, is it? Before I note it, I'd like to know where you get those
figures. Did Saddam Hussein report his Official Slaughter Score to you
personally? Last I heard there wasn't much in the way of record keeping for some
of those mass graves. :/
>Is it
>fair to execute Saddam Hussein and not execute the leaders ultimately
>responsible for that?
Before you can construct an argument on premises, you have to PROVE those
premises. Until you do that, those premises are nothing more than
unsubstantiated opinions.
>Yes, he'll be executed by the marionette regime. That doesn't mean that
>the *people* of Iraq are any happier now than they were then.
>
>> God Bless George Bush
>
>Which god would that be? Theirs, or yours?
Does it matter?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> It becoming clearer and clearer...
>
> The reason we were attacked in New York and Washington
> was because we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and
> bring democracy that these suicide bombers hate to pieces.
>
> OK, we were mistaken about Saddam having Nukes, but the
> Al Queda - Mohammed ATTA clearly wanted to defend Saddam
> and stop us from bringin him to justice.
>
> There. Its THAT simple.
he he he
you've nee reading too many comic books
On 19 Jul 2005 02:50:23 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>It becoming clearer and clearer...
>
>The reason we were attacked in New York and Washington
>was because we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and
>bring democracy that these suicide bombers hate to pieces.
>
>OK, we were mistaken about Saddam having Nukes,
We were? Did you and the mouse in your pocket think he had nukes? Nobody else
was making that claim. They made the claim that he was trying to get nukes. It
really makes you look stupid when you can't even get the little things straight.
People start questioning everything you say then, because they understand that
nothing you post is to be trusted, since you have no credibility. :/
>but the
>Al Queda - Mohammed ATTA clearly wanted to defend Saddam
>and stop us from bringin him to justice.
>
>There. Its THAT simple.
Everything is simple when you are clueless, isn't it?
On 21 Jul 2005 06:55:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>Gunner wrote:
>> On 20 Jul 2005 11:58:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >Further, the Lancet study estimated the excess mortality
>> >(from memory here) to be approximately between 12,000 and
>> >198,000 for a 95% confidence interval.
>>
>>
>> They were 95% confident that the dead was between 12,000 and 198,000?
>>
>
>It's a standard two-sigma confidence interval. As you know from
>your education in statistics, the significance is that the entire
>two-sigma confidence interval lay to the right of zero. E.g. the
>conclusion is that mortality in post-invasion Iraq today is all but
>certainly higher than it was in pre-invasion Iraq shortly before the
>invasion.
And that "all but certainly" is based on reliable information from credible
sources, right. Maybe sources like Baghdad Bob? Got any good numbers from the
Democratic Underground? How about something from Michael Moore? I hear he's
pretty unbiased when it comes to anything dealing with George Bush. :/
>
>> Now there is a points spread that the bookies would love to take bets
>> on....
>>
>> Snicker
>
>Oh, perhaps you have no education in statistics. Evidently YOUR
>opinions are founded in ignorance, stupidity or both.
GIGO applies, as always.
On 21 Jul 2005 10:01:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>The Watcher wrote:
>> On 21 Jul 2005 06:55:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >It's a standard two-sigma confidence interval. As you know from
>> >your education in statistics, the significance is that the entire
>> >two-sigma confidence interval lay to the right of zero. E.g. the
>> >conclusion is that mortality in post-invasion Iraq today is all but
>> >certainly higher than it was in pre-invasion Iraq shortly before the
>> >invasion.
>>
>> And that "all but certainly" is based on reliable information from credible
>> sources, right. Maybe sources like Baghdad Bob?
>
>False.
>
>First of all, whether through ignorance or dishonesty you
>misquote me. "the conclusion is that mortality in post-invasion
>Iraq today is all but certainly" is not equivalent to
>"all but certainly"
Looks like somebody is being dishonest here, but it isn't me. You accuse me of
being dishonest by misquoting you. I'd like to examine that claim. I quoted from
your post above mine, using just 3 words. When I examine the 3 words I quoted,
it appears that I quoted those 3 words correctly. Let me cut them and paste them
for comparison purposes here.
Your post all but certainly
My quote all but certainly
Looks like somebody's accusation of an ignorant or dishonest misquote was made
through ignorance or dishonesty. Which was it?
>
>Secondly, the standard interpretation of a two-sigma confidence
>interval is independant of Baghdad Bob or anyone else.
>
>Third, Baghdad Bob and his ilk were in custody and not consulted
>by the authors of the Lancet paper.
>
>Finally, I made no comment on the accuracy of the author's
>sources. I will comment now. They authors derived their
>data, IIRC primarily or exclusively by conducting interviews
>with rank and file Iraqi citizens, to estblish the dates of
>deaths among their friends and family members in recent years.
>One bias the authors identified was that for safety reasons
>they could not conduct interviews in the areas where
>fighting was most intense which would lead to an underestimate
>of more recent mortality. OTOH, it has been suggested that
>there are cultural influences favoring exaggeration and
>emphasis on more recent losses. Deaths between the commencement
>of hostilities in 2003 up until sometime after major combat
>operations were declared to have been concluded were omitted.
In other words, you don't know much about the sources of the numbers, but what
you DO know makes you confident that they would agree with what you want them to
say. Big surprise. :/
>
>It is not clear to me if the estimated probability distribution
>is normal. That is to say that I am not confident that the
>often quoted median value of approximately 100,000 is the
>most probable.
Another big surprise. :/
>
>
>> Got any good numbers from the
>> Democratic Underground? How about something from Michael Moore? I hear h's
>> pretty unbiased when it comes to anything dealing with George Bush. :/
>> >
>
>No, unlike yourself, I learned something about the subject PRIOR
>to commenting on it. You should try it yourself, it might make
>you look less like the asshole you so evidently are.
Too bad you didn't learn something about removing your BIAS prior to commenting.
Your bias is obvious. Anyway, I doubt it would help you look less like the
asshole you so evidently are.
>
>Then again, why emulate Bush by working to deceive your audience?
Works for you, doesn't it? Eschew obfuscation. :/
On 22 Jul 2005 10:14:12 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
(snip)
>> Looks like somebody's accusation of an ignorant or dishonest misquote was made
>> through ignorance or dishonesty. Which was it?
>
>When an honest person competently quotes another he sees to it that
>the context of the matieril is preserved. A dishonest or incompetent
>person may present a quote out-of-context so that it does not
>accurately reflect what was said.
>
>In the instant case, I explained the objective interpretation of
>a two-sigma confidence interval, you extracted and quoted only
>three words which created a distorted impression that I had
>been preenting a personal opinion about the accuracy of the
>result.
So, it still stands that your accusation was wrong. It was NOT a misquote. Yet,
though ignorance or dishonesty, you chose to present it as one. You didn't
answer my question earlier. Which one was it?
(snip)
>Evidently your remarks owed more to ignorance than to malice, but
>that may be changing now. I suggest you read up on the meaning of
>'confidence interval.'
And I suggest you get some of that ego removed. Your superiority exists only in
your imagination.
>
>> >
>> >It is not clear to me if the estimated probability distribution
>> >is normal. That is to say that I am not confident that the
>> >often quoted median value of approximately 100,000 is the
>> >most probable.
>>
>> Another big surprise. :/
>
>Why?
Because people who go around overestimating themselves often make the same
mistakes again and again. They ASSume they know more than they do and they try
to sneak their ASSumptions past other people as facts because they think they're
so much smarter. Then they keep getting blindsided when their "inferiors" aren't
fooled by their posing.
On 22 Jul 2005 13:43:40 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>The Watcher wrote:
>> On 22 Jul 2005 10:14:12 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>> >> Looks like somebody's accusation of an ignorant or dishonest misquote was made
>> >> through ignorance or dishonesty. Which was it?
>
>You misquoted me by omitting what was necessary to understand the
>proper context. It was a misquote by omission.
A misquote by omission? Did you learn that one from Bill Clinton or do you just
re-define words when you feel the urge? You're the new Queen of Hearts, right?
Words mean just what you want them to mean, nothing more, nothing less, eh? I
guess that answers my question, then. It's a little ignorance mixed with a
little dishonesty.
>
>...
>>
>> So, it still stands that your accusation was wrong. It was NOT a misquote. Yet,
>> though ignorance or dishonesty, you chose to present it as one. You didn't
>> answer my question earlier. Which one was it?
>
>As noted previously:
>
>Evidently your remarks owed more to ignorance than to malice, but
>that may be changing now.
>
>> (snip)
>> >Evidently your remarks owed more to ignorance than to malice, but
>> >that may be changing now. I suggest you read up on the meaning of
>> >'confidence interval.'
>>
>> And I suggest you get some of that ego removed. Your superiority exists only in
>> your imagination.
>
>My advantage was not due to 'superiority' imagined or otherwise.
>It was due to a real familiarity with the subject. Someone more
>knowledgible in epidemiology could no doubt take exception to some
>of what I said and much of how I said it. OTOH, you have not yet
>demonstrated that you understood what I said at all.
I understood it well enough to know that it meant they didn't know how many
people died before Hussein was removed from power, and they're just guessing. Is
that demonstration enough for you? I see you still haven't learned your lesson
and you continue to ASSume you know more than you do. Something tells me that's
a life-long habit for you.
>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >It is not clear to me if the estimated probability distribution
>> >> >is normal. That is to say that I am not confident that the
>> >> >often quoted median value of approximately 100,000 is the
>> >> >most probable.
>> >>
>> >> Another big surprise. :/
>> >
>> >Why?
>>
>> Because people who go around overestimating themselves often make the same
>> mistakes again and again. They ASSume they know more than they do and they try
>> to sneak their ASSumptions past other people as facts because they think they're
>> so much smarter. Then they keep getting blindsided when their "inferiors" aren't
>> fooled by their posing.
>
>Well I'm sure you are relieved that I didn't make THAT mistake.
I would be if you didn't.
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:50:00 GMT, Martin Ambuhl <[email protected]> wrote:
>The Watcher wrote:
>
>> A misquote by omission? Did you learn that one from Bill Clinton or do you just
>> re-define words when you feel the urge? You're the new Queen of Hearts, right?
>> Words mean just what you want them to mean, nothing more, nothing less, eh? I
>> guess that answers my question, then. It's a little ignorance mixed with a
>> little dishonesty.
>
>Please cut the crap. You know what you did, and we all know, as well.
>You purposely misrepresented the position of another by selective and
>malicious quotation of three words stripped of their context.
Ah, so now quoting somebody is MISQUOTING them? Truth becomes lies. George
Orwell would be proud. Bill Clinton would be honored with the followers.
>That, as
>you well know, is more than "a little dishonesty." It makes you a
>bald-faced liar and deceiver.
I well know when someone says something is a MISQUOTATION and it says EXACTLY
what the original person posted, that makes the claims of it being a
misquotation a bald-faced lie and a deceiver. So far the bald-faced liar and
deceiver hasn't had the guts to admit his dishonesty. He's still trying to
Clinton his way through by re-defining misquotation. Did he call for your help?
>
>Your second sentence is supposed, I guess, to be troll-bait for any
>moderate Democrats or Republicans who remember when Clinton's politics
>would have been main-stream Republicanism. What it really is is an
>embarrassment to any of our several Republican partisans in AUE. The
>thought that your crass swinishness would wrap itself up in the what
>appears to be Republican clothing must turn their stomachs.
I don't care about either party, since I don't play that game. Never been a
member of either of them.
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 05:25:06 -0400, Robert Lieblich
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>>
>> The Watcher wrote:
>>
>> > A misquote by omission? Did you learn that one from Bill Clinton or do you just
>> > re-define words when you feel the urge? You're the new Queen of Hearts, right?
>> > Words mean just what you want them to mean, nothing more, nothing less, eh? I
>> > guess that answers my question, then. It's a little ignorance mixed with a
>> > little dishonesty.
>>
>> Please cut the crap. You know what you did, and we all know, as well.
>> You purposely misrepresented the position of another by selective and
>> malicious quotation of three words stripped of their context. That, as
>> you well know, is more than "a little dishonesty." It makes you a
>> bald-faced liar and deceiver.
>
>He's no scholar, either. The quotation about words comes from Humpty
>Dumpty, not the Queen of Hearts, who is best known for "Off with
>his/her head!"
Ooh, so I got the source wrong. Still got the facts correct. A lie is still a
lie, no matter how it's wrapped up or "re-defined". No need to be a scholar to
tell when somebody lies about the facts. That's one of the nice things about
Usenet. The lies don't just go away. They hang around for everybody to see.
On 20 Jul 2005 11:58:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>Further, the Lancet study estimated the excess mortality
>(from memory here) to be approximately between 12,000 and
>198,000 for a 95% confidence interval.
They were 95% confident that the dead was between 12,000 and 198,000?
Now there is a points spread that the bookies would love to take bets
on....
Snicker
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
On 19 Jul 2005 03:21:21 -0700, "Will"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> It becoming clearer and clearer...
>>
>> The reason we were attacked in New York and Washington
>> was because we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and
>> bring democracy that these suicide bombers hate to pieces.
>
>Well, no. If you're referring to the attacks on September 11 2001 they
>predate the invasion of Iraq. Of course, you might mean the First Gulf
>War in Kuwait, where Iraq wasn't invaded.
Yes, Iraq was invaded.
>> OK, we were mistaken about Saddam having Nukes, but the
>> Al Queda - Mohammed ATTA clearly wanted to defend Saddam
>> and stop us from bringin him to justice.
>
>But Al Quaeda, whatever that is (a chimera in my opinion) had no
>documented contact with Saddam prior to the Second Gulf War. Saddam
>was a secular despot, with no religious under- or overtones, and had no
>truck with terrorism so far as we can determine. He may have been a 24
>carat, ocean-going shit to his own people, but he was no threat to the
>West.
That is highly debatable.
>> There. Its THAT simple.
>
>No, it's not simple.
No, it's not.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> It becoming clearer and clearer...
>
> The reason we were attacked in New York and Washington
> was because we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and
> bring democracy that these suicide bombers hate to pieces.
>
> OK, we were mistaken about Saddam having Nukes, but the
> Al Queda - Mohammed ATTA clearly wanted to defend Saddam
> and stop us from bringin him to justice.
>
> There. Its THAT simple.
It would almost have to be for the average American to wrap their mind
around it...why not just say "God's Will"...it will make your head hurt
less.
Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> The Watcher wrote:
>
>> A misquote by omission? Did you learn that one from Bill Clinton or do
>> you just re-define words when you feel the urge? You're the new Queen of
>> Hearts, right? Words mean just what you want them to mean, nothing more,
>> nothing less, eh?
Humpty Dumpty.
>> I guess that answers my question, then. It's a little
>> ignorance mixed with a little dishonesty.
More than a little ignorance on your part. But I'm willing to suppose that
you think you believe your errors.
Arthur Hagen, credulous lying SCUM, wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>As it stands, the Kurds bring to the current Iraqi government
>>their experience with Democratic government and as such provide
>>the best guidance to a peaceful and prosperous Iraq.
>
>
> Excuse me? [...]
Listen, Artie - you need to retract your HORSESHIT
claim about the number of Iraqi civilians killed since
the invasion exceeding those killed in the entire 24
year Saddam despotism. Until then, keep your FUCKING
mouth shut about other issues.
READ the post, Artie, you cheap fat fuck, then issue
your retraction.
[email protected] wrote:
>It becoming clearer and clearer...
>
>The reason we were attacked in New York and Washington
>was because we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and
>bring democracy that these suicide bombers hate to pieces.
>
>OK, we were mistaken about Saddam having Nukes, but the
>Al Queda - Mohammed ATTA clearly wanted to defend Saddam
>and stop us from bringin him to justice.
>
>There. Its THAT simple.
>
>
>
"Oh no, please Mr. Troll, I'm
only the smallest Billy Goat Gruff.
I'm much too tiny for you to eat,
and I wouldn't taste very good.
Why don't you wait for my brother,
the second Billy Goat Gruff ?
He's much bigger than me
and would be much more tasty. "
Thomas <scythicon311@yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Don't the people of Iraq deserve to determine their own destiny by
> democratic vote?
No, they deserve more than that. They deserve to determine their own
destiny by whatever means *they* want, whether it be democracy,
oligarchy or theocracy.
> I think they kinda like that idea.
What matters isn't what *you* think but what *they* think.
> What will really be fun is watching the trial of Saddam and his
> ultimate public execution.
It's worth noting that more Iraqi civilians have been killed *since* the
occupation than during the whole time Saddam Hussein ruled there. Is it
fair to execute Saddam Hussein and not execute the leaders ultimately
responsible for that?
Yes, he'll be executed by the marionette regime. That doesn't mean that
the *people* of Iraq are any happier now than they were then.
> God Bless George Bush
Which god would that be? Theirs, or yours?
--
*Art
[email protected] wrote:
>
> As it stands, the Kurds bring to the current Iraqi government
> their experience with Democratic government and as such provide
> the best guidance to a peaceful and prosperous Iraq.
Excuse me? What planet are these Kurds from?
These are surely not the same Kurds that are known for the PKK guerilla,
or who killed off each other en masse based on which Kurd party (KDP or
PUK) they were supporting? Or who's supporting Jihad through Ansar
Al-Islam (a splinter group of a National Assembly represented party, and
responsible for suicide bombings and accused of harboring terrorists).
Your democratic Kurds must be well hidden, because I sure can't find
them.
Then again, I don't want to /force/ people into democracy either -- if
they want something else instead, that should be up to *them*, not us.
Regards,
--
*Art
Arthur Hagen, credulous SCUM, wrote:
> Thomas <scythicon311@yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>Don't the people of Iraq deserve to determine their own destiny by
>>democratic vote?
>
>
> No, they deserve more than that. They deserve to determine their own
> destiny by whatever means *they* want, whether it be democracy,
> oligarchy or theocracy.
>
>
>>I think they kinda like that idea.
>
>
> What matters isn't what *you* think but what *they* think.
>
>
>>What will really be fun is watching the trial of Saddam and his
>>ultimate public execution.
>
>
> It's worth noting that more Iraqi civilians have been killed *since* the
> occupation than during the whole time Saddam Hussein ruled there.
That's a lie. Even Mullah Molly Ivins (bleagh)
corrected herself after *wrongly* saying the same
thing. Read this, douchebag, then issue your retraction:
CROW EATEN HERE: This is a horror. In a column
written June 28, I asserted that more Iraqis
(civilians) had now been killed in this war than had
been killed by Saddam Hussein over his 24-year rule.
WRONG. Really, really wrong.
The only problem is figuring out by how large a
factor I was wrong. I had been keeping an eye on
civilian deaths in Iraq for a couple of months,
waiting for the most conservative estimates to creep
over 20,000, which I had fixed in my mind as the
number of Iraqi civilians Saddam had killed.
The high-end estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths in
this war is 100,000, according to a Johns Hopkins
University study published in the British medical
journal The Lancet last October, but I was sticking
to the low-end, most conservative estimates because
I didn't want to be accused of exaggeration.
Ha! I could hardly have been more wrong, no matter
how you count Saddam's killing of civilians.
According to Human Rights Watch, Hussein killed
several hundred thousand of his fellow citizens. The
massacre of the Kurdish Barzani tribe in 1983 killed
at least 8,000; the infamous gas attack on the
Kurdish village of Halabja killed 5,000 in 1988; and
seized documents from Iraqi security organizations
show 182,000 were murdered during the Anfal ethnic
cleansing campaign against Kurds, also in 1988.
In 1991, following the first Gulf War, both the
Kurds and the Shiites rebelled. The allied forces
did not intervene, and Saddam brutally suppressed
both uprisings and drained the southern marshes that
had been home to a local population for more than
5,000 years.
Saddam's regime left 271 mass graves, with more
still being discovered. That figure alone was the
source for my original mistaken estimate of 20,000.
Saddam's widespread use of systematic torture,
including rape, has been verified by the U.N.
Committee on Human Rights and other human rights
groups over the years.
There are wildly varying estimates of the number of
civilians, especially babies and young children, who
died as a result of the sanctions that followed the
Gulf War. While it is true that the ill-advised
sanctions were put in place by the United Nations, I
do not see that that lessens Hussein's moral
culpability, whatever blame attaches to the
sanctions themselves -- particularly since Saddam
promptly corrupted the Oil for Food Program put in
place to mitigate the effects of the sanctions, and
used the proceeds to build more palaces, etc.
There have been estimates as high as 1 million
civilians killed by Saddam, though most agree on the
300,000 to 400,000 range, making my comparison to
20,000 civilian dead in this war pathetically wrong.
http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?next=2&ColumnsName=miv
You're a lying, gutless shitbag, Artie. Fuck you sideways.
On 19 Jul 2005 03:21:21 -0700, "Will" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> It becoming clearer and clearer...
>>
>> The reason we were attacked in New York and Washington
>> was because we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and
>> bring democracy that these suicide bombers hate to pieces.
>
>Well, no. If you're referring to the attacks on September 11 2001 they
>predate the invasion of Iraq. Of course, you might mean the First Gulf
>War in Kuwait, where Iraq wasn't invaded.
Whoosh!
>> OK, we were mistaken about Saddam having Nukes, but the
>> Al Queda - Mohammed ATTA clearly wanted to defend Saddam
>> and stop us from bringin him to justice.
>
>But Al Quaeda, whatever that is (a chimera in my opinion) had no
>documented contact with Saddam prior to the Second Gulf War. Saddam
>was a secular despot, with no religious under- or overtones, and had no
>truck with terrorism so far as we can determine. He may have been a 24
>carat, ocean-going shit to his own people, but he was no threat to the
>West.
Whoosh!
>> There. Its THAT simple.
>
>No, it's not simple.
Whoosh!
--
Charles Riggs
On 21 Jul 2005 09:27:14 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>Gunner wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Actually I dont have any education in Stats. My opinion though is
>> based on education in other fields, ...
>
>Which you decline to identify. One wonders why, perhaps because they
>are not relevant to understanding the Lancet Paper?
Oh..I understand the Lancet. Im an engineer btw.
Sole owner of Coyote Engineering.
Which means that Ive got practical experience in the real world in
determining if a mechanical device will take 1 fastener, or 198,000
fasteners, and what the likely hood of it doing so really is.
Tell you what..Im 95% confident that you have between 2 and 198,000
testicles.
So..this means what exactly in the grand scheme of things?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:31:59 -0700, George G <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why does everyone say, WE were wrong about the WMD. There is only one
> man to blame !!!
And who would that be, exactly?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."- Rep. Nancy
Pelosi (D-CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."- Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI),
Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long
as Saddam is in power."- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sept.
27, 2002
and on, and on, and on. So which one person are you saying is
resonsible, exactly?
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:01:36 -0400, "Arthur Hagen"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>It's worth noting that more Iraqi civilians have been killed *since* the
>occupation than during the whole time Saddam Hussein ruled there. Is it
>fair to execute Saddam Hussein and not execute the leaders ultimately
>responsible for that?
We are trying really hard to kill them. And sooner or later will get
em all.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
In article <[email protected]>,
"Will" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > It becoming clearer and clearer...
> >
> > The reason we were attacked in New York and Washington
> > was because we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam and
> > bring democracy that these suicide bombers hate to pieces.
>
> Well, no. If you're referring to the attacks on September 11 2001 they
> predate the invasion of Iraq. Of course, you might mean the First Gulf
> War in Kuwait, where Iraq wasn't invaded.
>
> > OK, we were mistaken about Saddam having Nukes, but the
> > Al Queda - Mohammed ATTA clearly wanted to defend Saddam
> > and stop us from bringin him to justice.
>
> But Al Quaeda, whatever that is (a chimera in my opinion) had no
> documented contact with Saddam prior to the Second Gulf War. Saddam
> was a secular despot, with no religious under- or overtones, and had no
> truck with terrorism so far as we can determine. He may have been a 24
> carat, ocean-going shit to his own people, but he was no threat to the
> West.
>
> > There. Its THAT simple.
>
> No, it's not simple.
>
> Will.
>
You are behind the times. It is IRAN that caused 911, is hiding Osama
BL and is thinking of making WMDs so we have to invade them soon. The
CIA has proof positive photos of all this that they might release after
we invade. Probably need a draft first ;)
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
In Re: 911 happened because of IRAQ on 21 Jul 2005 07:05:02
-0700, by [email protected], we read:
>
>
>Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> > As it stands, the Kurds bring to the current Iraqi government
>> > their experience with Democratic government and as such provide
>> > the best guidance to a peaceful and prosperous Iraq.
>>
>> Excuse me? What planet are these Kurds from?
>
>Earth.
>
>> These are surely not the same Kurds that are known for the PKK guerilla,
>> or who killed off each other en masse based on which Kurd party (KDP or
>> PUK) they were supporting? Or who's supporting Jihad through Ansar
>> Al-Islam (a splinter group of a National Assembly represented party, and
>> responsible for suicide bombings and accused of harboring terrorists).
>
>In fact, they are. Ironic isn't it?
>
>>
>> Your democratic Kurds must be well hidden, because I sure can't find
>> them.
>>
>
>Aren't we the same Americans who provided intelligence and direct
>military intervention to support Saddam Hussein in his unprovoked
>invasion of Iran?
The same America. Only a relative few Americans were involved.
>Do you suppose that simple straightforward morality and basic human
>decency, are NOT significant motivating factors for typical
>politicians?
I suppose that power corrupts politicians and power trumps
morality.
>> Then again, I don't want to /force/ people into democracy either -- if
>> they want something else instead, that should be up to *them*, not us.
>>
>
>Problem is, absent Democracy people do NOT get to decide how they
>are governed which is not to say that people can be Democratised
>at gunpoint, just that living otherwise is _never_ a matter of
>_free choice_.
You are correct that people cannot be "Democratized" at gunpoint.
You are incorrect to assume that western democracy is a panacea.
We already know that "democratization" of third world cultures
is a code word for "instillation of an acceptable dictator",
one that will accede to American political and commercial
demands. This predictable condition is not just by design.
It is the natural occurrance of creating a power vacuum
within a society that has no basis for self-government.
Power will readily flow to the nearest, most conveniently
placed strongman.
Your statement exemplifies a narrow and near-sighted western
perspective.
The democratic nation state with it's centralized bureacracy,
state controlled legal and property management, and confiscatory
economic system, is alien to tribal customs, culture and
traditions. Western notions of central command and control
and a reliance on technology, is the antithesis of
self-sustainable agrarian societies.
Every attempt to force this fit has proved disasterous. The
Shah's despotic hold over Iran and Saddam's regime, are just
two recent examples.
In Africa whole cultures with generations of traditional
knowledge-holders were lost resulting in today's near-total
dependency on western handouts.
The thinly concealed oligarchy known as democracy is alien to
every culture on the planet save some of those derived from
Europe.
The best foreign policy for America and Europe, the moral policy,
should be hands off.
The Watcher wrote:
> A misquote by omission? Did you learn that one from Bill Clinton or do you just
> re-define words when you feel the urge? You're the new Queen of Hearts, right?
> Words mean just what you want them to mean, nothing more, nothing less, eh? I
> guess that answers my question, then. It's a little ignorance mixed with a
> little dishonesty.
Please cut the crap. You know what you did, and we all know, as well.
You purposely misrepresented the position of another by selective and
malicious quotation of three words stripped of their context. That, as
you well know, is more than "a little dishonesty." It makes you a
bald-faced liar and deceiver.
Your second sentence is supposed, I guess, to be troll-bait for any
moderate Democrats or Republicans who remember when Clinton's politics
would have been main-stream Republicanism. What it really is is an
embarrassment to any of our several Republican partisans in AUE. The
thought that your crass swinishness would wrap itself up in the what
appears to be Republican clothing must turn their stomachs.
On 21 Jul 2005 06:55:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>Gunner wrote:
>> On 20 Jul 2005 11:58:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >Further, the Lancet study estimated the excess mortality
>> >(from memory here) to be approximately between 12,000 and
>> >198,000 for a 95% confidence interval.
>>
>>
>> They were 95% confident that the dead was between 12,000 and 198,000?
>>
>
>It's a standard two-sigma confidence interval. As you know from
>your education in statistics, the significance is that the entire
>two-sigma confidence interval lay to the right of zero. E.g. the
>conclusion is that mortality in post-invasion Iraq today is all but
>certainly higher than it was in pre-invasion Iraq shortly before the
>invasion.
>
>> Now there is a points spread that the bookies would love to take bets
>> on....
>>
>> Snicker
>
>Oh, perhaps you have no education in statistics. Evidently YOUR
>opinions are founded in ignorance, stupidity or both.
Actually I dont have any education in Stats. My opinion though is
based on education in other fields, fields which you appear to be
woefully ignorant, or stupid in. Or both.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:35:23 -0500, "Thomas"
<scythicon311@yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> What will really be
>fun is watching the trial of Saddam and his ultimate public execution. Then
>the Iraqi's will really begin to feel like they are free. As they should be.
>God Bless George Bush
>a fellow Texan, and a man who tells you what he is going to do and then does
>it. How refreshing.
If ever there was a jerk-off just begging to be plonked, this be one.
*Plonk*
--
Charles Riggs