 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Libs....get your numbers straight....
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:21 AM "I'm sure that if I met nubby that I would enjoy being in his company..." Nubby???....Susu, what have you been telling these people? Hubby ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:57 AM Bless you, susu. I'm sure that if I met nubby that I would enjoy being in his company... I've been told I'm a purdy funny guy, too... No, not funny, but funny... And a big 10-4 on the folks who go to church every Sunday who don't get it... Yeah, one's relationship with the Big Guy and His Son ain't a one day a week thing... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: number 6 Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:46 AM LH .... I'm doing fine thank you. :) Good post up above .... I'm with ya on that ! no more to be said from me in this thread. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: susu Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:13 AM I respect that Bobert, and I too go to church every Sunday, I sing in the choir and all that stuff and I do know what you meant by "If you are of Faith then you know what I mean..." and so I am not directing this statement at you, but you have to agree, there are alot of people who go to church every Sunday and do "all the right things" for all the wrong reasons. Again I do not think that you are one of them or you wouldn't have said "...then you know what I mean" I want you to continue to state your opinions and not let Hubby get you too riled up. He is just as passionate about his beliefs as you are, and truly wants to understand where other people are coming from, as he just doesn't get it. He is actully a funny guy and I think if you meet him in some other way you would have actually become friends, funny huh? I also want to say that I enjoy reading your posts as well as many others who post on the cat. I just get sad when people start name calling, including Hubby, if he has, I don't think he means anything by it he just gets caught up in it all like you all do. Talk to you later? Susu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:52 PM Ahhhhh, as to yer Faith, susu, that is between you an' the Big Guy. If you are of Faith then you know what I mean... I am a Christian. I go to church every Sunday and do what I can for the church. My wife, the infamous P-Vine, has sung in church choirs for the last 30 years... Yeah, I know I have been hard on yer hubby and will continue to do so as long as he preaches thre same ol' fundamentalist stuff that he has been preachin 'round this joint which, IMHO, ain't got not one thing to with the teachings of Jesus... Like I said, MO.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:44 PM A real Christian would be someone who followed Jesus' teachings and example, right? Now if we can all just agree on WHAT Jesus' teachings and example actually WERE... :-) I've got my own ideas about it, that's for sure. That makes me, in my own eyes, someone who is at least attempting to be a "real Christian", I suppose, although...I am also attempting to be a real Taoist, a real Buddhist, and so on...(given that there is a common thread of wisdom running through all the great religions). I'm attempting to be a real HUMAN BEING. I don't figure it has ANYTHING to do with churches or with belonging to a church. It has to do with following the example set by the greatest inspired teachers, such as Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, etc. That means: Love the Lord God (or whatever you wish to call It) with all your mind, all your heart, and all your strength. Love your neigbour as you love yourself. Forgive people. Be merciful. Come to the aid of those in need and defend the helpless. Strive for perfection. Do not judge the mote in your brother's eye while ignoring the beam in your own. And so on... How are we all doing? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: susu Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:38 PM P.S. And since Guilda is on as a guest I was not able to PM her and do it privately otherwise I would have takn that route first. Susu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: susu Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:34 PM Well thank you Guilda for enlightening me to the fact that I am not a real Christian, it is wonderful that someone who doesn't even know me can say what is in my heart. I wouldn't even do that about people I know personally, as only God can say if someone is truly a Christian or not. You do not know me so do me a favor and do not judge me, as I do not judge you. Sorry to everyone that this has absolutely nothing to do with this thread but I reserve the right to defend myself, and those I care for. Take Care, Susu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,Guilda Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:22 PM Script not cript....heehee. Guess I am just as dumb as some....nighty night y'all |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,Guilda Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:20 PM The real Christians are a rare breed Carol......the others Talk the Talk but rarely practice what they Preach... Good to know that the Guy with NO identity other than someone's Hubby is having a night off from being a mouth piece though. Now we know were he gets his cript....yawn |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:05 PM Yes, LH. This thread does seem to have been started specifically for the purpose of lableing people and then bashing them over the head with those lables. Not much light... plenty of heat. NO attempts whatever to behave like the true Christians some on the thread have claimed to be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:52 PM Huh? Have I missed another chance here to squander a couple more hours of my life on a political discussion that goes nowhere and changes no one's opinion about anything? :-) How goes it, Doug? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: susu Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:48 PM Brucie, I was surprised that you remembered I was part of a duo; that made me feel good. I think Hubby must have made his point effectively and scared all the liberals off, and onto Boberts thread, oh well! I have found that a similar thing happens when people get convicted in their hearts when Christians speak the truth. I enjoy reading a lot of the posts that many of you place on the cat, and I find this type of thread somewhat refreshing. I am actually very proud to be married to Hubby as things are always interesting. As for those who think the way he is responding to you is abusive, I have never known him to be abusive and I did not see anything about any of his posts to be such. I think that some people should refrain form political debates if they are going to wear their hearts on their sleeves. I don't know, maybe I am just too callous to care, no that isn't it… for if I was insensitive, I would not cry every time I ponder on Sept. 11. It strikes me as sad that so many people not only bashed Hubby, but also EMAILED me about their opinions and how sorry they felt for me as well as a few choice hateful things to me, and about hubby. Do not feel sorry for me, as he is a wonderful husband, and the best dad my kids could have ever asked for (he is their step-dad, but they refer to him as their "real dad" and their biological father as "the sperm donor") He stepped in and saved not only them, but me as well. Ask him, they are HIS children. He wants what is best for their future, and that is why he has the political views that he has. I cannot speak for any of you as to whether or not you cry at the thought of what happened on Sept. 11, but you know what? He does. He does not blindly follow G.W. like many of you think, there are things he disagrees with, but being patriotic he supports his president, even when it was Clinton, and others from our era, he tries to find the positive in each incumbent, can you say the same? Susu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Once Famous Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:31 PM Susu's Hubby, my hat is off to you! I couldn't have started a better post myself. Bobert's idea of class is starting 15-25 threads a week ridiculing the President and ripping this country. His own class is up his ass. Great job, hubby. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:22 PM CarolC, That is a point with facts on both sides of the issue, and well worth a thread of its own. I am not saying that you are not right- the US DOES have responsibilities that were not adaquately performed in this case. However, we are now supposed to wait for the "infinately more comapssionate, wise and intellegent..." folks here to tell us what to think, and what facts are permissable to be discussed. We can talk once you have permission from the powers that be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:14 PM Welcome, Freda. Shooting the content down because it might have associations with socialism jus' don't cut it for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:12 PM As forces of an occupying power they should urgently take measures to enforce law and order in the areas under their control, specifically by preventing acts of pillage, destruction, and violence to persons I have to agree with that one. Too bad the US forces wouldn't allow the civilians of Fallujah to leave before they started bombing it (they "claimed" that there were no civilians there at the time... obviously the bodies of the dead families tell a different story). Since they did not take this measure to protect the civilian population of Fallujah before they started shelling, the US forces and the US government are in violation of this part of the UN mandate as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:11 PM As interesting as the article is the list of people who signed it. Wow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: freda underhill Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:09 PM thanks bruce. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:07 PM http://www.vicpeace.org/stories/05/1134.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:06 PM DougR, please see my 20 Mar 05 - 06:50 PM post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: artbrooks Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:00 PM Interesting article, Freda...direct copy from the World Socialist Organization web site, isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: DougR Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:55 PM Thank you BB. That looks like a credible resource to me. Carol C. You? Frank? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:50 PM My point, beardedbruce, is that some people don't agree with the premise that the US has any right to be in Iraq as an occupying power in the first place. And without that right, there is no mandate from the UN for putting down insurgencies or doing anthing else, for that matter. I know you and I have hashed that one out a time or two, and I know you are not one of the people who see things in that way, but that is how some people look at it. And for those who do, the blood of the families who were killed by US forces in Fallujah is entirely on the hands of the US government. I'll check out the stuff in your links, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: freda underhill Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:50 PM what is an expert? nowadays, its someone with letters after their name who will justify your cause. Forty-three Australian experts in international law and human rights legislation have issued a declaration that an invasion of Iraq will be an open breach of international law and a crime against humanity, even if it takes place with the authorisation of the UN Security Council. The statement concisely argues that any Australian participation in a war on Iraq—as part of the Bush administration's "coalition of the willing"—will make the government of Prime Minister John Howard and Australian military personnel liable for prosecution in the International Criminal Court. Submitted as an open letter to Australian newspapers and published yesterday by the Sydney Morning Herald, the signatories include Professor Chris Sidoti of the Human Rights Council of Australia; Sir Ronald Wilson, a former High Court judge and the President of the Human Rights Commission; Simon Rice, the president of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights; the directors of several university centres for human rights law; prominent barristers; and lecturers at Australia's most prestigious law schools. The legal experts reject outright the justifications for war being made by the American, British and Australian governments as a violation of the UN Charter, under which there are only two grounds for the use of force in international conflicts. As they explained: "The first, enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allows force to be used in self-defence. The attack must be actual or imminent. "The second basis is when the UN Security Council authorises the use of force as a collective response to the use or threat of force. However, the Security Council is bound by the terms of the UN Charter and can authorise the use of force only if there is evidence that there is an actual threat to the peace (in this case, by Iraq) and that this threat cannot be averted by any means short of force (such as negotiation and further weapons inspections)." Having outlined the legal basis for war, the declaration concluded: "Members of the 'coalition of the willing', including Australia, have not yet presented any persuasive arguments that an invasion of Iraq can be justified at international law." Moreover, as the authors pointed out, the doctrine of "pre-emptive strike" elaborated by the Bush administration represents a fundamental repudiation of the UN Charter. "This doctrine contradicts the cardinal principle of the modern international legal order and the primary rationale for the founding of the UN after World War II—the prohibition of the unilateral use of force to settle disputes. "The weak and ambiguous evidence presented to the international community by the US Secretary of State Colin Powell to justify a pre-emptive strike underlines the danger of a doctrine of pre-emption. A principle of pre-emption would allow particular national agendas to completely destroy the system of collective security contained in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and return us to the pre-1945 era, where might equaled right." In fact, although the lawyers chose not to raise the issue, the indictment of the German Nazi leaders at the 1945-1949 Nuremberg War Crimes Trials was precisely for carrying out preemptive military strikes against neighbouring countries. They were tried and convicted of "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances". The letter goes on to note that there is a "further legal dimension" that would form the basis for a war crimes indictment of those responsible for any invasion of Iraq—the likely extent of Iraqi civilian casualties: "Even if the use of force can be justified, international humanitarian law places significant limits on the means and methods of warfare. "The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their 1977 protocols set out some of these limits: for example, the prohibitions on targeting civilian populations and civilian infrastructure and causing extensive destruction of property not justified by military objectives. Intentionally launching an attack knowing that it will cause 'incidental' loss of life or injury to civilians 'which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated' constitutes a war crime at international law." The international media has already carried a number of reports of the "shock and awe" tactics that the US military intends to use to intimidate and terrorise the Iraqi military and population into submission. These include the destruction of power plants, electricity grids, sewerage treatment facilities, water reservoirs, bridges and roads. Washington has specifically warned that it has not ruled out the use of nuclear weapons. The letter concluded: "The military objective of disarming Iraq could not justify widespread harm to the Iraqi population, over half of whom are under the age of 15. The use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive attack would seem to fall squarely within the definition of a war crime... "Estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq suggest that up to quarter of a million people may die as a result of an attack using conventional weapons and many more will suffer homelessness, malnutrition and other serious health and environmental consequences in its aftermath. From what we know of the likely civilian devastation caused by the coalition's war strategies, there are strong arguments that attacking Iraq may involve committing both war crimes and crimes against humanity." The fact that 43 eminent members of Australia's legal establishment felt the need to issue such a public statement is a sign of the breadth of the opposition among many social strata to the Howard government's support for the Bush administration and its planned war on Iraq. The letter confines itself to pointing out that Australian government leaders, officials and military personnel may find themselves in front of the International Criminal Court. But the comments clearly reflect a far broader public outrage at the criminal character of the war that is about to be launched. Despite all the efforts of Canberra and Washington and the media, a majority of the population does not accept the government's claims that war is necessary to eliminate "weapons of mass destruction" and are profoundly disturbed about the consequences of invading Iraq. The largest demonstrations in the country's history took place on February 14-16, appealing to the government to withdraw the 2,000 Australian troops that Howard has deployed to the Persian Gulf without even a vote in parliament. Just as the government dismissed the sentiments of the demonstrations—with Howard referring to them as a "mob"—so too it has rejected the statement by the legal experts. The office of Attorney General Daryl Williams issued a perfunctory statement that no Australian could be sent to the International Criminal Court without its approval, and that the court's jurisdiction did not cover "the legal basis for an armed conflict". But neither Williams, nor any other government minister, has attempted to answer the charge that there is no basis in international law for the planned war on Iraq and that those responsible for launching it will be the authors of war crimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:46 PM What is not spelled out anywhere is America's right to be IN Iraq in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:41 PM INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING THE SITUATION Article 43 of the Hague Regulations spells out the specific responsibilities of occupying powers under international humanitarian law. These include the duty to restore and maintain public order and safety. Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that "to the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:36 PM http://www.amnesty.org.il/iraq/order.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:35 PM Particular campaigns are not mandated- the operation of a civil society ( under martial law) is. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2003/04/responsibilities-of-occupying-powers.htm One cannot hold that the US is the occupying power, with it's commitments, and deny it the ability to put down armed insurrection. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:28 PM Actually, the UN imposes certain obligations on an occupying power, so we were obligated to put down the insurgency by UN mandate. Please show some documentation in support of the claim that that particular campaign was mandated by the UN, and also for the obligations you say the UN imposes on occupying powers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Greg F. Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:28 PM You have always had class, Dougie... Perhaps once, Bobbert, but not for a very long time. He squandered all that capital blindly defending indefensible bullshit like And THAT's insulting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:21 PM CarolC, "One has to accept the premise that the US had a right to try to take Fallujah from the people you categorize as "the bad guys" in the first place before one can accept that the blood of these families is not entirely on the hands of the US government. Not everyone does accept that premise. " Actually, the UN imposes certain obligations on an occupying power, so we were obligated to put down the insurgency by UN mandate. Frank, "There is no substantial number that has been verified by anyone except the proponents of the Iraq war. No one knows how many deaths have occurred because there is a virtual news blackout on what's really going on over there. The Washington Post is known for spin as much as any of the current mainstream newspapers and I challenge the data and offer that those who want to know what's really going on visit Dar Jamail's website." The numbers in question are from the Lancet article, issue 364. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:05 PM Doug: Pieced a hole in the liberal's baloon? Seems to me that quite the oppoiste has occured. I got accused of making up a number, couldn't find where I had read it and now severasl people have come up with the sources that just make this thread pudry danged meaningless. And looking back on this thread I think it goes well beyond meaningless as it was posted just to be combative, devisive and a distartion to the real events that it's author would rather not have being discussed. You, IMO, have gotten sucked into it as well as many others who used to know how to play a lot nicer and with more respect and integrity... I, for one. have written and will no longer recognize of one of yer buddies on this thread and am seriously considering writing off hubhy as well. Some folks just don't have any class. You have always had class, Dougie, and I wish you'd take a couple of yer cohorts unner your wing and teach them a little of it. The two of them are hurting your cause... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: freda underhill Date: 20 Mar 05 - 05:24 PM here is another source, Al Jazeera, citing a similar survey, but done by Iraqis, from July 2004. Iraqi group: Civilian toll over 37,000; By Ahmed Janabi; 31 July 2004, http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/66E32EAF-0E4E-4765-9339-594C323A777F.htm An Iraqi political group says more than 37,000 Iraqi civilians were killed between the start of the US-led invasion in March 2003 and October 2003. The People's Kifah, or Struggle Against Hegemony, movement said in a statement that it carried out a detailed survey of Iraqi civilian fatalities during September and October 2003. Its calculation was based on deaths among the Iraqi civilian population only, and did not count losses sustained by the Iraqi military and paramilitary forces. The deputy general secretary and spokesperson of the movement told Aljazeera.net he could vouch for the accuracy of the figure. "We are 100% sure that 37,000 civilian deaths is a correct estimate. Our study is the result of two months of hard work which involved hundreds of Iraqi activists and academics. Of course there may be deaths that were not reported to us, but the toll in any case could not be lower than our finding," said Muhammad al-Ubaidi. "For the collation of our statistics we visited the most remote villages, spoke and coordinated with grave-diggers across Iraq, obtained information from hospitals, and spoke to thousands of witnesses who saw incidents in which Iraqi civilians were killed by US fire," he said. Al-Ubaidi, a UK-based physiology professor, provided a detailed breakdown of the 37,000 civilian deaths for each governorate (excluding the Kurdish areas) relating to the period between March and October 2003. The People's Kifah said the process of data gathering stopped after one of the group's workers was arrested by Kurdish militias and handed over to US forces in October 2003. The fate of the worker remains unclear. "I am taking this opportunity of talking to Aljazeera.net to request that the US occupation authorities reveal the whereabouts of the worker, who was arrested and then went missing. We are afraid he is being tortured the way Abu Ghraib prisoners were tortured," al-Ubaidi said. "His name is Ramzi Musa Ahmad. He is a 32-year-old Iraqi engineer who was on his way to the Iraqi Kurdish governorate al-Sulaimania last October to fax me the information to Britain, because telephone services had not been restored in Baghdad." According to al-Ubaidi: "The minibus in which Ahmad was travelling was stopped at a Kurdish checkpoint. He was arrested and handed over to US army." As of now, there are no reliable estimates of total Iraqi civilian fatalities. The interim Iraqi government has not made available any statistics, while US occupation authorities in Iraq reportedly issued orders to the forensic medicine department not to talk to the media about the number of bodies it receives. Liqa Makki, a political analyst, said it is widely known in Baghdad that Iraqi officials are prohibited from releasing any information about body count. "The director of forensic medicine department said publicly some months ago that his department was receiving 70 bodies a day. But he was reprimanded and a statement was published in the Iraqi press prohibiting the announcement of any kind of body count," Makki said. Iraq's interim government is preparing the first post-Saddam census in Iraq. It hopes that an accurate census will unearth long-buried facts about Iraq's wars. The Planning Ministry issued instructions to Iraqis not to leave their homes on 12 October when 150,000 workers will be engaged in conducting the census. According to the last official census - conducted in 1997 - Iraq had a population of 24 million. Aljazeera + Agencies |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 05:13 PM Good point, artbrooks. Even though he has made a few posts subsequent to his original one, so far he has offered absolutely no supporting documentation for any of his assertions. Maybe he hasn't because there isn't any. Maybe he just made it all up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: artbrooks Date: 20 Mar 05 - 05:05 PM While I have seen a number of different figures quoted, and I am personally unable to validate or debunk any of them, I'd be interested in knowing the source of Susu's Hubby's statement that Only 15000-20000 of the dead were actually Iraqi CIVILIANS. ... The rest of the 100,000 are attributed to Saddam's regular army, Republican guard, and the special guys in the white jump suits ( sorry, I forgot their names). Oh…let's throw in quite a few terrorists into the mix as well as well as other fighters that came in from Syria, and other terrorist supporting countries. They make up the remaining 80,000-85,000 dead. In other words, by far, the HUGE majority of the dead were BAD GUYS. He said that this came from a couple of web sites, and I have seen the ones with the 100,000 figure and the much smaller 10-15,000 figure. Where does the information that 80,000 (or so) of the known dead were Iraqi military, paramilitary or terrorists come from? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: robomatic Date: 20 Mar 05 - 04:24 PM Freda: Thanks for the post clearing up the source of the 100,000 figure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 04:16 PM Susu, Have fun with your music duo and stay well. Things get pretty heated around here sometimes. Just the way it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 04:09 PM Have it your way, Susu. No skin off my nose either way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: susu Date: 20 Mar 05 - 04:02 PM Okay this is the actual Susu on this post. The post on 20 Mar 05 - 09:13 AM with my moniker was a mere oversight on hubby's part as I did not log out of mudcat after I checked to see what had changed that made me start getting emails from people. You want to talk about cowards! I would suspect that the emails I received are from the same person or a couple of people who got together and made up false email addresses with yahoo and hotmail, and some other thing called gmail. But I digress, I came onto mudcat only to find that in this particular thread my info was reposted, it was done to prove a point that hubby is not some other long time poster to mudcat that was being slandered by the accusation that he merely changed his moniker to be a troll, as you guys put it. Now that being said I would like to clarify some things with you people. Hubby received a music scholarship to OBU (Oklahoma Baptist University) and plays piano as well as sings he was also the music minister to our church for 3 years prior to us moving out of state. I found mudcat around Christmas by accident when I was searching for lyrics to Christmas songs and found someone was looking for the 12 Drinks of Christmas lyrics, which I knew one version that was not posted, so I posted it. I showed my husband the website because I know that he is interested in music and there were also other interesting posts on here. He began to post under my moniker, and to clarify that it was not me, he would sign it as Susu's Hubby. When he created his own moniker, it seemed only natural that he used the name Susu's hubby since that was what he became known as. Cowardly? No Carol, GET A CLUE!!!! Cowardly would be if he were to make sure that it couldn't be identified as a previous poster by hiding under a totally different moniker. I guess if any of you would like to comment to me the best way is to send me an EMAIL since I do not log on too often to mudcat anymore and most likely will not see your PM's. At this time I am trying to find out how to get my moniker disabled if I can. Best of luck to all of you, and if you disagree with hubby fine, but try to leave me out of it okay. Susu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Frankham Date: 20 Mar 05 - 03:59 PM Well Doug if you don't see an attack here, then I guess that's a matter of perception. His attempt was not to clarity anything but to attack a Liberal point of view. He did not say where the Washington Post story appeared. Probably in an op-ed column by a Right-wing editorial. " Susu's husband has only attempted to clarify, with data supplied in his first post, the breakdown of the 100,000 figure contained in the Washington Post story. Some here on the Mudcat have evidently claimed that all 100,000 deaths should be credited to U. S. forces. Clearly, according to the date Hubby provided, that is not the case." There is no substantial number that has been verified by anyone except the proponents of the Iraq war. No one knows how many deaths have occurred because there is a virtual news blackout on what's really going on over there. The Washington Post is known for spin as much as any of the current mainstream newspapers and I challenge the data and offer that those who want to know what's really going on visit Dar Jamail's website. "I see nothing diabolical about this thread at all. The objection from the left appears to be that Hubby has pricked a hole in their balloon." He has done nothing of the kind. He's merely parroting the current spin by the White House. And he is provoking an answer through insult, not through dialogue. He is obviously not interested in dialogue but in attacking Liberals. And he doesn't have the facts. "As to having to wade through stuff to get to the music threads, the thread is clearly included with the BS section of Mudcat. What's the problem?" In my setup, the BS threads are mixed up with the music threads. That is the problem. It was OK before when the BS threads were at the bottom. It got changed. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 02:40 PM Well, your original post does conatain some pretty slippery language, cowardly person who hides behind his wife's screen name. Take this bit for instance... If memory serves me right, our troops in Fallujah stumbled across scores of individuals and entire families that were wiped out due to the bad guys holding the town for so long. ...entire families that were wiped out by US forces (ostensibly due to the "bad guys" holding the town for so long). One has to accept the premise that the US had a right to try to take Fallujah from the people you categorize as "the bad guys" in the first place before one can accept that the blood of these families is not entirely on the hands of the US government. Not everyone does accept that premise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 20 Mar 05 - 02:26 PM I think that I have thoroughly made my point. If we want to discuss why we are in Iraq then let's discuss it. But don't come at me with made up numbers and half truths. You'd better be armed with substancial fool proof evidence if you want to try and change my mind. brucie, Earlier in this thread, I believe you took offense at me bringing up the numbers that were on the links that you provided in another thread. My comments in this thread regarding the info found in those links was not in any way negatively directed at you. Your earlier post about me F*****g with you really threw me for a loop. I just really appreciate you posting those links so that I would finally understand where the majority of the libs found on Mudcat actually get their info. Post more of them. If I need to, I've got a whole drawer full of clothes pins for my nose in case I get mired in the world of false and misleading information that's found here so frequently. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Amos Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:57 PM DougR: That is not true. SH also wanted to throw a few nasty comments at a class of people he has categorized condescendingly and inaccurately, using pushbutton language intentionally designed to disrupt communication and upset. That is reactive Zolery at its worst, and is exceeding rude. For you to then support him by altering this fact and trying to place an innocent rational statistical face on his original post would be disingenuous in a high school student, but in a man of your maturity it looks faintly ridiculous. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:33 PM All the stuff above not withstanding, the US has no right still being in Iraq. That, pal, should be the whole point of the thread. Arguing as to whether 20000 or 100000 civilians have been killed is futile. One is too many in a bullshit war. Fabricated evidence to invade, and crap spin to stay. America is out of control, and that is being orchestrated by folks in Washington. Period. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: DougR Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:24 PM Frank: I fail to see your point (if you intended one). Susu's husband has only attempted to clarify, with data supplied in his first post, the breakdown of the 100,000 figure contained in the Washington Post story. Some here on the Mudcat have evidently claimed that all 100,000 deaths should be credited to U. S. forces. Clearly, according to the date Hubby provided, that is not the case. If anyone wants to challenge the data, then do so! I see nothing diabolical about this thread at all. The objection from the left appears to be that Hubby has pricked a hole in their balloon. As to having to wade through stuff to get to the music threads, the thread is clearly included with the BS section of Mudcat. What's the problem? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CStrong Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:37 AM Whew! Is it over yet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Frankham Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:27 AM Hey what happened to the policy of including BS under the BS category? Do we have to wade once more through the crap to get to the music? This thread represents a low water-mark in the Mudcat thread game. This "Libs" diatribe was intended to be provacative without adding a shred of insight or useful factual information. Maybe Mudcat should change it's name to Mudslinging instead. I'm not advocating censorship here, though. If someone wants to crap on Mudcat by this kind of provocation they should be allowed to do so. But it's still crap. And the ones that do it should be ashamed of themselves for not only displaying their stupidity but engaging in a wasteful smear campaign. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: susu Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:13 AM Thanks Freda for posting that story. That was some good info. Now go to The Lancet, the source quoted in the story and read the entire first page and learn how the numbers are broken down. If you read my original post, I do not disagree with the number of 100,000. What I disagree with is that all 100,000 are innocent civilians and all were caused by US military forces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: freda underhill Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:03 AM p.s. "We don't do body counts" General Tommy Franks, US Central Command |
