 sj |
||
|
||
B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
|
|
|
Subject: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Peter T. Date: 26 Oct 05 - 09:57 PM John Kerry proves once again why he would have made a terrible President (not as bad as Bush, but that is now saying nothing) and why he should shut up and go home. His latest idiot remark is that the Administration should bring 20,000 troops home at Christmas. For no good reason, just to do it. Can anything be more pathetic. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: pdq Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:00 PM If that is a serious question, I have a serious answer: Al Gore! |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Rapparee Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:00 PM I heard the speech, and that's not everything he said. The 20,000 troops he wants to bring home are those sent to provide additional security during the elections. Moreover, he said that he wants to gradually (over 12 - 15 months) remove the US troops and all the Iraqis to stand on their own. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Amos Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:12 PM Given the context, perhaps it less idiotic that it might appear, Peter. A |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Bobert Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:15 PM Yer right, Peter... He should have said, "Bring 'um all home!!!" Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Peace Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:17 PM Twenty thousand here, thirty thousand there, pretty soon there won't be anyone there to fight the war! |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: dianavan Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:23 PM According to Iraqis, that sounds like a very good idea. From the Seattle PI: It is impossible to gauge with any accuracy the popular mood in a nation as fractured and traumatized as Iraq. Nevertheless, the poll by an Iraqi university research team for the Ministry of Defense this summer is likely to bear some resemblance to the reality of the situation. The confidential survey, leaked to the British media last weekend, suggests that fewer than 1 percent of Iraqis think the U.S. and U.K. military involvement in their country is helping to improve security. Sixty-seven percent feel less secure precisely because of the occupation. And -- most worrying of all -- around 65 percent of Iraqis approve of attacks on occupation forces. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: CarolC Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:33 PM http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1253030 WASHINGTON Oct 26, 2005 � Sen. John Kerry says President Bush should bring home 20,000 troops from Iraq over the Christmas holidays if the December parliamentary elections there are successful. Defeated by Bush last year and a potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, Kerry called for a "reasonable time frame" for pulling back troops rather than a full-scale withdrawal advocated by some Democrats. He said it could be completed in 12 to 15 months. "It will be hard for this administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down � starting immediately after successful elections in December," Kerry said in a speech Wednesday at Georgetown University. The presence of 159,000 U.S. troops in Iraq is deterring peace efforts, said Kerry, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks," he said. "At the first benchmark, the completion of December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays." Kerry, who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, has been a strong critic of Bush's handling of the war, accusing the president of misleading the public into going to war. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: katlaughing Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:49 PM sounds reasonable to me. Maybe you should rethink the title of this thread, Peter, and ask that it be changed? First time I think I've ever disagreed with you about a thread title and/or political view!:-) |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Mr Happy Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:50 PM only an idiot would keep 'em there. bring 'em al back + all the other occupying armies & camp followers |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Peace Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:51 PM Well, then there's no point having a war if everyone is going home. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:16 PM John Kerry wears his Frankenstein costume all year around. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: number 6 Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:43 PM How many more times will we have to hear ... "I'll have them home for Xmas'?? sIx |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:58 PM John Kerry proves once again why he would have made a terrible President (not as bad as Bush, but that is now saying nothing) and why he should shut up and go home. His latest idiot remark is that the Administration should bring 20,000 troops home at Christmas. For no good reason, just to do it. Can anything be more pathetic. Peter T, your warmongering is what is pathetic. You'd rather leave them in Iraq? 2000 have come home in body bags so far. How many of the rest of them need to die so Bush can strut his stuff for the rest of the world, prove what a tough guy he is (even if he angers the rest of the world in the process)? It isn't just pathetic, Peter, it is obscene. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:39 AM Slip em over the border to Iran and finish the fucking job save time and airfares too....;-) |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Rapparee Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:54 AM The 116th BCT (Oregon, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Washington) will begin deploying back to the States in two days -- the Advance Party is already here. In three weeks they'll be home and there will be lots of happiness around here. I would have thought Kerry a true idiot if he'd called for the troops to be brought home immediately, all at once. Tactically, such a withdrawal would be extremely stupid and wasteful of life -- you lose far, far more people in a rout than in a planned, careful retreat (a/k/a "withdrawal"). |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Stoopid Hillbilly Date: 27 Oct 05 - 09:17 AM This here's the purfict place for you peace mongers to strut yore stuff an show whut tuff guys you are. SH |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 27 Oct 05 - 09:33 AM I imagine that Stoopid Hillbilly is writing us from the front line? Talk about tough! |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Peter T. Date: 27 Oct 05 - 11:52 AM As I have said before, in these circumstances the stupid ruthless ones have it all over the smart ditherers. How do the Democrats expect to win back the government if they keep talking like John Kerry, a little bit of war here, a little bit of peace there. That is why they lost the last time. If I were a Republican, I would cheer up every time John Kerry opens his mouth -- 20,000 troops home by Christmas. Why? What about the other 140,000? Are they building democracy or not? What should be done about them? Are they safer in Iraq with 20,00 fewer of them? Is the insurgency really fueled by the American troops, or an impending civil war? Why not more troops? Why not the draft? Why not no troops over there? It is crazy to keep making these "me too, but only sort of different" dithering statements: I'll see you 20,000 and raise you 10. It is agonizing to watch the Democrats like deer in the headlights, but they could have at least the good grace to shut up and go home until they have something worthwhile to contribute. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Wesley S Date: 27 Oct 05 - 01:41 PM Peter - Maybe I missed it - but what's your plan for withdrawl ? |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Amos Date: 27 Oct 05 - 02:10 PM I think Peter makes a good point, politically. Strategically, it would be a good idea, since Iraqis want a constitution (7 to 3 or some such), to recruit one-for-one replacements of all 140,000 troops, train them in democratic law and as much decency as they can absorb, and apprentice them under opposite numbers throughout the expeditionary forces. If every soldier out there knew he could get back home if he got his apprentice through his education, it would make for a lot more graduates. And a regular flow homeward of American troops from cooks to captians to infantry and all points in between. It would not prevent a civil war; but that's not likely to be preventable until the factions internal to Iraq gird up their loins and build their own nation. One of W's idiocies was going in on the premise of doing it for them without the indigenous demand being in much evidence. Just my two bits worth. A |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Stilly River Sage Date: 27 Oct 05 - 03:22 PM After watching the last five years of the Bush administration, there seems no position better suited to this discussion than one of fatalism. There are a lot of people who aren't going to get out of the Bush years alive. We never should have gone to Iraq, we shouldn't be there now, and the sooner we get everyone out, the better, done as an orderly withdrawl to avoid the casualties of leaving (yes, that is the scary part, Rapaire, how the hell to get them back out of that place?). It was a mess before we went there. We may have made it worse, because no one strong is in charge now to run things--it WILL go to the insurgents, despite what Bush is trying to do. There's no way to avoid it. It will be a mess when we leave WHENEVER we leave. We don't belong there. Throwing money at it isn't going to work, and I'm not so inhumane that I would say 'leave them to their own devices' with the way it is now. Bush obligated us to trying to clean up the mess we made, but the myth is that we can clean up the mess that we made. Trying to fix the problem is now just making things worse for a lot of people. The U.S. had no business invading Iraq. Period. Clinton had the right idea--at least Saddam was under control. Crusader Bush started this war based on lies. How many Iraqis have died? Then add in over 2000 US troops, and many other contractors and security people. There are some dead Europeans and reporters in there. Bush has put America in about as bad a position as possible. If he'd been trying he couldn't have done a better job. Don't bash Kerry because he sees the mess and wants it over with and wants to try to redeem things with some kind of improvement before we leave. Iraqis are going to suffer with us or without us. So I vote they do it without us. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Jon Date: 27 Oct 05 - 04:17 PM It doesn't seem idiotic to me. What are the alternatives? Wait for peace and stabilty over there before the troops leave. When will that be? Withdraw all the troops now in one go? I think that would be a recipe for even greater disaster. It is hard to know what to do about the mess we created but I think a planned withdrawal in stages is the best option. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Bill D Date: 27 Oct 05 - 05:16 PM rapid withdrawal? Nawww! We've already seen how to deal with the situation when we get in too deep for all the wrong reasons. We just send MORE troops over, fight the enemy on his turf so he can use guerrilla warfare, try to prop up an untried, incompetant government, and then when we realize the IS no way to win (after losing 30,00-40,000), we evacuate suddenly and watch the chaos develop after we're gone. Sound familar? |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: CarolC Date: 27 Oct 05 - 05:27 PM Peter, I am also curious to know what you would consider a non-idiotic approach to this situation. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Ebbie Date: 27 Oct 05 - 05:27 PM Recruiting new bodies and throwing them into the cauldron because we have to honor those who gave their lives previously is perverted thinking. That is not honoring them; it is DIShonor. Kind of like we have to elect the president because we are at war - when he was the one who took us there in the first place. Paraphrase: "How do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?" |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: number 6 Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:02 PM " Paraphrase: "How do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?"" Well put Ebbie. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: John Hardly Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:24 PM I think that there is a certain wisdom beyond the issue in what you say, Peter. Long I saw Republicans so afraid of being seen as stingy that, rather than stand on some principle, they would instead offer the same program offered by the Democrats -- only "Lite" -- less spending. The predictable way in which the electorate interpreted this was that -- since the principle or value of the program was not made an issue, then the Republicans were just needlessly stingy, as the Democrats offered them more goodies. There is a kind of compromise that is admirable -- where principles are not compromised, but two sides can get a bit of what they are after. There is the kind of "compromise" offered here by Kerry that, like the Republicans and their stingy spending, has shown no principle. As Peter has astutely observed, since Democrats like Kerry offer no principle by which the electorate can feel as though their national security interests are important, Kerry's capricious "compromise" seems idiotic, unprincipled and, ultimately, dangerous. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Barry Finn Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:27 PM How about if the US & UK send to Iraq both President & Prime Minster & the present administrations to rule there since they've done such a bang up job & send all the soldiers home. NOW. Well played, we're not going anywhere for quite along time (see Korea). If anyone thinks there's an end in site, forget it. We're there & come hell or high water the government will stay there, unless a demand from the public says OUT NOW. It's all fine to hear maybe by Xmass or 6 months or within a year, this has already been play out, already & it's being played again then it'll be played again. 20,000 dead do we want another 10,000 to raise to stay in the game not to mention the 200,000 to 300,000 dead Iraqi's. They're really dying for us to stay there. This we can't pull out now is another smoke screen that's getting tired & is being played a little too often. Take the cards, take the losses, fold & go home to the families. We went in for no good reason & made trash of the country & are continuing to make a bad situation worst by staying there. Iraqi's will have to do for themselves, as cruel as that sounds, in giving their option, I would say, we've pretty much set-up the country for civil war. We can't come out of this shinning in any way, so we should try to start thinking what's best for them, for once & get out. "But what about the soldiers, the bases, time & money & the endured shame we've already invested & what about the Iraqi's that we never cared about"? Come home & beg on our knee's to let the UN, the World Court & all the other humanitarian countries & organizations advise & approve, with the Iraqi's consent of course. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Ian - Nottm -uk Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:40 PM Kerry may well have been a terrible President, but would he have been stupid enough to invade Iraq in the first place? Ian |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:08 PM Whatever your politics over 2,000 Americans have died. At least 15,000 Americans have been mutilated or dimembered and at least 100,000 Iraqies have perished. "How long?" "How long?" |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Bobert Date: 27 Oct 05 - 09:53 PM Ditto, Barry Finn... Like I have been sayin' fir a long time noe, the reral civil war in Iraq will occur when the US/UK leave.... Don't matter when we leave or how many folks have died before we leave... This was one dumbass foriegn policy decision... When you think of it, it was dumber than Vietnam becausde we had Vietnem as a vivid reminder of how not to conduct foreign policy... And it hasn't even given the big US/UK oil companies any more access to other folks (Iraqis...) oil??? Like I said, dumbass, dumbass, dumbass.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Teribus Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:58 AM Barry Finn (27 Oct 05 - 07:27 PM), GUEST,Peter Woodruff (27 Oct 05 - 08:08 PM). What are the sources that lead you to state that "200,000 to 300,000 dead Iraqi's" and "at least 100,000 Iraqies have perished." Those figures related to recent activities in Iraq are unsubstantiated and groundless, please do not trot them out as fact when they patently are not. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Stilly River Sage Date: 28 Oct 05 - 11:52 AM Okay, Teribus, find the "real" numbers please. What number of dead soldiers and civilians is okay with you? SRS |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Wolfgang Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:10 PM Barry's estimate I read as a projection if the USA would stay there for much longer. Therefore there's no real need to ask where this number comes from. Peter Woodruff's at least 100,000 Iraqies have perished is simply wrong. The 100,000 he has in mind are the best guess estimate from an article using self report data collected in some parts of the country. The lowest estimate in that article is much lower (below 10,000 if I recall correctly; the highest BTW was above 200,000). To take a middle value like 100,000 and add 'at least' to it is shows a very creative memory at work. The more reliable 'body count' from newspaper articles gives the number right now as very close to 30,000. This is most likely an underestimation so therefore 'at least 30,000' seems now as a defendable statement, other than Peter's. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Wolfgang Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:29 PM Barry's estimate I read as a projection if the USA would stay there for much longer. Therefore there's no real need to ask where this number comes from. Peter Woodruff's at least 100,000 Iraqies have perished is simply wrong. The 100,000 he has in mind are the best guess estimate from an article using self report data collected in some parts of the country. The lowest estimate in that article is much lower (below 10,000 if I recall correctly; the highest BTW was above 200,000). To take a middle value like 100,000 and add 'at least' to it is shows a very creative memory at work. The more reliable 'body count' from newspaper articles gives the number right now as very close to 30,000. This is most likely an underestimation so therefore 'at least 30,000' seems now as a defendable statement, other than Peter's. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Stoopid Hillbilly Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:30 PM Ain't no since in axin' a questin here. Ain't nutthin here but peceniks wif a lot o' hi flyin' ideals and no idys of how to reach im. To thim reality is fo folks who cain't handle drugs. SH |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: pdq Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:32 PM Here is an analysis of the casualty figures Wolfgang mentions. The original article was in Lancet Online and was rushed to the public about one week before the US elections of 2004 - intended to do as much damage as possible to the Republican candidates for congress. I do not believe it ever appeared in the actual Lancet publication. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100,000 Dead—or 8,000 How many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war? By Fred Kaplan Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 3:49 PM PT "The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless. The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully: We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period. Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.) This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board. Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday's election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling. The problem is, ultimately, not with the scholars who conducted the study; they did the best they could under the circumstances. The problem is the circumstances. It's hard to conduct reliable, random surveys—and to extrapolate meaningful data from the results of those surveys—in the chaotic, restrictive environment of war. However, these scholars are responsible for the hype surrounding the study. Gilbert Burnham, one of the co-authors, told the International Herald Tribune (for a story reprinted in today's New York Times), "We're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate." Yet the text of the study reveals this is simply untrue. Burnham should have said, "We're not quite sure what our estimate means. Assuming our model is accurate, the actual death toll might be 100,000, or it might be somewhere between 92,000 lower and 94,000 higher than that number." Not a meaty headline, but truer to the findings of his own study. Here's how the Johns Hopkins team—which, for the record, was led by Dr. Les Roberts of the university's Bloomberg School of Public Health—went about its work. They randomly selected 33 neighborhoods across Iraq—equal-sized population "clusters"—and, this past September, set out to interview 30 households in each. They asked how many people in each household died, of what causes, during the 14 months before the U.S. invasion—and how many died, of what, in the 17 months since the war began. They then took the results of their random sample and extrapolated them to the entire country, assuming that their 33 clusters were perfectly representative of all Iraq. This is a time-honored technique for many epidemiological studies, but those conducting them have to take great care that the way they select the neighborhoods is truly random (which, as most poll-watchers of any sort know, is difficult under the easiest of circumstances). There's a further complication when studying the results of war, especially a war fought mainly by precision bombs dropped from the air: The damage is not randomly distributed; it's very heavily concentrated in a few areas. The Johns Hopkins team had to confront this problem. One of the 33 clusters they selected happened to be in Fallujah, one of the most heavily bombed and shelled cities in all Iraq. Was it legitimate to extrapolate from a sample that included such an extreme case? More awkward yet, it turned out, two-thirds of all the violent deaths that the team recorded took place in the Fallujah cluster. They settled the dilemma by issuing two sets of figures—one with Fallujah, the other without. The estimate of 98,000 deaths is the extrapolation from the set that does not include Fallujah. What's the extrapolation for the set that does include Fallujah? They don't exactly say. Fallujah was nearly unique; it's impossible to figure out how to extrapolate from it. A question does arise, though: Is this difficulty a result of some peculiarity about the fighting in Fallujah? Or is it a result of some peculiarity in the survey's methodology? There were other problems. The survey team simply could not visit some of the randomly chosen clusters; the roads were blocked off, in some cases by coalition checkpoints. So the team picked other, more accessible areas that had received similar amounts of damage. But it's unclear how they made this calculation. In any case, the detour destroyed the survey's randomness; the results are inherently tainted. In other cases, the team didn't find enough people in a cluster to interview, so they expanded the survey to an adjoining cluster. Again, at that point, the survey was no longer random, and so the results are suspect. Beth Osborne Daponte, senior research scholar at Yale University's Institution for Social and Policy Studies, put the point diplomatically after reading the Lancet article this morning and discussing it with me in a phone conversation: "It attests to the difficulty of doing this sort of survey work during a war. … No one can come up with any credible estimates yet, at least not through the sorts of methods used here." The study, though, does have a fundamental flaw that has nothing to do with the limits imposed by wartime—and this flaw suggests that, within the study's wide range of possible casualty estimates, the real number tends more toward the lower end of the scale. In order to gauge the risk of death brought on by the war, the researchers first had to measure the risk of death in Iraq before the war. Based on their survey of how many people in the sampled households died before the war, they calculated that the mortality rate in prewar Iraq was 5 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The mortality rate after the war started—not including Fallujah—was 7.9 deaths per 1,000 people per year. In short, the risk of death in Iraq since the war is 58 percent higher (7.9 divided by 5 = 1.58) than it was before the war. But there are two problems with this calculation. First, Daponte (who has studied Iraqi population figures for many years) questions the finding that prewar mortality was 5 deaths per 1,000. According to quite comprehensive data collected by the United Nations, Iraq's mortality rate from 1980-85 was 8.1 per 1,000. From 1985-90, the years leading up to the 1991 Gulf War, the rate declined to 6.8 per 1,000. After '91, the numbers are murkier, but clearly they went up. Whatever they were in 2002, they were almost certainly higher than 5 per 1,000. In other words, the wartime mortality rate—if it is 7.9 per 1,000—probably does not exceed the peacetime rate by as much as the Johns Hopkins team assumes. The second problem with the calculation goes back to the problem cited at the top of this article—the margin of error. Here is the relevant passage from the study: "The risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1 – 2.3) higher after the invasion." Those mysterious numbers in the parentheses mean the authors are 95 percent confident that the risk of death now is between 1.1 and 2.3 times higher than it was before the invasion—in other words, as little as 10 percent higher or as much as 130 percent higher. Again, the math is too vague to be useful. There is one group out there counting civilian casualties in a way that's tangible, specific, and very useful—a team of mainly British researchers, led by Hamit Dardagan and John Sloboda, called Iraq Body Count. They have kept a running total of civilian deaths, derived entirely from press reports. Their count is triple fact-checked; their database is itemized and fastidiously sourced; and they take great pains to separate civilian from combatant casualties (for instance, last Tuesday, the group released a report estimating that, of the 800 Iraqis killed in last April's siege of Fallujah, 572 to 616 of them were civilians, at least 308 of them women and children). The IBC estimates that between 14,181 and 16,312 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war—about half of them since the battlefield phase of the war ended last May..." |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:49 PM Kerry is not the world's most effective messenger, but his point was a good one: we need a plan to bring this to a close. Whatever your views on the wisdom of starting this war, the fact is, we're there now, and we need to be thinking and talking about how we're going to bring this to a close and get out of there. Immediate withdrawal would be insane; even if we could manage to pull it off without taking catastrophic casualties ourselves in the process, it would leave a power vaccuum, which would quickly evolve into a large-scale civil war that would make the current death rates appear insignificant. And that civil war would not be contained within Iraq's borders. It's all well and good to talk about just picking up our toys and going home, but it just isn't realistic. We need a plan; if Kerry's isn't the right one, let's come up with a better alternative. The problem now is that we really don't seem to have a plan for bringing this to a close, and all we hear from the Administration is "we'll stay until the job is done". Their justification for not giving any more details seems to be that this would "embolden the insurgency," and allow them to "wait us out". But the insurgency is already emboldened, and they fully intend to still be there when we're gone, whether that's this year, next year, or ten years from now. That's a pretty lame excuse for not saying how we're going to end this thing. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Jeri Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:29 PM The end is looking a bit more like Vietnam than the preceding bits. I may be being incredibly general here, but there was an attempt to help the S. Vietnamese take over while we pulled out. Once we'd left, everything fell apart. This was possibly because WE cared more about 'winning' than they did. Bush's plan - indeed ANY plan - for slowly extricating the U.S. completely is going to fail. Either we'll be delayed in leaving until we might as well just give up the idea or we will slowly pull people out and the insurgents will step up their efforts until we have to either bail or get back in 100%. I don't see another path, but I'd welcome hearing rational opinions. I'd definitely like to hear what Peter T thinks would be best. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: akenaton Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:40 PM The scum who lead us will keep our troops in Iraq facing death or mutilation until WE force them to withdraw just as we did in vietnam. There is not and never was any good reason to be there and now our troops are to be abandoned in a conflict, the outcome of which they have no control over. The tales of "spreading democracy" can now be seen by even the most dense observer to be half lies and half wishfull thinking. The occupying forces should be withdrawn now. There is going to be blood shed because of our actions and the longer we stay the bloodier will be the reckoning...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Wesley S Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:10 PM I'm still waiting for Peter T's withdrawl plan. Do you have one Peter ? |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Whiplash Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:32 PM Real deep thinker. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Martin gibson Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:33 PM Guest, Wwhiplash, didn't you rape Nell before you tied her to the tracks? |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Auggie Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:37 PM You know, if W takes them home anytime soon he's just going to have to turn right around and redeploy them to Iran. My guess is he thinks it will be easier and cheaper just to send them over from next door in Iraq. I mean, what the hell, as long as we're in the neighborhood, we might just as well drop in... |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Justa Picker Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:49 PM Naw ... in light of the wonderful remarks made yesterday by the President of Iran, they should relocate them all, next door and do what should have been done there, INSTEAD of in Iraq. Too late now, though. Armageddon's just around the corner and Iran is working fast to achieve that. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Auggie Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:49 PM I do however, still agree that John Kerry is an idiot. Anyone with an Ivy League law degree who drops into Rural America for a photo op and says for the cameras, "Kin ah git me a huntin license here", and then expects us not to recognize that he's a calculating, insincere poseur, is assuredly an idiot. The last time I saw anything that patently stupid from a candidate, it was Michael Dukakis sitting in that damn fool tank with a helmet on. Now, is he a bigger idiot than GWB? Well, as military hawk (who never quite managed to enlist) John Wayne once said,"I'd hate to live on the difference." |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Whiplash Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:52 PM No, MG, I'm not related to Simon Legree. The name I chose means that I intend to be a pain in the neck to creatures like you. I'll leave raping Little Nell to you. You seem to have sex on your mind a lot. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Peter T. Date: 28 Oct 05 - 05:25 PM My withdrawal plan is for John Kerry to go home now, and not wait for Christmas. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Wesley S Date: 28 Oct 05 - 05:57 PM That's not an answer Peter. Just how should we withdraw from Iraq ? Or should we just annex it and call it our 51st state ? |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Ebbie Date: 28 Oct 05 - 06:18 PM Dukakis in a tank, Kerry in a hardware store and Bush in a flight suit, intimating he flew the damn plane, and declaring that hostilities are over- which one do you think denotes the greatest fool? |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Bill D Date: 28 Oct 05 - 08:23 PM *grin*...you DO have a way with words, Ebbie! |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Jeri Date: 29 Oct 05 - 09:17 AM I think what Peter's saying is that he thought John Kerry gave a simplistic answer which was indicative of idiocy. There might not be (but almost surely is) a better plan, but to give a seemingly random number of troops and a date that is significant to many Americans is dumb. I think it's a case of the idiocy having to do with Kerry saying anything at all. Then again, a lot of politicans speak without moving their lips and most people don't notice. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Peter T. Date: 29 Oct 05 - 01:49 PM Jeri=wise goddess!! yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Wesley S Date: 29 Oct 05 - 05:07 PM Peter - Just how should we withdraw from Iraq ? |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Frank Date: 29 Oct 05 - 06:45 PM Here's the problem. The Iraqi "constitution" was imposed upon the Iraqis by Bush. It's not democratic. It's Sharia law. Women will continue to be subjugated. It is creating a civil war at this time. The more we remain in that conquered country, the more lives will be taken. The only "mission" is to create work for Haliburton, oil contracts for Bush's cronies, build military bases to invade other Mid-east countries and to help the nut in the White House "wag the dog" in his quest for power. It is irrevelevant the amount of U.S. troops in that country. Every one presents a threat to any semblance of democracy there. There are those who are under the delusion that Iraqis will become an extension of the U.S. military. The better they are trained, the more potential that they will use their military prowess against U.S. forces. It's a lose-lose situation. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Wesley S Date: 30 Oct 05 - 02:39 PM Peter - Just how should we withdraw from Iraq ? |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 30 Oct 05 - 03:08 PM Whiplash, you are a Mudcat phyony who can't insult someone with your usual posting name. Snidely Whiplash you must be. Pure evil. And someone who is so easy to rattle. You know you have been a great target for a while. Withdraw from Irag and leave a wet spot! |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Ebbie Date: 30 Oct 05 - 04:16 PM Frank, I think the current US government's inability to see beyond today's needs is probably our biggest problem. It is as if the administration doesn't even try to see what effect an action being contemplated may have down the road. I have a friend with whom I no longer ride on icy roads. He says that whatever emergency comes up he will deal with at the time. He travels at normal speed on the ice and imo doesn't practice defensive driving. Twice, in response to an unexpected move by another driver, we have fishtailed our way to the grss on the shoulder. It is true that we came out of it OK but I don't want to live my life with my heart in my throat. Bush and my friend have quite a bit in common. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: dianavan Date: 30 Oct 05 - 04:29 PM Frank was right when he said, "The only "mission" is to create work for Haliburton, oil contracts for Bush's cronies, build military bases to invade other Mid-east countries and to help the nut in the White House "wag the dog" in his quest for power." If the U.S. administration cared about the Iraqi people, Halliburton would be employing Iraqis instead of importing workers from the third world. It is absolutely senseless to 'train' Iraqi soldiers to protect democracy in a country that has been destroyed. Do you think the people of Iraq give two shits about democracy when they are stuggling to survive each and every day? Training and employing Iraqis to re-build the infrastructure would be a good first step to self determination. Once the economy is up and running, the Iraqis can decide for themselves what kind of government they want. Until then, the U.S. has a moral obligation to help re-build and to protect the Iraqis while they are doing it. If the U.S. cared about anything other than profit, this war would never have happened. You can thank Bush and Cheney and every American who voted for them for this sorry state of affairs. They created this mess and when they leave office, they will leave a mess that only the combined forces of many nations will be able to repair. Shame, shame and more shame. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River Date: 30 Oct 05 - 07:22 PM Ha! You think John Kerrie is a flippin' idiot? YOu should meet my flippin' BROTHER!!! He is the flippin' idiots' idiot, eh? He is a total flippin' mother-flippin' BOLTHOLE and a major looser that ain't goin' nowheer in life! Thats right. You herd it here, eh? I flippin' pity him. He don't know nothin' but how to drink, lie like a rug, and get seriously dumb girls in "troubhle", if you know what I mean. He is a fippin' disaster that is lookin' for a place to blow up in, eh? We ain't talkin'. Again. I have wrorte him off. I am outta jail and I have turned my life around, eh? I mean seriously. I am on the raod to total success here and it ain't NO thanks to the flippin', flip-faced, bald looser idiot who WAS my brother! Here that, Don? Flip you! Ha. You looser. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: dianavan Date: 30 Oct 05 - 07:36 PM You would like that, wouldn't you, Martin. "...let's get out of Iraq and let everybody there just kill each other." Thats not what I said. Actually, the U.S. has a moral obligation to stay there and help re-build. Thats what I said. As for as blowing you, you're dreaming. I'd rather see you blow up. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Oct 05 - 09:49 PM Remember when Martin Gibson said he was going away? That was bullshit wasn't it? More of the same. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: dianavan Date: 30 Oct 05 - 10:34 PM TIA - I know better than to respond to Martin. He can't seem to read and makes no sense. His only ability is to attack and back track. His other abilities are profane which I find odd coming from someone who professes to believe in God. Unless, of course, he is a Jew that doesn't believe in God. Is that possible? |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Plato Date: 30 Oct 05 - 10:44 PM Martin Gibson performs and educational service. He demonstrates that bigotry, stupidity, and tastelessness know no bounds. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Stilly River Sage Date: 31 Oct 05 - 01:14 PM Consider the following: The U.S. is invaded by China. On a large scale they don't speak the language, they don't practice the same politics and don't share the general religious views. They are only here to liberate us from our abusive industrial/military complex government. They insist that they won't leave until we "voluntarily" put a government of their choosing into place. Overlay the types and level of resistance the U.S. has encountered in Iraq on this scenario. Assitance would no doubt sneak in from other English-speaking or capitalist nations. Now, at what point would the Chinese decide that the the attacks by all of these Americans bearing arms and blowing up anything they can get their hands on to injure and drive back the Chinese are too much? At what point do you think the Americans would decide they should just put down arms and make the stupid vote just to make the Chinese happy? Would the Chinese really go away once the vote has been taken? Would the U.S. feel obligated to maintain this form of government IF the Chinese left? The U.S. needs to get the hell of Iraq. It's an expensive, stupid lost cause. Bush lied his way into the fight and he's spent billions to get thousands of Americans killed. He has destablilized the U.S. economy for decades to come. He has enriched his friends in the petroleum and military complex more than they ever dreamed. Reagan would be proud. SRS Martin Gibson, your keyboard must be a stinky sticky mess. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Wesley S Date: 31 Oct 05 - 01:41 PM Let's face it - now that we're there we're never going to leave. It's too strategic a location NOT to have a base of some sort. We will find some kind of excuse to stay there forever. Besides - they still have some oil left. Young American lives for oil - now that's a screwed up exchange program. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Oct 05 - 01:50 PM Well said, SRS. That is a superb example of clear thinking, good reasoning, and a well-stated allegory of exactly what is really occurring in Iraq...which is the natural reaction of any population to a foreign invader who does not comprehend their way of life, and whose way of life they do not comprehend either. Such situations only resolve themselves (more or less...) when the invader leaves. The further problem in Iraq is that it is really 3 separate peoples/cultures cobbled together in an unworkable fashion by a bunch of Englishmen who arbitrarily drew a border on a map there when Britain was engaging in its great imperial colonial expansion across the World. Iraq has never been stable except when under a rigidly authoritarian and locally created rule. In that respect it is very similar to the former Yugoslavia which was only stable under Marshall Tito, for the simple reason that he would shoot anyone who didn't follow the rules. Democracy as we think of it is probably impossible to achieve in present day Iraq, given the cultural divisions between Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd...and given the general cultural past of the whole region. In any case, the USA is only doing its "democracy" exercise as window dressing to make things look good to the American voters, who are the only people foolish enough to believe it in large numbers. What the USA is truly after there is oil and a strategic position in the Middle East from which further wars can be launched...when it is deemed necessary by the oil industry and the US State Department. I note that there is a growing media campaign against both Iran and Syria now...and that the Iranians in particular are acting like idiots in doing exactly what will assist that media campaign in preparing people for a war with Iran. It's ironical and really very sad to see these things happening. Martin is quite correct in one thing...virtually all of us take ourselves way too seriously at times... (grin)...but that is an almost universal human failing, isn't it? Who doesn't take himself too seriously? It seems to be the price of being human in fact! So...why shouldn't we come here to do it? The USA takes itself way too seriously too. So does Iran. So do the Kurds. So do the Shiites. So do the Sunnis. So does Osama. And Saddam. Everybody oughta just shut up for awhile and be thankful for the blessings they have, right? With that thought, I am going to have a smile and take a deep breath and just shut up for a minute or two... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Stilly River Sage Date: 31 Oct 05 - 08:54 PM Thanks, Little Hawk. I've had this idea on my mind for a while, and considering how clear the scenario was to set up, wonder that someone else hasn't thought of it before now. It isn't difficult to understand why people are fighting the kind of fight we are seeing in Iraq. Not difficult at all. Yet Americans can't seem to see it. Iraqis and Americans have been equally victimized by the Bush Machine's press releases and photo opportunities. Embedded reporters are misled reporters, seeing the war with blinders on, missing the main story all around them. Remember when Jessica Lynch was "rescued" by American soldiers? It was a much a non-event as when the statue of Saddam was pulled down by the "angry mob" (a hand-picked group that the Americans moved around for different photo ops). She received good medical attention in Iraq. An excerpt from the article I linked to said
"We gave her three bottles of blood, two of them from the medical staff because there was no blood at this time,"said Dr Harith al-Houssona, who looked after her throughout her ordeal. "I examined her, I saw she had a broken arm, a broken thigh and a dislocated ankle. Then I did another examination. There was no [sign of] shooting, no bullet inside her body, no stab wound - only RTA, road traffic accident," he recalled. "They want to distort the picture. I don't know why they think there is some benefit in saying she has a bullet injury." The basic humanity of the Iraqis has been lost in the propaganda machine. They are objectified--as either victims or insurgents. Through our media we have no idea of what the people in Iraq are really like. I daresay they find themselves torn between at least two violent groups of combants. I doubt there is a "lesser of two evils." Either way you're dead. I consider it likely that there is (finally) a group of al Qaida working in Iraq, but ironicially, I think they're there at the suggestion and invitation of George Bush. They weren't in Iraq to begin with, but Dubya kept insisting the link was there, so they finally made the move. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Bobert Date: 31 Oct 05 - 09:53 PM What LH said, SRS.... Great analogy.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Stilly River Sage Date: 01 Nov 05 - 12:22 AM christ, whoever you are behind the name "martin gibson," you'd make a seventh grade boy blush with your stupid insistence at using what you hope are nasty words and ideas that might shock the crowd. There's a link at the bottom of the page to "Activate your Brain and IQ." Why don't you give that some consideration? You push into a conversation and insist on inserting your brand of non sequitur slime to see who salutes. You probably jerk off at your computer every time you get a response. Well here's one more. Does your probation officer know that you're back online harassing people? |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST Date: 01 Nov 05 - 01:38 PM So let me get this straight. Cultural differences would doom the ethnic chinese in taking over America, and cultural differences are an impediment with regard to Iraqis getting along with Americans, but here in America, the trend away from a melting pot mentality and toward a celebration of cultural diversity, well, that is a good thing? Geez, if diversity is so good for our cities, why aint it working over there? |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Don Firth Date: 01 Nov 05 - 03:11 PM Assuming that we should be there at all and assuming that the Bush administration is actually sincere about trying to establish an independent democratic government in Iraq (which, in itself, is quite a leap), a large part of the problem is that what we are trying to impose on Iraq is not true democracy, but American-style democracy. It may come as a helluva surprise to most Americans (but not to some) to know that America does not have a true democracy. With its three main factions, Iraq may be ready for true democracy, although, at this point, I seriously doubt it. But American-style democracy just ain't gonna work over there. What's the difference? Well, to explain that would require something far more extensive than can be provided in a post on a Mudcat thread, and it's already been done in a small book that's packed with eye-popping information: First Democracy : The Challenge of an Ancient Idea by Paul Woodruff. First of all, being able to vote is not what defines democracy. Nor does representative government. Both of these the United States has and, as we can see, it's not working very well. Instead of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," we're getting crooks, idiots, incompetents, and would-be tyrants in as our leaders and our so-called representatives are not representing us, they are representing a plethora of special interests, most of which are out screw the American people to enhance their own power and profits. Nor does a true democracy have political parties. It most certainly has factions, but none of them have the power—and the major flaw—that a two-party (or even three or four or five party) system has: representing only certain viewpoints, generally overlapping, while leaving many other viewpoints totally unrepresented. This is the very thing that many Iraqis (mostly Sunnis) fear: majority rule (by the Shi-ites). Woodruff says that there are seven requirements for the existence of a democracy (no, seven is not some mystical number he picked out of the air, it just worked out that way). Find out what they are and why they're necessary. Get a copy of First Democracy and read it. You'll discover that much of what you thought about democracy in general and American government in particular just ain't so! Most educational! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Amos Date: 01 Nov 05 - 03:21 PM On Don's recommendation I read First Democracy and I second his recommendation. The version of democracy offered by main stream schools and mainstream media is really something of a K-Mart special version, shoppers. A |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 01 Nov 05 - 03:30 PM I'd be interested in reading that as well; I'll look for it. I might also recommend Fareed Zakaria's book The Future Of Freedom. In it Zakaria argues that democracy is NOT what we should lead with, as democratic elections in advance of the establishment of constitutional structures can quickly lead to the tyranny of the majority, followed by violent revolution by the oppressed minorities. Instead, there need to be (1) governmental/ constitutional structures in place to establish the checks and balances between branches of the government that make democracy function well, (2) constitutional guarantees of the rights of minorities, and (3) a market-based economy with private ownership of property that gives individuals a stake in the success of the whole enterprise. This may sound like "American-style democracy" to some, but it's a basic formula that is not intrinsically American, and seems to work where others fail. I'm paraphrasing his points, and I'm probably not smart enough to do it well. But it's a compelling book, and I would urge others to read it. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Nov 05 - 03:45 PM Sounds like a good start to me, Whistlestop. Blanket majority rule is only a good idea when the majority of people are very highly aware, unselfish, and highly motivated in every respect. Otherwise, they DO become a dictatorship of larger groups over smaller ones. Given a poorly informed, selfish, self-indulgent, and fearful majority...what are you gonna get when they call the shots and no one else can do anything about it? Not a good situation, that's what. Each social situation is unique. Therefore, what works well in one place cannot necessarily be expected to work well in another. |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Stilly River Sage Date: 01 Nov 05 - 04:55 PM
You're mixing apples and oranges, guest. The cultural diversity that is voluntary in today's world in the U.S. is entirely different than the "cultural diversity" that exists under occupation or colonization. Just ask American Indians. They don't figure into your formula, but if you look at narratives and literature of modern Indians today you'll find people who still resent like hell the occupation and subjugation of their lands and people. The out and out warfare existed for the first 400 years of the 500 years of European occupation of North and South America. You think we should stay in Iraq for 400 years? SRS |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: GUEST Date: 01 Nov 05 - 05:48 PM Martin Gibson,[bleep] (for gratuitous vulgarity) a turd floating in the punchbowl of life. What a waste of space he is!! |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Bobert Date: 01 Nov 05 - 08:44 PM Ahhh, just fir thr record [bleep] {for gratuitous vulgarity}, MG... You are a disgrace to the human race.. You are a disgrace to yer professed religion.... You are a disgrace to music... ... and fir that matter, there aren't many honorable categories that you aren't a disgrace... I'd bet even yer mother would agree... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot From: Amos Date: 01 Nov 05 - 11:24 PM Oh, LOOK! MG has MORPHED and is pretending to be Bobert!! Wow!... Well, on second thought, the copy isn't very god -- see all the warped pixels and the dropped out colors? Stringy edges? Missing attributes? Kinda watery, a little yellowish...actually...it sucks, doesn't it... Let's throw it out and start over. A |
| Share Thread: |
