[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > [snip] > > > > (do.rflex speaking about Shemp:) > > > What a sick fuck. > > > And you, Bongo Brazil, exemplify perfect mental health. > > It's always so much fun dialoging with you. I'm sure. Here's the key part of what Magoo snipped: > In our never-ending discussions on global warming on this forum, it > is inevitably brought up by those who believe in catastrophic man- > made global warming that "it is better to be safe than sorry"; that > we may not be 100% sure that global warming is going to cause the > destruction in the future that people like Al Gore are predicting but > when so much is at stake it's better to err on the side of safety. > > Well, is that not what Bush did with Iraq? No one could say with > 100% certainty that Iraq had WMD but why not err on the side of > safety? What we DID know was that Saddam had used them before, had > attempted to build a nuclear facility -- which the Israelis bombed > in '81 (and which I flew over on the very same day on return from my > Kashmir TM course) -- and was an all-out nasty character...and if he > wasn't letting people in and he did NOT have WMD, isn't Saddam to > shoulder SOME of the blame? > > So why is it okay to be safe than sorry with global warming but not > with Saddam Hussein? This is another clear example of Magoo's social pathology. Here he tries to compare working to stop polluting the earth to prevent massive deaths resulting from drastic climate changes in a globally agreed consensus that it's imperiative to address it - to invading a sovereign nation that has resulted in the deaths and injuries of millions of human beings. What a sick fuck.
[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] (do.rflex speaking about Shemp:) > What a sick fuck. And you, Bongo Brazil, exemplify perfect mental health. It's always so much fun dialoging with you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > shempmcgurk wrote: > > > ...that's what the total number of American troops killed in the > Iraq > > > War represent as a percentage of all American troops killed in > all wars > > > America has fought: > > > > > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html > > The number should be zero. There should have been no war in Iraq. > Or > > do you advocate using young people as cannon fodder? > > > > > I'm not advocating anything. > > All I'm doing is reproducing some statistics to put the Iraq War in > perspective. -snip- in terms of putting the war in perspective, although it may be a tiny percentage when compared to other wars, we as humans don't evaluate it that way, essentially as a rounding error and who cares who died. instinctively we each know that for each soldier or civilian killed, if that was our brother, sister, child or spouse, the statistic goes way above .5 percent, to 50% or more, of our family, or closest loved ones died. this then is why so many people detest war, not for its comparitive statistics, but for its direct impact.
[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > > [snip] > > > ~~~BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency > has > > to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put > > their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass > destruction > > is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my > > administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in > > Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of > > nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. > > And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had > > been different, I guess. > > > > Of course, Bush made the decision to overlook all the *good* intel - > - > > not to mention the claims of those poor forgotten inspectors -- > saying > > that Saddam wasn't really a threat at all, or certainly not one > > requiring the response Bush himself ordered. > > [snip] > > I don't think he did overlook all the "good" intel. The clear evidence shows that he did intentionally ignore intel that showed much of the WMD intel to be bogus or questionable at best. Not only that, but that he and his team continued to make claims that had been clearly shown to them be false. > If he did, he would have made a surprise attack, not the long, drawn > out attack in which he gave Saddam every possible opportunity to let > inspectors in, according to his prior agreements, and allow them, > unfettered, to inspect every crook and nanny of Iraq that they wanted > to but that Saddam for 12 years had thwarted (and which 17 > resolutions of the U.N. said he thwarted). > > Saddam's incalcitrance only encouraged the attack that eventually > happened. Before the invasion Saddam had given total unfettered access to the UN inspection teams. Bush kicked them out so he could invade. But let's not pretend that Bush went into Iraq all gung- > ho. That simply didn't happen...it WOULD have happened and it SHOULD > have happened if Bush had 100% convincing intel that there were in > fact weapons of mass destruction. The evidence is clear that the Bush gang had wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11 and had made definite plans to do it right after 9/11. > > Here's another point: > > In our never-ending discussions on global warming on this forum, it > is inevitably brought up by those who believe in catastrophic man- > made global warming that "it is better to be safe than sorry"; that > we may not be 100% sure that global warming is going to cause the > destruction in the future that people like Al Gore are predicting but > when so much is at stake it's better to err on the side of safety. > > Well, is that not what Bush did with Iraq? No one could say with > 100% certainty that Iraq had WMD but why not err on the side of > safety? What we DID know was that Saddam had used them before, had > attempted to build a nuclear facility -- which the Israelis bombed > in '81 (and which I flew over on the very same day on return from my > Kashmir TM course) -- and was an all-out nasty character...and if he > wasn't letting people in and he did NOT have WMD, isn't Saddam to > shoulder SOME of the blame? > > So why is it okay to be safe than sorry with global warming but not > with Saddam Hussein? This is another clear example of Magoo's social pathology. Here he tries to compare working to stop polluting the earth to prevent massive deaths resulting from drastic climate changes in a globally agreed consensus that it's imperiative to address it - to invading a sovereign nation that has resulted in the deaths and injuries of millions of human beings. What a sick fuck.
[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > ~~~BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has > to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put > their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction > is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my > administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in > Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of > nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. > And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had > been different, I guess. > > Of course, Bush made the decision to overlook all the *good* intel - - > not to mention the claims of those poor forgotten inspectors -- saying > that Saddam wasn't really a threat at all, or certainly not one > requiring the response Bush himself ordered. [snip] I don't think he did overlook all the "good" intel. If he did, he would have made a surprise attack, not the long, drawn out attack in which he gave Saddam every possible opportunity to let inspectors in, according to his prior agreements, and allow them, unfettered, to inspect every crook and nanny of Iraq that they wanted to but that Saddam for 12 years had thwarted (and which 17 resolutions of the U.N. said he thwarted). Saddam's incalcitrance only encouraged the attack that eventually happened. But let's not pretend that Bush went into Iraq all gung- ho. That simply didn't happen...it WOULD have happened and it SHOULD have happened if Bush had 100% convincing intel that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction. Here's another point: In our never-ending discussions on global warming on this forum, it is inevitably brought up by those who believe in catastrophic man- made global warming that "it is better to be safe than sorry"; that we may not be 100% sure that global warming is going to cause the destruction in the future that people like Al Gore are predicting but when so much is at stake it's better to err on the side of safety. Well, is that not what Bush did with Iraq? No one could say with 100% certainty that Iraq had WMD but why not err on the side of safety? What we DID know was that Saddam had used them before, had attempted to build a nuclear facility -- which the Israelis bombed in '81 (and which I flew over on the very same day on return from my Kashmir TM course) -- and was an all-out nasty character...and if he wasn't letting people in and he did NOT have WMD, isn't Saddam to shoulder SOME of the blame? So why is it okay to be safe than sorry with global warming but not with Saddam Hussein?
[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ...that's what the total number of American troops killed in the Iraq > War represent as a percentage of all American troops killed in all wars > America has fought: > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html "Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." ~~ Henry Kissinger, Nixon Sec of State and National Security Advisor during the Vietnam War http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger -Bush: My Biggest Regret Was Failure Of Iraq Intelligence- As if right on cue, Barack Obama's successful national security presser today, in which he declared that the "buck stops with me" and took full responsibility for his presidency's vision, is cast in an even more positive light by the deeply pathetic interview that his predecessor just gave to ABC News. In the interview, which was conduced by Charlie Gibson, George W. Bush evades responsibility for his catastrophic foreign policies to the last, saying that his greatest regret was over something that he allegedly didn't control -- the intel failure in Iraq: ~~~BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess. Of course, Bush made the decision to overlook all the *good* intel -- not to mention the claims of those poor forgotten inspectors -- saying that Saddam wasn't really a threat at all, or certainly not one requiring the response Bush himself ordered. One overlooked thing about this is that not only Bush, but many supporters of the war -- Dems and liberal hawks included -- also have a vested interest in pretending that the *good* intel never existed and those inspectors never said what they said. Those inconvenient historical facts reflect rather badly on them, too. With so many opinion-makers having vested interests of their own in telling the story this way, history has been tidily rewritten, and Bush is able to make this claim without a peep of objection from his big-time network interviewer. In other news from the interview, Bush conceded that he was "unprepared for war," though he meant it more by way of saying that he hadn't asked for war. No follow-up from his interviewer about the war of choice Bush started, or the fact that the self-described role of "war president" wasn't one Bush was all that adverse to adopting. Late Update: Matthew Yglesias adds the crucial context here, which is that it was the complete lack of an "opposition party" that is largely responsible for so much going "down the memory hole." Links here: http://snipurl.com/70289
[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > shempmcgurk wrote: > > ...that's what the total number of American troops killed in the Iraq > > War represent as a percentage of all American troops killed in all wars > > America has fought: > > > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html > The number should be zero. There should have been no war in Iraq. Or > do you advocate using young people as cannon fodder? > I'm not advocating anything. All I'm doing is reproducing some statistics to put the Iraq War in perspective. Oh, and I forgot to name it correctly: It's not the Iraq War but the Iraq/Afghanistan War because the casualty stats are from both. So for those of you reading this that are FOR the Afghanistan War (such as Barack Obama and Ron Paul), the figures are actually less for just the Iraq War...
[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
One American soldier killed in this dumb Iraq War is too much. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ...that's what the total number of American troops killed in the Iraq > War represent as a percentage of all American troops killed in all wars > America has fought: > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html > > > > . >
