And fighting an insurgency is post hostilities.
We aren't fighting the government of Iraq anymore.
-Original Message-
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 4:51 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Great perspective on the War
::sigh: Wolfowitz said
::sigh: Wolfowitz said Iraq qould be able to pay for its reconstruction in 1-2
years. Cheney said the US would be out in weeks not months. If you need
anything else, here's the timeline they were working from, now declassified. It
says that the US will be "post-hostilities" after a year.
http:/
um, yes.
>in the the capabilites of the enemy. His read was wrong.
~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7
The most significant release in over 10 years. Upgrade & see new features.
http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJR
On 5/25/07, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam,
>
> Don't you think that if at one point Cheney was saying weeks not months, it's
> quite likely that in one of the many stories the administration has had about
> the war, they may have said two years? I for one find it totally plausible
> tBone wrote:
> Man, what brought about this hardcore defeatist attitude in you?
>
That's like saying that police can win or night watchman can win - win
doesn't make any sense - you just do your job.
Here's the right question:
If Al Quaeda hit us twice this year would we shift resources from
Sam,
Don't you think that if at one point Cheney was saying weeks not months, it's
quite likely that in one of the many stories the administration has had about
the war, they may have said two years? I for one find it totally plausible.
Whoever said wasn't it two years they said is too bored by
On 5/23/07, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's the matter, the fill transcript too hard for ya? Here ya go. I've
> copied out paragraph 7 for you.
Why are you reading the positive there though? He says point blank,
"There's always the possibility of complications that you can't
ant
> > cHat wrote:
> > Link and/or quote?
>
> Thanks to Erika for the link. But I'm curious, what *was* your
> impression, at the time of the sale of the war, of the *cost* of the
> war in terms of:
Sorry for taking so long to get back to this thread but there's
something that doesn't look right th
??? Since Bush got elected.
Now if Kerry and the UN were running things he would support any
military action.
On 5/25/07, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Man, what brought about this hardcore defeatist attitude in you?
~|
U
On 5/25/07, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, Sam, it's a different quote. I am proud of you for noticing that
>
> So let me see. We were questioning whether anyone ever said we would be in
> and out of Iraq in two years.
No, GG said something about Cheney saying we'll be out in 12-
Man, what brought about this hardcore defeatist attitude in you?
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 8:48 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Great perspective on the War
> RoMunn wrote:
> What are we
> gaining? An ideologica
> RoMunn wrote:
> What are we
> gaining? An ideological ally in the Arab world- our first.
All of that may be true (it it works, and there's risk it won't), but
at what cost? That's the piece that's NEVER discussed. WHAT ARE WE
SACRIFICING FOR THE *CHANCE* THAT THESE THINGS COME TO PASS.
Too mu
hehe. Who am I not going to bed with? Just making sure I have it straight ;)
>DANA! I'm SHOCKED! You two clean up your act or you're BOTH going to
>bed early. But not together.
~|
Create Web Applications With ColdFusion MX7 &
Yes, Sam, it's a different quote. I am proud of you for noticing that
So let me see. We were questioning whether anyone ever said we would be in and
out of Iraq in two years. Here we have Cheney going a step further and saying
"weeks not months." And you're not happy? And I'm the asshole?
Co
ah, is that why I'm here
>you're giving me a time out for being right? cool.
>
>> ;P
>
>:-o
>
>--
>will
~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7
The most significant release in over 10 years. Upgrade & see new features.
http://www.a
::perks:: I'm in the corner? Was I bad or something?
>It's to do with peacetime vs. wartime; not Clinton vs. Bush. It's
>comparing training exercise accidents to real war casualties.
>
>I'm not in the mood to play with you today, go sit in the corner with Dana.
>;P
>
>On 5/24/07, William Bowen <[
well - ok. He keeps asking for quotes, though, which suggests he isn't reading
the ones already posted. Which makes me wonder why not ;) I'll admit it was not
a nice remark, but imho it was justified.
>Prior to Sam's post, Dana suggested that she would post something with
>"smaller words" so t
Go back to Bob Kerrey's piece. We won the war to oust Saddam Hussein and
create a democracy in Iraq. Now we are fighting the war to defend that new,
fragile democracy from a host of enemies internal and external. What are we
gaining? An ideological ally in the Arab world- our first. If Iraq survive
> Why not go back 100 years? Think about that a bit.
data in the table only goes back to 1980...
> I was wrong, sorry.
>
> Will that do?
I guess, but it didn't sound sincere... :-P
> You're in another one of
> your childish attack modes and that's what I'm not in the mood for.
awesome. was won
> That's just looking at hostile deaths. We were talking about overall
> deaths.
Again, first number DATE; Second Number, TOTAL DEATHS; Third number,
Percent Death per 100,000 (as it turns out-- so my initial
calculations wee a bit off, but not by much.)
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it w
On 5/24/07, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it really isn't about Clinton vs Bush, then why not compare numbers
> of deaths under Reagan (17201 twice as many as Bush 2...hr) or
> Bush the first (6223 only 2/3 of Bush 2 in 2/3 the time!) to Bush 2:
> Electric Bugaloo?
Why not go b
> No, you were using the wrong column to.
No, I was using the total deaths column. I then broke out the hostile
action deaths as a percentage.
> All he said was there were less deaths.
He said there were more deaths under Clinton. Not non combat, not
combat, simply more deaths.
> Obviously ther
-Community
Subject: Re: Great perspective on the War
> He posted the wrong column.
and what's more, the real numbers don't support his supposition, go figure.
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unaccep
That's just looking at hostile deaths. We were talking about overall
deaths.
-Original Message-
From: William Bowen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:50 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Great perspective on the War
> More died before the war:
even
> It's to do with peacetime vs. wartime; not Clinton vs. Bush. It's
> comparing training exercise accidents to real war casualties.
If it really isn't about Clinton vs Bush, then why not compare numbers
of deaths under Reagan (17201 twice as many as Bush 2...hr) or
Bush the first (6223 only 2/
It's to do with peacetime vs. wartime; not Clinton vs. Bush. It's
comparing training exercise accidents to real war casualties.
I'm not in the mood to play with you today, go sit in the corner with Dana.
;P
On 5/24/07, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1815 more died during six years o
> 1815 more died during six years of Bush, which included a war, than
> during the first six years of Clinton.
wow.
so just what exactly does that prove?
more accidents under clinton?
WTF does that prove, and why does it matter?
how about if we do an analysis of those wounded in action?
25,549
1815 more died during six years of Bush, which included a war, than
during the first six years of Clinton.
On 5/24/07, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > More died before the war:
>
> even the raw *actual* numbers of deaths (total) disagree with your
> supposition, you'll find the totals
> He posted the wrong column.
and what's more, the real numbers don't support his supposition, go figure.
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Carrie Fisher
~|
Upgr
> More died before the war:
even the raw *actual* numbers of deaths (total) disagree with your
supposition, you'll find the totals below with an appended notation of
the percent of those killed during hostile action...
7500 military deaths under Clinton of which 9.74 (by percent) were due
to host
He posted the wrong column.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:37 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Great perspective on the War
WTF?
Sam wrote:
> More died before the war:
>
> Active duty military deaths
> Cl
-Community
Subject: Re: Great perspective on the War
More died before the war:
Active duty military deaths
Clinton
1993 1,675,269
1994 1,581,649
1995 1,502,343
1996 1,456,266
1997 1,418,773
1998 1,381,034
1999 1,367,838
2000 1,372,352
Bush
2001 1,384,812
2002 1,411,200
2003 1,423,348
2004 1,411,287
WTF?
Sam wrote:
> More died before the war:
>
> Active duty military deaths
> Clinton
> 1993 1,675,269
> 1994 1,581,649
> 1995 1,502,343
> 1996 1,456,266
>
> 1997 1,418,773
> 1998 1,381,034
> 1999 1,367,838
> 2000 1,372,352
>
> Bush
> 2001 1,384,812
> 2002 1,411,200
> 2003 1,423,348
> 2004 1,411,
ry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:19 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Great perspective on the War
The problem I have is: there is no plan to win.
What good does it do to half-heartedly fight forever?
What exactly are we gaining, again?
On 5/24/07, Loathe <[EM
um Sam? methink thou didst not post the entire bit of table you desired.
I'd tend to think that a 1.3+ million military deaths under *any*
President would be a few too many.
perhaps the column you wanted to post was a little further to the right.
the one you actually did post was number of Activ
More died before the war:
Active duty military deaths
Clinton
1993 1,675,269
1994 1,581,649
1995 1,502,343
1996 1,456,266
1997 1,418,773
1998 1,381,034
1999 1,367,838
2000 1,372,352
Bush
2001 1,384,812
2002 1,411,200
2003 1,423,348
2004 1,411,287
2005 1,378,014
2006 *** 1,378,014
http://siadap
11. More than that died
> on the beaches of Normandy. Our deaths per year in this war wouldn't equal
> a month's fighting in most previous conflicts.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 11:02 AM
> T
hursday, May 24, 2007 11:02 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Great perspective on the War
> tBone wrote:
> I don't think about money when I think about war.
>
Then you shouldn't think about war. In fact you'd have no America to
do it in if it hadn't been for the Frenc
Ah, back in the day when you could count on the French.
What happened to them?
Did they do it to help us or just screw the British? Who cares?
On 5/24/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > tBone wrote:
> > I don't think about money when I think about war.
> >
>
> Then you shouldn't think
> tBone wrote:
> I don't think about money when I think about war.
>
Then you shouldn't think about war. In fact you'd have no America to
do it in if it hadn't been for the French who paid for our
revolutionary war.
Without money, there is no war and certainly no victory.
~~
e dropzone, out of
a division of 15,000.
I don't think about money when I think about war.
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:41 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Great perspective on the War
> Dana wrote:
> Here Sam
> gMoney wrote:
> Prior to Sam's post, Dana suggested that she would post something with
> "smaller words" so that he would be able to understand
>
DANA! I'm SHOCKED! You two clean up your act or you're BOTH going to
bed early. But not together.
~~~
Prior to Sam's post, Dana suggested that she would post something with
"smaller words" so that he would be able to understand
On 5/24/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Sam wrote:
> > You know, it's bad enough you're an idiot, do you have to be an asshole
> too?
> >
>
> ^^
> Sam wrote:
> You know, it's bad enough you're an idiot, do you have to be an asshole too?
>
^^ If you can't be in the discussion w/o the name calling then
don't be in the discussion
~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7
Ex
You know, it's bad enough you're an idiot, do you have to be an asshole too?
The link posted was Meet the Press, this is from Face the Nation. That
might explain why it wasn't there.
CHENEY: Weeks rather than months. There's always the possibility of
complications that you can't anticipate, but
> Dana wrote:
> Here Sam
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-then-and-now-usat_x.htm
>
Regardless of the specific I'm curious to know what the war supporters
thought at the time. Are you implying that you impression was
something along this line:
* 90% of our active and reserve
Here Sam -- this doesn't use as many big words. Might be easier for you.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-then-and-now-usat_x.htm
See March 16th in the sidebar.
>I read Howard Dean and Tim Russert both said it. Can someone provide
>the exact quote of Cheney saying it please?
What's the matter, the fill transcript too hard for ya? Here ya go. I've
copied out paragraph 7 for you.
On CBS's "Face the Nation" on March 16, Cheney said the fight would be "weeks
rather than months. There's always the possibility of complications that you
can't anticipate, but I have great
I read Howard Dean and Tim Russert both said it. Can someone provide
the exact quote of Cheney saying it please?
On 5/23/07, Erika L. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sorry - this is what I was looking for .. although the other link is good
What an
> http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/c
> cHat wrote:
> Link and/or quote?
>
Thanks to Erika for the link. But I'm curious, what *was* your
impression, at the time of the sale of the war, of the *cost* of the
war in terms of:
1.) Overall cost in dollars
2.) Overall cost in troops dedicated to Iraq
3.) Overall cost in dead?
~
sorry - this is what I was looking for .. although the other link is good
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm
~|
ColdFusion MX7 and Flex 2
Build sales & marketing dashboard RIAâs for your bus
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/site_packages/2003/where_they_stand/3048cheney_iraq_war.html
On 5/23/07, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > cHat wrote:
> > > Where in the HELL were the American people told that this would take 2
> > > years?
> > >
> >
> > By Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, C
> > cHat wrote:
> > Where in the HELL were the American people told that this would take 2
> > years?
> >
>
> By Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Feith amoungst others. The quote
> was, "18-24 months". Specifically Cheney said that on Meet The Press.
Link and/or quote?
~
> RoMunnwrote:
> See the piece by Bob Kerrey from the other thread:
>
See my reply on that thread.
~|
ColdFusion MX7 and Flex 2
Build sales & marketing dashboard RIAâs for your business. Upgrade now
http://www.adobe.com/produc
> cHat wrote:
> Where in the HELL were the American people told that this would take 2 years?
>
By Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Feith amoungst others. The quote
was, "18-24 months". Specifically Cheney said that on Meet The Press.
> >Where in the HELL were the American people told that this would take 2 years?
>
> âThe oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100
> billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a
> lot of claims on that money, but⦠We are dealing with a country th
See the piece by Bob Kerrey from the other thread:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010107
As I have said before, this is a fight to the death with people who want to
turn the world into a 12th century Islamic state. We have to defend Iraqi
democracy against tyrants, thu
>Yeah, I seem to remember the possibility of decades being discussed.
I seem to remember that US troops were going to be greeted with flowers.
~|
Create Web Applications With ColdFusion MX7 & Flex 2.
Build powerful, scalable RIA
>Where in the HELL were the American people told that this would take 2 years?
âThe oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion
over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims
on that money, but⦠We are dealing with a country that can
Maybe it was the constant barrage of statements like these?
Cheney: I'm confident that our troops will be successful, and I think
it'll go relatively quickly, but we can't...
Q: Weeks?
Cheney: ...we can't count on that.
Q: Months?
Cheney: Weeks rather than months.
Cheney, March 16, 2003:
"And
Yeah, I seem to remember the possibility of decades being discussed.
-Original Message-
From: C. Hatton Humphrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:47 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Great perspective on the War
> > The story you rarely hear in the media
> > The story you rarely hear in the media is the compassion that individual
> > soldiers on the ground have for the local population who are suffering the
> > effects of the struggle.
>
> The American people were told that we had to go to war with Iraq
> because of WMD, that we'd be there for 2 ye
On 5/22/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The American people Yada, yada yada...
>
> Since then we've been told every month that "we're makin' progress",
> yet no progress is seen; this soldier points that out as gMoney said.
Anecdotal
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-f
> RoMunn wrote:
> The story you rarely hear in the media is the compassion that individual
> soldiers on the ground have for the local population who are suffering the
> effects of the struggle.
>
The American people were told that we had to go to war with Iraq
because of WMD, that we'd be there f
Great stuff. I particularly like this part, too:
"I cannot emphasize enough the
meaninglessness of most of the media coverage. it is not that it is
inaccurate, but it lacks perspective and objectivity. If you could see
the streets here and talk to the people that live in them, you would
understand
On 5/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I equate this war to a baseball game at the Vallejo teeball complex
> between the world series caliber Yankees, and the local 7 year old
> Vallejo teeball champs.
> US Army=Yankees,
> Teeballl=insurgents.
>
> We are in inning 514, and the
66 matches
Mail list logo
