I'm throwin' my 20 Dinar in the Pass pot early, here.
Pass, are you goin' to keep a spreadsheet? Maybe there's some demographic information available, such as a breakdown by age?

IS SOMEONE KEEPIN' COUNT? I fear that the numbers will become meaningless, and although I can wrap my mind around 1M pretty easy, when we start talkin' kids, I get a tad upset. I fear that this is not the end of it by any means. It's no freakin' wonder these people are wary of us.

Dave....you lost me on that one. Why would this make the Kurds weary of us????

We didn't tell the Kurds we'd back them in their uprising.
We're the ones that set them free, right?

I don't think I've seen or read anything indicating the Kurds are weary of the US. I think they are happy as hell we're there. JMHO

200 children is a terrible tragedy. I wonder what our little liberal socialist, anti-American, Bush hating, little monkeys will have to say about this. My guess is..........nothing.

Unless they say it is 'all propaganda, set up by the CIA and the Bush administration'.

SADAM HUSSIEN WAS A WMD AND WE KNOW HE EXISTED

Jeff B - I wasn't referring to the Kurds specifically, but the Iraqis generally that the portside pukers keep dredging up. The 'Iraqi on the street' you might say. I KNOW how happy the Kurds are that he's gone! We didn't SUPPORT the Kurds in their first uprising, although I believe (I could be wrong - senior moments) that we ENCOURAGED them after GW1. The media spewage drags up Iraqi civilianspeak that would indicate we are not welcome. THAT'S what I was reffering to. DangDanglingling participles aside.

OBTW Jeff B - The word was 'wary', not 'weary'. :-)

The sad thing about this is it's hard to act supprised about it. I sure as hell know that I wouldn't have put it past Saddam to do something so........ Well, lets just say that it takes a first rate coward, son of a bitch, dumb ass, mentally lacking excuse of a human to do that.
Wait, Saddam is not a sorry exuse for a human. That's giving him to much credit. He's more on par with the pleasant pile of puke my dog left for me this morning.

I have found that story about saddams gassing of the kurds- it was a New Yorker article by Jeffery Goldberg

"Nasreen gathered the food quickly, but she, too, noticed a series of odd smells carried into the house by the wind. "At first, it smelled bad, like garbage," she said. "And then it was a good smell, like sweet apples. Then like eggs." Before she went downstairs, she happened to check on a caged partridge that her father kept in the house. "The bird was dying," she said. "It was on its side." She looked out the window. "It was very quiet, but the animals were dying. The sheep and goats were dying." Nasreen ran to the cellar. "I told everybody there was something wrong. There was something wrong with the air."

http://www.kurdistan.org/Current-Updates/goldberg.html

It's a long article, maybe The turnip crowd should give it a good read though

i had this strong urge yesterday while the protesters had their signs on the sidewalk

i wanted to drive my car up the sidewalk and through their signs and then continue on my way

for cheap thrills

anyone killed in and put in a mass grave is a tragedy. Im sick of the media telling us it is worse if kids are found dead than it is if adults are found dead just to add a little edge to their stories.

Killing children...and people still harp on about WMD. Funny world we live in.

The WMD issue was used to get us through the UN, a bureaucracy to doing the bad thing or nothing, to do the right thing. I think that WMD will be found but couldn't give a shit if it isn't.

Ted, read that article in that link I posted above.

I've read it. Awful. You know it's totally fucked up when spoilt western brats, some of whom post anti-US garbage on this site, know that Hussein had chemical weapons and ACTUALLY used them on his own people, but then claim that there were no WMDs and that Hussein was not a threat and would never be.

Not a threat ? The guy was one of the great menaces to peace in the Middle east, was a funder of terrorist activity on the West Bank, permitted radical islamic terrorist groups to train themselves in Iraq, provided sanctuary to terrorist individuals and acted as a go-between for Al-Qaeda. He murdered Iraq's children in the thousands and Iraqi citizens in the millions. He pilfered billions thru the oil for palaces program to enrich himself and his cronies, as well as to fund WMD programmes which ALL western democracies agreed existed.

5 weeks post war and already the same people are starting to undermine the efforts of our mleaders t provie secutiry for us and our kids. They were wrong then and they're wrong now. 5 weeks and no WMDs ? BIG DEAL. They're still finding huge bombs from WW 1 & 2 in Europe, for chrissakes. Can't people use their imaginations? Why didn't Hussein use WMDs in the war ? Simple - if he did, he knew that the entire world would be against him. He knew that his sole chance of survival was keeping the west divided. He banked on a long war like Vietnam, with a bloody battle for Baghdad, but as history has shown events conspired against him. HIs commanders either received no order or decided against weaponising their missiles.

People should wake pu and realise that there is a threat, it isn't a game and that our leaders should be supported and not undermined.

Mmm, I see it's my turn. Try to imagine this. Try to imagine that somebody agrees that Saddam was an evil, sadistic tyrant AND believes that the Bush administration took us to war under false pretenses. This will require something more than Gabescent black and white thinking.

You notice that these graves were from 11 years ago.

The starkness of this image, children buried with their dolls, will make it hard to think clearly about this. Who in this discussion thought that the gassing in 1991 only killed adults? Bubba? Did you think that was R-rated gas -- no one under 17 killed? Of course kids were killed, and here is where a lot of them were buried. In that sense this isn't news.

Dave, these numbers were already in the spreadsheet. These aren't new deaths, this is only the concrete, very vivid cemetery where 200 of those numbers were buried. When we added up the numbers, the 1991 Kurdish massacre was included.

The rationale that we went into Iraq to liberate the Iraqis from a cruel tyrant is false -- this was hardly mentioned before the war, and we would not do that, in Iraq, Congo, El Salvador, or any place; the proposal to go to war to depose a vicious tyrant would not have gotten off the ground. Now, the effect of this, it seems to me, will be to sentimentalize the whole discussion, to make the non-reason seem like a good reason.

I weep for these children, and for us.

It's clear you never read the article, PtG, it's about more than gassing the kurds, it's about saddam and his weapon program, his ties to osama, many things you seem to deny

Bubba... I deny that I deny it. I just said "Try to imagine that somebody agrees that Saddam was an evil, sadistic tyrant AND believes that the Bush administration took us to war under false pretenses." I did not suggest that I thought there was anything likeable about Saddam, nor have I ever.

I read the article that's linked from Command-Post. Must have missed part of it, I don't see bin Laden mentioned at all, or Saddam's weapon program. Please help me out.

People like you make me sick, PTG. You seek to keep the 'I hate Saddam' position while at the same time holding a position that justifies keeps him in power. You sit in comfort and security preaching to western leaders who seek to defend you and your families, while they try to make extremely difficult decisions based on the intel they have. For you, it's like a high school debate - while in the real world, people who seek to murder you, your family and your fellow citizens prepare.

You point to dates and talk about spreadsheets. Remember the 6 million Jews who were murdered during the Nazi regime ? Does it matter that they were murdered in 1933 or 1944 ? Obviously to you it's OK to talk abstractly about death and murder when judging your own leaders. As for your comment 'The rationale that we went into Iraq to liberate the Iraqis from a cruel tyrant is false ' - you're wrong. For the majority of people that was one of the best things about the liberation of that country.

Truth is you fall into the camp where the US deserves anything and everything it gets. Luckily people like you have minimal impact on the present administration, which is currently fixing Iraq, Afghanistan and trying to fix the Middle east.

Somebody pass TedD a bucket to puke into, please.

These "Western leaders" are not defending me and/or my family.

As far as the Jews murdered, in 1940 it made a lot of difference whether they were killed in 1933 or 1944.

For the majority of people after the fact the liberation was a good reason. Before the war it was hardly mentioned.

As far as "fixing Iraq. Afghanistan and trying to fix the Middle east," man, you are one sorry sonnabitch if you think we're going to "fix" them. What're we gonna do, convert 'em to Christianity?

No, you didn't read it, PtG, it mentions bin ladin several times.
http://www.kurdistan.org/Current-Updates/goldberg.html

Seems you have tunnel vision, PtG.
Bush IS defending you and your familly, your just to blind to see it.
How can you argue something you never even read?
Shows plain and simple that saddam was targetting children, developing his WMDS further, all under clintons nose.
If you read it, you would know that this action was never even remotely about oil.

But go ahead, keep sticking your foot in your mouth. Us more informed people always like a good laugh

I personally enjoy it when someone points out that, if we hadn't abandoned Iraq in 1991, these deaths might not have happened -- since there would not have been the opportunity to "crush the uprising," and somehow imply that this is a black mark on the current administration.

How do we claim consistency when we say that we went to war in Iraq to depose a vicious, cruel tyrant, while we do nothing for the Congo or El Salvador?

It could be said that the worst parts of his tyranny are, to some extent, our fault, and we went in to correct our mistake.

It is an unfortunate side effect of modern sensationalist journalism and partisan politics that Our Leaders are not allowed to admit to even the slightest errors, for fear of fueling partisan rhetoric and what the Fallacy Files ( http://gncurtis.home.texas.net ) calls a contextomy, that their words will be taken entirely out of context in order to paint a person in the worst light possible.

Because of this, you will never see this opinion floated in even the most obscure "trial balloon."

Never is it suggested that Bush feels guilt for his father's actions, only that he seeks revenge for Saddam Hussein's actions against his father.

Bubba, the story linked here from C-P is >Mass grave found in north Iraq<. The year-old human-interest article you mention is interesting, too, but I can hardly be the idiot for not realizing that you were talking about something else you had read.

And Bubba, I know I'm going to seem the heartless one here, but this is not evidence Saddam was "targeting" children. Everybody got killed equally, even animals.

Further, you say he was "developing his WMDS further, all under clintons nose," but you must realize that this cemetery holds the bodies of children killed while Bush Sr was in office.

TedD - It was me that talked about spreadsheets, and that came from another thread where some discussion revolved around numbers of innocent people who have died because of Saddam. Apparently, these children were already included in the totals, but I don't know how anyone can ever be sure this long after the fact.

Pass - Your idea. A good one. As a matter of fact, although this link has been posted before, I'm going to do it again. I think Bubba and other individuals have talked about this site here:
http://main.faithfreedom.org/
Former Muslims, Pass. Insight into the sick cult perpetuated by tyrants (put the Mullahs in there, too) that no reasonable person would ever accept.
So, Yes, Your last sentence may indeed be an option. I am not a Jesus-freak, nor fundamentalist, but I believe that if the younger generation of Iraqis are offered personal freedom and access to information, they will willingly give up any relationship with this hateful cult.
We cannot measure loss in terms of spreadsheets or running totals. The idea is abhorent to me. Why I mentioned it this morning? I feel terrible every time I read about kids being scarred for life, or scarred to their death, in unspeakable fashion. There has to be a special Hell for those who grimly reap such mayhem on the human community. There has to be.
With that I say Amen. I will not revisit this thread.

Bubba - I think Pass read the original post. For me, I think I'm going to have to do a little hotmetal study so I can create links here that stand out. Pass may have missed it, and it was indeed, a long read.

Please refresh my memory : how many Red Indians didi we slauhgter?

TBox, that's an interesting point. If the administration had said, we have to go back and make things right, I would've been aboard, and lots of other people. I'll remember that next time somebody says "What do you think the real reasons were?" I'll add that to the list. Because I only know the real reasons were not the stated reasons. What if they'd just told us that? These lying politicians back themselves into a corner, pointing fingers, cuz they can't give anybody a reason to point fingers at them...

Just because our government made a huge mistake and allowed/ordered the slaughter of countless American Indians doesn't mean that it's ok for other governments to do the same thing to other peoples. We are far more advanced both technologically and socially, so we have made tons of mistakes in both areas that other countries can learn from, but choose not to. Right now we see countries defend their mistakes by saying we did it first (be it 25 or 250 years ago), but they also want huge technological leaps without having to research them or pay for them. So, they are allowed to make mistakes that lead to thousands of deaths, but they shouldn't have to go through a nation-polluting industrial phase like all other first-world countries did (they get pissy when we discuss sending our industry to other countries, but want all of our latest technology)? I wish I could take the good and leave the bad when I tackle a project, but that's not reality.

PTG

By 'fix' I mean reduce the threat from the region to western democracies, nothing more.

As for the comments making Iraq, Congo, etc equivalent - they're not. The fact is that Burma, Congo, Zimbabwe etc are totally different from Iraq. None of these countries have access to WMD. None of these countries can hold ransom the arab world. None of these countries own massive energy supplies. None of these countries support terrorism. There is therefore no threat from them to the western democracies and no mandate to interfere in theiraffairs. For the moment.

By the way PTG - Bush is defending you and your family. Alas the 9/11 families were left unprotected, obviousy yours was not amongst them. He's trying to make sure that 9/11 does not get repeated, on a scale you could never imagine. He's defnitely no angel and I doudnt I'd like him as much as I'd like Clinton, but I sure as hell can't think of anyone else for thie job.

September 30, 2001, Kandahar:

Afghanistan's ruling Taliban prepared for war Monday by calling up 300,000 troops as their supreme leader called U.S. demands to hand over suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden "unacceptable." ...

In a statement to the the Qatar-based television network Al Jazeera, [Taliban leader Mullah] Omar said killing either bin Laden or himself would not deter further attacks on Americans. He warned the United States it would avoid conflict only if it withdraws its military from the Persian Gulf, stays out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and leaves Islam and Muslims alone.

"If they choose otherwise, they are looking for an endless war that will burn America and America only," Omar said. "When America doesn't choose a peaceful way out of this and chooses war and confrontation, she only is responsible for the consequences."

January 29, 2003, Baghdad:

Saddam Hussein, in remarks televised Wednesday, said Iraq "has huge capabilities" and is ready to face a U.S. attack, "destroy it and defeat it." A senior Baghdad official condemned President Bush's State of the Union speech, saying it was filled with "cheap lies."

"When faced with an attack, we always put in our calculation the worst case scenario and we build our tactics on that," Saddam told military commanders. "We know that they are coming with large forces of infantry and armored units to storm our defensive positions. But we will absorb the momentum of the attack, destroy it and defeat it."

Saddam said the Americans have no right to attack Iraq "and every one of them, from the top down to the smallest soldier, is coming as an aggressor with ambitions."

"We will have long successive defense lines with continued support of equipment," Saddam said. "Iraq is not Afghanistan. Iraq has huge capabilities and throughout history, Iraqis never allowed foreigners to stay on their homeland."

June 4, 2003, Tehran:

"A military attack against Iran -- a great nation with youth ready to defend their country -- would be suicide for the attacker," [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] said.

"The Iranian nation knows, and the enemy should also know, that the authorities of the Islamic republic will not subject, or push, the country toward war with anybody. We don't welcome war," Khamenei said.

"But if somebody chooses to go to war against our country, this nation will confront it strongly and resolutely," he said.

Is that the sound of dominoes I hear falling?

There is a very simple question that peace activists dont seem capable of answering:

Should you still support an inherintly good deed even if you suspect the motives of those doing it?

Removing Saddam has been proven to be an unquestionably good thing by any rational, humanitarian argument. So you think Bush has some nefarious intentions and his motives had nothing to do with national security or saving lives? So what? That was the ultimate effect. Its a very small person that is willing to allow the most horrible suffering of innocents so that they themselves can feel morally superior to others. I'm happy to get my hands dirty, even bloody when the outcome is so many saved lives and hope for 21 million Iraqis that had none.

Interesting that we haven't yet heard from Turnip, who would tell us that what was done to the children and others in the first part of Jeffrey Goldberg's article was not nearly as significant as the WMD issue(like any good little liberal would) or youdontwanttoknow, who would warn us that our "occupying" troops will be "next".
All in all, it seems the only difference between the Taliban and the Hussein regime was that one was a psychotic religious extremist committee and the other was a family dictatorship whose goal was to try to make Hitler and Stalin look like moderates. Both had the fabric of al Queda woven into their political infrastructures.
Reading that article, especially the descriptive first part, made me want to do something really radical to the next liberal I hear bitching about WMDs.

PtG, please quit lying about the things I say. Now.

There's a short piece in today's New York Post by Peter Brookes(under "Columnists), called "When Weapons Go Missing" that is worth a perusal/

Hi Gabe, something bothering you?

Yes, PtG. It is a very dishonest thing, to misrepresent someone's position. It is very childish, to do it deliberately.

Cite some evidence for my "black-and-whiteness", using direct quotes, or apologize. Your choice.

Gabe,
This isn't about you.
PtG

PtG, if it isn't about me, then why do you use my name?

So, you don't agree that you think in black and white, at least sometimes, just a little?

Hmmm. So I either think in black and white, or I don't? Isn't that in itself black-and-white thinking?

So if I think in black-and-white infrequently, that justifies your characterization?

One of us is thinking in black-and-white, I will concede. The question is which one?

Here are some things I have never said about you or to you, PtG:

That you hate America
That you support Saddam
That people who disagree with me support Saddam or hate America
That people who disagree with the Administration support Saddam or hate America

(I disagree with the Administration on many things, most of them having to do with free trade.)

Usually, when you characterize someone as thinking in black-and-white, they are saying something similar to the statements I have just denied making.

Black-and-white thinking is appropriate in certain narrow limits; a mathematical proof is either wrong or right, for example. Human affairs are much more complicated and I'd be the last to deny this.

I would characterize my arguments as based on the concept of "preponderance of evidence", and the position I take is that particulars are sometimes more important than principles. What do people have reason to believe, what should be done about it, how do the circumstances of similar situations make for divergent decisions? Lot of discussion there. Very little black-and-white to it.

So I categorically reject your charatcerization of my arguments.

So you "categorically reject" my arguments, that you think in black and white.

Of course that's the whole meaning of "thinking in black and white." It means you "categorically reject" some things and "categorically accept" others.

So I'll just hang on to with that apology for a while.

Meanwhile, I think the people who read this post are not especially interested in you, but had some concerns about a cemetery full of children.

That's true, PtG, they did care about the children. And you took valuable child-caring time to take a cheap shot at me in a thread I wasn'tr even posting in.

And then you said that, because I said "no" to something, I'm a black-and-white thinker, completely ignoring everything else I had to say about it.

That is truly sad.

Take the low road if you like. It is a free country.

Gabriel, why do you waste your time? I despise sounding like some pretentious elitist, but you must have better things to do than argue with someone who is never wrong?

PtG has, I think, already made up his mind about everything we talk about here. But there may be some who haven't, so I argue with him. Not to convince him, so much, as to convince others.

I don't think it does any harm to argue with PtG...

By the way, PtG, I'd like to talk shop a little if you don't mind--I'm wondering what you look for to see if a statistical distribution is Gaussian. Now I have textbooks that deal with this, but you have practical experience, and I was wondering if you had any tricks of the trade you'd be willing to share... in the meantime I'm setting up my own set of tests, really basic ones.

It is true that there are many levels of thinking, between black & white, when it comes to human issues.
I have that kind of problem with Thomas Friedman's columns in the New York Times. The man is very perceptive and really does have a better- than- average grasp on current events/ affairs in the mideast/ sw Asia. He makes a lot of points that I totally agree with and has a few decent ideas for solving some of the problems, he was even as pro- invasion of Iraq as I was(am), giving several valid reasons why we were right(even before the invasion) to use military force to oust Saddam.
However, he is more concerned that, while there were a lot of good reasons for going to war, the stated reasons are as important as our victory. He reasons that while our overthrowing Saddam was of great benefit to the world, our not proving the WMD issue to the satisfaction of those concerned will destroy Bush's credibility.
I disagree, of course. I think Bush is the best president we've had in a very long time, and I think that in view of what we've learned about Saddam's rule since kicking his ass, the end has definitely justified any means or any stated reasons for doing what we did.
But there you go, a perfect example of there being an area between black & white, infinitely closer to patriotic Americans than to the Turnips of society.

There ya go, I sparked a good one.
PtG, you haven't read the article link I posted.
Dave did, and it is indeed, a long one.
The writer of that article, NOTHING he wrote is without source.
What he does is spell out what Saddam's goals were, his ties with al qua-da, his hate for Israel, his ultimate goal.
It tells of his gassing experiments, and bio development. It tells of his killing of NOT just 180,000 people (kurds) that you data base says, but 400,000, and that, PtG, was in 1991 numbers.
If fact, in 1991, amnesty published Saddam's kurd killings as 180,000.
How many since then.
The article says, Saddam's "gift" keeps on giving, over a million have died since 1991.

So you see, Ptg, I know you haven't read the article I MYSELF GAVE YOU THE LINK TO!

Thats what I mean when I say you have tunnel vision, you simply won't read a very well done documentary that has never been disputed.
Thats why liberal Medea doesn't print these articles, they know the democrat campaign cannot defend against it.

Anyone who reads what I read into that article, says, "thank god for President Bush!!"
I know I say that, and I'm not even American. I Do however, know whats going on, and thank God President Bush does.
He's also protecting my Canadian ass, because God knows, that Liberal fuck-head we have as a prime minister isn't.

Those troops that are there, have a tremendous job to do, I just hope that one day, PG you can give those boys the respect they deserve.

Things are more complicated than you think, so I once again, ask you PtG, read that article, instead of shooting yourself in the foot.

Or, Ptg, do you like reading the words of Journalists that never reveal their sources?
You'll find that Jefferey Goldberg reveals all his sources.
I dare you, to refute one statement he made.

Ol' bubba just shot you down, PtG, I watched patiently while you took enough rope to hang yourself.
Now, you did. Fatal shot.

I wasn't going to, but I can't help myself...

turnips have a half-life of 31 days. An order of magnitudes on the patriotic Americans...

Dave, what's truly unbelievable as far as PtG is concerned, is that he shot off his mouth without reading the article.
That article was written to cover almost 15 years.
well documented, all sources reveiled, and now, very relevant to what happened, and what President Bush is facing in the Israel-Pali issue.

I truely wonder if PtG has learned to tie his shoes, or if he just uses velcro.

Of course, I have "more stuff" to use at a later date, depending on how deep PtG want's to dig his hole.

Gabe, the first test of normality is going to be the EDA approach: graph your data. If the distribution looks normal (symmetrical, bell curve, depending on N) (you won't see it if N is small at all), then keep going. Tests after that will have to do with the area under the curve, i.e., how much of the distribution is within n standard deviations of the mean. There are tables for this in the back of every stats book. If you want to test the significance of the proportions, well I didn't bother to look this up, but I assume you will need a nonparametric test, since you don't know if your data are normal.

Bubba, it's true I only skimmed your article. It looks pretty good. If I subscribed to the New Yorker, I would definitely leave this issue on the back of the toilet so I could read the whole thing.

I suppose you feel ya got me because I only talked about the article that Command-Post was linked to. OK, then, ya got me, pardner.

I'm wondering what your point is, Bubba. Am I suppose to suddenly agree that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction??? But, like everybody else, I have always assumed he did. Was I supposed to doubt that he had used them? Again, why would I have doubted that? It's common knowledge. Am I supposed to quibble with the numbers? Why would I do that, all I know is that in another discussion we added them up, people seemed to have knowledge of these things, and we came up with some numbers, just so idiots like you don't say "Saddam killed millions of people" with nothing to back it up. If the numbers back it up, then good for us, we are informed, and the discussion can go on enlightened. If this reporter has new numbers, and some supportable reasons for believing they are accurate, then we will go ahead with the conversation using his numbers. It's no loss for me, I just want to know what the facts are.

It's not like I thought "my" numbers were right, I'm willing to accept any authoritative source that doesn't have a stake in it. I just want to know what the numbers are.

Bubba, I realize this is a great victory for you... though I can't figure out why. Go ahead and thump your chest, give out a big ole country-boy holler.

PS I agree the troops did a terrific job, and they have my respect, men and women. Don't start these monkeys howling that somehow I don't. You catching that from Gabe?

PtG, please quote me telling you, or anyone else, that you don't support the troops, or are in any way unpatriotic---really, these slanders are irritating.

As for the other, I was thinking that I would look at the third and fourht moments of the distributions--if they are close to zero I was thinking that it should be pretty Gaussian. N, in my work, is a large number (the stuff I'm running this minute, N is 1 million.)

Gabe, sorry, I was talking to Bubba. He said "Those troops that are there, have a tremendous job to do, I just hope that one day, PG you can give those boys the respect they deserve."

Apparently implying that I did not respect the troops -- that's whatcha call a "low blow."

PS Gabe, the moments are good, but look at it first: if you have skew and kurtosis you'll know it without any fancy analysis.

PtG, you said Bubba was catching that from me. He's not. Not only do I not say any such thing, I also do not even think it.

Is it crazy to use the 3rd and 4th moments? The book I'm looking at says that they are usually not much good.

Woops, cross-posted.

Actually, it is pretty hard to tell because the data comes out unsorted... and it is useful, I think, to have some sort of number to attach to it.

Gabe, if I stopped giving you shit you'd be impossible to live with... as if you're not already.

3rd and 4th moments will depend on why you want to know if it's gaussian. I've never looked at em.

I've plenty of personality traits you may give me shit about--I only mind when you give me shit for the ones I don't have.

I'm looking at energy expectation values. They are calculated using a Monte Carlo method. Depending on how I set up the calculation, these energies are more or less correlated with each other. I want them as uncorrelated as is feasible, and if they are uncorrelated they ought ot be Gaussian.

So that is why I care.

Gabes sez: I've plenty of personality traits you may give me shit about--I only mind when you give me shit for the ones I don't have.

Wow, Gabe, now you know how I feel. I've been called everything from bitter to lefty in these discussions... and that's just today! Never mind the child-molester/ gay crap awhile back. I mean, look at Dave's illiterate doppelganger here, ol' Bubba, accusing me of disrespecting the troops. Dude (oh yeah, Bubba says that's not good "grammer"), just get over it, this is a tough crowd here.

PASS THE GAS said, "I just want to know what the facts are."

That has got to be the funniest thing I've read today! PTG, your philosophy is "My mind is made up so don't confuse me with facts."

PtG, I haven't called you a child molester, or gay, or Communist or whatever.... but I've not been as nice as I could have been, I admit.

But when people said you were cowardly for not giving your real email, I defended you.

Thanks for the help with the statistical tests.

Pass - Doppelganger? I left my doppelganger somewhere? Where? Hmmmmmmm. I get a bit upset about kids getting BAD things done to them, Pass. I don't think my doppelganger has a damned thing to do with that. So - like I should know if every freakin' number is correct? Or care? I care about the kids. Forget the freakin' numbers, already. As I remember it, you're the one that would not trust 'sources'. Then it had to be 'names'. Once it was names, it had to be 'experts'. Once it was experts, THEY had a damned agenda, and their factual analysis didn't mean stuff to you. So, I live with it. Doesn't change the status of the argument one bit, excepting the fact your freakin' goal has moved about 4 times.

First of all, duBet, I thought you said you were leaving this thread. Now... yeah, you're upset, everybody's upset, these are dead kids -- I suppose you and Bubba now are going to say I like to see kids get murdered.

The whole point of this story is that it's upsetting. I don't think that people should throw their sense out the window over something that we already knew happened -- kids died at the same time adults died, when Saddam gassed the village. Bite your lip and keep your head, please.

The freakin' numbers make a difference. People are throwing around wishful thinking like it was facts. We need to agree on what we're talking about, or else it's just yeah they did no they didn't yeah they did...

This crap about "sources" and "names" and "experts," I'd like to see where you got that from. You do have to use your judgment, I look at who says something as well as what they say. I don't think that's such a dumb idea. Like the survey that turned out to be conducted by Chalabi's group, well, no I don't trust them to be objective, there's a lot of money and power riding on what they find, that's just common sense.

Jeff B., thanks for summarizing my philosophy so succinctly. I'll have a plaque made, and hang it on my wall, so I don't forget what I think.

Wow!
all I did PtG, is post a link, with indisputable references, and you go off on a tirade, and refuse along the way to disprove anything in the article, other than saying, that you didn't read it. If fact you said:
" Am I suppose to suddenly agree that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction???"

Thats what the whole story was about, dumbass!!!

But look at what you have done, you avoided answering the topic, and instead, turned it into a insult room.
Shame on you. I personally, expected a little better from you, but, I guess I over estimated you.

I've been busy, working, and haven't had much time to "play" lately, But I still read it all.

So, lets get back to the article I asked you to read.
Do you no still think, that President Bush was wrong to invade Iraq and turf Saddam?
If so, please, refute that Article, or, shut your yap.
I've shot you down in flames, and you and everyone else knows it, no matter how I spell it.

Back to work for me, and then maybe around 10 central time, if I'm not too tired, I'll come back and pour some more salt in those wounds of yours.

Bubba, what the fuck, you think I'm going to stop everything and read this whole thing? I don't have any argument with it, I'll believe you that every word of it is true. I agree with all of it, even though I haven't read it.

Yes, Bush was out of line putting together a unilateral attack on Iraq. That doesn't make Saddam a nice guy. This stuff happened twelve years ago, smart guy, we didn't attack Iraq because of this!

You can salt all ya want, Bubba, there's no wounds.

P.S. PtG:

Where is the stinky fart crowd?

I'll leave you with this, PtG, I'm more proud of America, President Bush, All those troops, than you are, and I'm not even an American.

Shame on you

Unh uhh, Bubba, I'm more proud. So there! Shame on you, poopoohead.

(What a moron...)

Ptg, you fuckwad, that artical isn't 12 years ago, but you never read it.
If you read it, you wouldn't says stupid things, like you just did

BANG!! oops, you just shot another toe off

The article is only one year old, the gassing of the Kurds was 12 years ago, asshole.

I could also call you "dickweed" as you and don seem to be always pulling your own strings all the time (figure out what that meant)
Or, your a woodtick, sucking the blood from society, contributing nothing....
on and on I can go.....
but, I really do have to get back to work, I just stoped in during supper time

DUHHHHHHHH!!!

And the article doesn't only speak of things from 12 years ago, but, as I said, you never read it.

Now if it's LESS than a year old, what do you think it contains?
Things up to, and including lesss than one year ago.
And if you read it, you would see it is bang on as far as whats really happening,
But, asking a turnip to think is wishfull thinking I guess

Bubba

I don't care how old the friggin article is. I'm sure it's great, it looked like a really good article. When I have some time I'll read every word of it.

Can somebody put a leash on this guy or something...?

For the record, I just put Bubba's article into Word to see the stats on it. It's 16,770 words long, 36 pages in 12-pt font. I'm sure it makes me every kind of jerk, but I just didn't have time to read his article. Seems to me that we are discussing the article linked from Command-Post, but what do I know?

Also for the record, I was not being sarcastic saying it looks like a good article. It does, and I have faith that the author's research is sound. If anybody would like to take the time to read it, clearly Bubba would like to talk about it.

Well, at the moment I'm just a dickweed with other things to do.

Tag....I'm it!

PasstheGas said, "Mmm, I see it's my turn. Try to imagine this. Try to imagine that somebody agrees that Saddam was an evil, sadistic tyrant AND believes that the Bush administration took us to war under false pretenses. This will require something more than Gabescent black and white thinking."

Your memory is failing you. GW1 ended....oops!....not ended, was stopped by the wonderful people at the UN. Seems they came up with a cease fire, right about the time we were getting ready to 'step on the bug'. Seemed that ol' Sodom was just going to mellow out if we'd just not finish the job.......(First lesson when fighting: Finish the job, and do it well! Otherwise, the opponent will haunt you until he gets the upper hand. Usually attacking when you turn your back.).... (Trust me about the 'turning your back' issue. Assasination attemp against Sr. is a good example.)......Well, back to the story. It seems that Sodom didn't do anything agreed to in the 'cease fire' agreement. END OF STORY. We should have been able to finish the job then, eventhough our advantage we had earlier was gone. But no, we had to try to do it the diplomatic way. In the mean time, Sodom amasses huge stockpiles of money and who knows what else. He also kills among other large numbers of innocents in cold blood, 200 children. He just shoves them all into a hole. Anyway.......he gets 12 years to amass anything possible with billions of dollars and full 'under the table' cooperation of the French, Germans, and Russians. Can you think of ANYTHING you couldn't buy with even 1 billion dollars? George Bush's and a few good Marine's integrity are the only things that come to mind. All this attacking of this Administration is flakey. And it's only flakes doing it. The same flakes criticize Sr. for 'not finishing the job' in GW1. When it was the flakes in the UN that stopped it, totally in Sodom's favor. Why aren't these flakes spending their energy attacking them???? Cause, they're just alike.

PasstheGas said, "You notice that these graves were from 11 years ago."

First of all, what trivial point are you trying to dissect with that statement??? ALL of the graves are just remnants from a halocaust that the world once again allowed to happen. And never forget the countries that were in bed with this little 'Hitler', while wearing the masks of 'noble men of the civilized world' at the UN.

These mass graves are there because Bush Sr. caved to the French and the UN, stopping at the border. No other reason. His son has done a much better job of it.

Jeff B, I wasn't making any point about the graves being old, I was just pointing it out. This wasn't something that just happened.

What you say is true. US/UN interactions led to catastrophe, and it was probably up to us to finish the job. I said earlier, I can buy that. But that wasn't what the administration was selling. They were selling WMD, al Qaeda, threat to national security. All false, or at least not very strong. How bad would it have been for the pres to go on tv as few times and say, "Folks, we got a festering wound over there that we're partly responsible for." And explained the situation, how the US had a causal influence (in many ways, as you know, supporting Saddam as well as failing to remove him), and explained that we need to go in there and kick ass, whether the world was with us or not. He could blame the intervening administration, even, for extra mileage.

Even I would have considered that a valid explanation, dunno if I would have been excited about it, but at least it's an honest reason to go over there and blow stuff up. We would have been good guys, instead of aggressors.

So Q: Why didn't they just say that? Why say the other stuff, and then afterwards give a different reason for the war?

Hey Bubba whaddya think about this one? (It's short)
>Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil<

That fake Wolfowitz quote was another profound, intentional misquote by another desperate liberal journalist.
Read a few more info sources before you quote one of those liberal sleazeball hacks, like maybe the original transcript.

PtG, that anti-Woflowitz smear job was beneath you. That story has been debunked practically everywhere, except, I guess, your sources of "information".

Here is as good a debunking of it as any.

http://drezner.blogspot.com/2003_06_01_drezner_archive.html#95299121

And as far as Bush selling the war based on WMD. Maybe, as hinted at by Wolfowitz, it is because the torture/murder police state argument, like the reality now of the mass graves is doing, fell on deaf ears. This not to say that the argument was not made, but rather that your side refused to listen.

The same is true of the much bandied about "iminent threat". I don't know where you guys got that either.
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

This from his State of the Union
http://www.seewald.com/president_bush's_state_of_union.htm

If you will try to recall, the argument on the "war party" side for urgency had to do with leaving the troops in the desert over the Summer, unable to act due to weather, taking any pressure that existed off of Saddam. Meahwhile, France torpedoes the whole effort by convincing Saddam that there is a way out for him.

So, while playing "convince the troll" is always good sport, you can see why beyond that, we don't really take you, or your idealogical brethren too seriously.

May I just point out a few facts to respondents who seem to think the oly bad thing Saddam ever did to the Kurds was gas a couple of villages. It was far. far bigger than that and it would be cointinuing to this very day but for the no-fly zones and safe haven areas (unless all the Kurds were now dead).

It was in fact a systematic genocide, fully documented by the Baathist commanders and officials themselves and reported extensively by the BBC after the first Gulf War. It was called the Anfal (onslaught) on the Kurds and it resulted in the death or disappearance of thousands of people and the displacement of possibly hundreds of thousands forced out of villages and towns that were then razed to the ground. And it also involved mass executions and of course routine use of torture, wiping out of families as retribution for politically minded fathers or sons, and so on. Think Hitler and the Jews, and you wouldn't be far off. Even the scale of the plan was similar. After all Hitler was a role model for Saddam.

The children's graves may or may not be part of anyone's "spreadsheet" since no one knows how many died or how or where. You weren't supposed to know anything in Saddam's Iraw and if you did so much the worse for you.

But consider this: right up to the present, Iraqis have been murdered by the regime. There is scarcely a family untouched. And many officials and ordinary people still dare not speak out, such is the depth of their terror.

The children were not found in a cemetery but in a mass grave, according to the report. It has nothing to do with the gassing of villages (and there were many villages targeted).

The appropriately named Pass the Gas should not seek to pursue a petty party political domestic agenda at the expense of a crime against humanity. People who foamed at the mouth about "Dubya's war" are now telling me they weren't in favour of Saddam or anything. I accept that. But I also realise they were quite content to leave him in place to pursue his policies of vendetta, megalomaniac control, expansion of his empire by aggression and complete subjugation of the people by terror. And they cannot say they didn't know, since the material in this post was widely reported long before the war.

The whole shemozzle about WMD right now is about one thing: the next election in the UK and US. Pathetic.

PtG said, " They were selling WMD, al Qaeda, threat to national security. All false, or at least not very strong."

WMD - we KNOW he had them.

al Qaeda - Just one of the terorist groups supported by Sodom.

Threat to national security - I would go as far as saying 'world' security! Unlimited funding and terrorist training, along with an extreme hatred for the US. Notice too, that after Sodom is gone, peace in the mid east is not so doubtful. As soon as someone snuffs that idiot Arafat, it will definitely be possible.

PtG said, " How bad would it have been for the pres to go on tv as few times and say, "Folks, we got a festering wound over there that we're partly responsible for." And explained the situation, how the US had a causal influence (in many ways, as you know, supporting Saddam as well as failing to remove him), and explained that we need to go in there and kick ass, whether the world was with us or not."

Because it was way more serious than that. Besides, he did the right thing as far as exposing the no good, back stabbing, Sodom loving, America hating, greedy son of a beeches at the UN.

PtG said, " He could blame the intervening administration, even, for extra mileage."

What a liberal thing to say. I wish you wouldn't insult George Bush's administration by assuming it is like Clinton's. This administration has never passed blame to anyone else for it's actions. When you're honest and have integrity, you accept full responsibility for everything you do. This is only ONE example of the differences between the integrity / honesty of George Bush and the lack of it with Bill / Hillary Clinton.

Hello. This is my first time posting on this board, so my comments might not pertain directly to the 73 messages already posted on this thread. . .but I wanted to address a few points from what I have read.

"liberal socialist, anti-American, Bush hating, little monkeys"

First, you are welcome to call me all of the above, but note that it is all untrue. The monkey part might be true. But being liberal does not mean I'm a socialist (just like being conservative does not mean you're a fascist). If anyone calls me anti-American or "un-American" not only will I think of Joe McCarthy, but I will be very much offended. I love my country, I believe it is the best country in the world, and I every day that I wake up I thank God to be alive and living here.

So I appreciate you suspending judgment and not assuming you know what my views are before I state them or that expressing a dissenting opinion means I am anti-America. If that is true, that maybe I should leave this country, because it is a sure sign this democracy is not what it used to be.

One thing I noticed, and I think is counter-productive, is that these arguments stressing the suffering of Iraqi people under Saddam miss the point. I have no doubt that since Saddam's removal from power, Iraq, and the region, will be better off in the long-term. He was a threat, a destabilizing element, a tryant that victimized his own population.

However, these labels apply to at least a dozen governments around the globe. I do not believe the U.S. has the will to invade all of these countries, nor do I believe they should.

Furthermore, this whole discussion of suffering takes us away from the fundaments of both the pro-war and anti-war arguments. The President and leading members of his administration emphasized the argument that Saddam Hussein had direct ties to Al Qaeda, and that he had both WMDs and a nuclear program. That was the evidence he not only presented to the UN, but to the American people. That we were saving the Iraqis was a valid reason to go to war, but it was not even the main focus of the pro-war camp. Those opposed to the Iraq war, especially the more credible elements, never argued the evils of Saddam's regime. They were focused on the President's arguments about weapons, terrorism - the direct threats Iraq posed to the US, and international law.*

So I think this tertiary argument side-steps the real discussion. I think those in favor of the war agree with me that Saddam was a horrible tyrant, a destablizing element, that the Iraqis and the world are safer now that he is gone. Moot point.

So putting that aside. . .

Do you feel comfortable that this war was probably sold to us and to the world on scant, contradictory, or false information? I personally know people at the CIA who are appalled by what has been going on. IF (and I am saying "if" because although there is NO EVIDENCE supporting the President's claims, there is also no conclusive evidence refuting them) this war had nothing to do with WMDs or Al Qaeda, what WAS it about??

Thanks for reading

Eve

*(And knock international law and the UN all you want, but the U.S. deciding on its own to overthrow a 50-year world order, one that has been relatively stable and peaceful, may be its right, but it was worth thinking hard about what that could mean and whether or not Iraq was worth it. Unilateralism is a valid position, but don't be flippant about its costs.)

Just a quick note about Dave Farrell's comment:

The whole shemozzle about WMD right now is about one thing: the next election in the UK and US. Pathetic

1) Politics is always politics. The decision to go to war was politics. The fact democrats did not speak out was politics. The fact they are harping on the WMD thing is politics. The President is a politician just like everyone in Congress are politicians. My point is we should expect our leaders to act out of political motivations.

2) Does this make it any less important that we find evidence of a WMD program in Iraq? (This was, after all, a main reason for us going to war) Does this make it any less important that we find out whether or not certain people in the administration may have manipulated information for our consumption? Keep in mind that something like 40% of people believed Saddam Hussein had direct ties to 911/Al Qaeda before the war started and after we invaded that number went up to 70%. All the while the CIA has said they have never found proof. Why do majority of the American people believe something that has not been proven true? The duplicity of the White House communications policy coupled with the laziness of the media.

Once again, if we were sold a war based on false premises, saying the holding our leaders accountable is "just a political ploy" is not acknowleding the validity of a perfectly valid concern.

There is nothing more serious than war. We have a right to be told the truth. Confirming we were not lied to is not just about politics, it's our imperative.

Finally, far more people are going to die from AIDS, hunger, poverty, and civil conflict in places like Africa and Asia over the next few years than Saddam was ever able to exterminate. So this assumption that we act out of altruistic purposes while not only have ignored Rwandas in the past, but we are likely to in the future, is naive and suggests an ignorance of history.

OK, I love this one: "The appropriately named Pass the Gas should not seek to pursue a petty party political domestic agenda at the expense of a crime against humanity."

Dude, I'm the least political guy you ever saw. I usually don't pay any attention to that stuff, so don't go thinking I'm a "lefty" with some kind of agenda. I vote, I pay taxes, and I don't like to be lied to. That's about the extent of it.

The problem is this: you gotta pick your fights. For instance, right now in the Congo, people are eating the fuckin' pygmies. They fear for their lives. Crime against humanity? --Yes, I think so. We have death squads in several South & Central American countries. We have AIDS decimating huge populations of some African countries, and nobody doing anything about it. Crimes against humanity? You bet. Thousands of people have been kidnapped and kept for slaves in Amazonian Brazil. Crimes against humanity? Oh yeh.

There's genocide, starvation, disease, tribal warfare, unfairness and lowdown nastiness everywhere you look. And here we are, the most powerful country on the planet, the only ones who can do anything about it. And what do we do? We attack Iraq. And why did we choose that particular country? --I wonder.

Now, there is a dilemma when you have to let some things go on. The US can't be everywhere all at once. We have to pick where to focus our attention. My feeling is that we should focus our attention on our own problems, but that's just my view. The real fact is we can't be everywhere all at once.

So now the question is why did we pick this particular place? The United States had been attacked, obviously, by some guys who we call al Qaeda, and I think we all agree that they needed to be dealt with. Why didn't we focus on that? (Saying there's a link doesn't make it so.) Saddam has been horrific, no doubt, but it hasn't escalated recently, he was no threat to us, the worst of it was back in the early '90s, for instance when these kids were killed. Why Iraq, now?

I completely agree. Iraq was not even an issue until a few months ago. With no apparent change in what was status quo for 12 years why the rush to war? If suffering and death is everywhere (and is even more acute in some other places), why Iraq?

That is exactly why finding WMDs is so important, especially in the absence of CIA evidence of Saddam Hussein's link to al Qaeda. It is the only chance of confirming this war was based on truth.

The suffering argument alone is not enough because it is inconsistent with the realities of our world. It is also tertiary to both the pro/anti war debate.

Sorry for repeating what Eve said... that's the problem with doing this at work, I only get back to it now and then, and I missed what she said.

Note to Eve: brace yourself.

Lol. . .calm before the storm? Just as long as people don't get emotional and start cursing. It's impossible to have a rational debate otherwise.

Geez....Nice to see you back 'Rachel Corrie'

Rachael.....I mean 'Eve' said, ".but I wanted to address a few points from what I have read.
"liberal socialist, anti-American, Bush hating, little monkeys"
First, you are welcome to call me all of the above, but note that it is all untrue. The monkey part might be true. But being liberal does not mean I'm a socialist (just like being conservative does not mean you're a fascist)."

I'll call you on that one. Liberal's demand a 'socialist' govt. Like it or not. And you left out 'pig' between 'little' and 'monkey'.

Eve said, " If anyone calls me anti-American or "un-American" not only will I think of Joe McCarthy, but I will be very much offended."

We call a spade a spade here, ma'am.
My entire list of description doesn't include every liberal. There are some on these posts that have earned every name on the list. We don't know enough about you, yet, except that you are a female, liberal (socialist), Bush hater. Give us a little time, and we'll know more.

Eve said, "I love my country, I believe it is the best country in the world, and I every day that I wake up I thank God to be alive and living here."

That only tells us that you are conscious.

Eve said, "So I appreciate you suspending judgment and not assuming you know what my views are before I state them or that expressing a dissenting opinion means I am anti-America."

I already know your views. I haven't called you an anti-American..........yet. :)

Eve said, "If that is true, that maybe I should leave this country, because it is a sure sign this democracy is not what it used to be."

You know, I'm starting to think that no one would probably miss you. But generally the people that say they will leave..................unfortunately,don't.

Eve said, "One thing I noticed, and I think is counter-productive, is that these arguments stressing the suffering of Iraqi people under Saddam miss the point. I have no doubt that since Saddam's removal from power, Iraq, and the region, will be better off in the long-term. He was a threat, a destabilizing element, a tryant that victimized his own population."

Why would you say they are counter productive? Destabilizing that region is a threat to the whole world. The things you say about Sodom, are only a few of the many reasons we 'removed' him.

Eve said, "However, these labels apply to at least a dozen governments around the globe. I do not believe the U.S. has the will to invade all of these countries,"

Common sense probably carries more weight. Iraq. One of the largest oil producers. Funding terrorism and little 'Hitlers' attrocities and dreams.
It's safe to say this is probably a little more important step in bringing peace to the middle east / world. Don't give up on those other regimes, though, you may see some changes in the near future.

Eve said, "nor do I believe they should."

Remind me not to vote for you when you run for the Democrat nomination for president.

Eve said, "Furthermore, this whole discussion of suffering takes us away from the fundaments of both the pro-war and anti-war arguments."

yeah, never mind the facts......let's protest war and President Bush. Let's see....Liberal socialist, Bush hating, nomatterwhatthefacts pacifist! ....... The above moves you very close to 'monkey' status.

Eve said, "The President and leading members of his administration emphasized the argument that Saddam Hussein had direct ties to Al Qaeda, and that he had both WMDs and a nuclear program. That was the evidence he not only presented to the UN, but to the American people."

I seem to remember something about a cease fire, 12 years ago, with the agreement that Sodom would disarm....Your smart enough to know what happened since then. We know (you do too) that he had WMD. (Not to mention the fact that Sodom was a WMD himself). We know that he committed mass murder. We know he was breaking every resolution emposed on him by the UN. We know he was in bed with the UN. We know he attempted to have Bush Sr. assasinated. We know he had mobile WMD labs. We know he never cooperated with inspectors. We know that he coddled terrorist. We know that he had a hatred for the US and had the abilities to carry out attacks. What we don't know is how you' little pig monkeys' can spend so much effort trying to tear down your own president in times like these. If you never protested Bill Clinton, then you are all of the above mentioned names.

Eve said, "That we were saving the Iraqis was a valid reason to go to war,"

There, you said it. Enough said. If you believe that, why do you to continue to dog this administration over trivial crap????????

Eve said, "but it was not even the main focus of the pro-war camp. "

"Pro war camp"????? It is Americans doing the American thing. I'm gonna ad a few more names, Rachel.

Eve said, "Those opposed to the Iraq war, especially the more credible elements, never argued the evils of Saddam's regime."

"Those opposed to the Iraq war, especially the more credible elements"??? I've never heard of any opposing 'credible' elements .

Eve said, "They were focused on the President's arguments about weapons, terrorism - the direct threats Iraq posed to the US, and international law.*

No, they were just focused on the president. With a microscope, trying to find anything they could twist into something negative.

Eve said, "So I think this tertiary argument side-steps the real discussion. I think those in favor of the war agree with me that Saddam was a horrible tyrant, a destablizing element, that the Iraqis and the world are safer now that he is gone. Moot point."

But actually, the only point......unless you have some vendetta against a republican president.

Eve said, "So putting that aside. . ."

Why?

Eve said, "Do you feel comfortable that this war was probably sold to us and to the world on scant, contradictory, or false information? I personally know people at the CIA who are appalled by what has been going on. IF (and I am saying "if" because although there is NO EVIDENCE supporting the President's claims, there is also no conclusive evidence refuting them) this war had nothing to do with WMDs or Al Qaeda, what WAS it about??"

There, you did it for me. You have now proved yourself to be a liberal socialist, Bush hating, little pig monkey. The fact that when we have a president and administration with integrity and honesty far beyond comparision to any democrat president ever, and you choose to dog him with no legitimate reason, that makes you anti-American in my books. Besides a few other things.

Eve said, "Thanks for reading"

It was a waste of our time.

Eve said, "*(And knock international law and the UN all you want, but the U.S. deciding on its own to overthrow a 50-year world order, one that has been relatively stable and peaceful, may be its right, but it was worth thinking hard about what that could mean and whether or not Iraq was worth it. Unilateralism is a valid position, but don't be flippant about its costs.)"

Man, you never cease to amaze me. You pacifist just want to let the rabid dog run free as long as it isn't trying to bite you. Just like the French with Hitler. It's a good thing you sleep well at night, since it is people, NOT LIKE YOURSELF, that have fought so that you can.

Eve said, "Just a quick note about Dave Farrell's comment:"

What is your definition of 'quick'?

Eve said, "The whole shemozzle about WMD right now is about one thing: the next election in the UK and US. Pathetic"

So true

Eves point, "1) Politics is always politics. The decision to go to war was politics. The fact democrats did not speak out was politics. The fact they are harping on the WMD thing is politics. The President is a politician just like everyone in Congress are politicians. My point is we should expect our leaders to act out of political motivations."

That is the true 'liberal socialist, anti-American, Bush hating, little pig monkey coming out of you. A true liberal in every since of the word. I expect our leader to act out of 1st, what is right for America and the rest of the world, 2nd.

Eves point, "2) Does this make it any less important that we find evidence of a WMD program in Iraq? (This was, after all, a main reason for us going to war) Does this make it any less important that we find out whether or not certain people in the administration may have manipulated information for our consumption? Keep in mind that something like 40% of people believed Saddam Hussein had direct ties to 911/Al Qaeda before the war started and after we invaded that number went up to 70%. All the while the CIA has said they have never found proof. Why do majority of the American people believe something that has not been proven true? The duplicity of the White House communications policy coupled with the laziness of the media."

I hope the rest of your liberal crowd bets the farm on a 'dishonest administration' because you are going to get your heads handed to you in the end.

Eve said, "Once again, if we were sold a war based on false premises, saying the holding our leaders accountable is "just a political ploy" is not acknowleding the validity of a perfectly valid concern."

If the charges came from a ligitimate source, I would listen. Unfortunately, the charges only come from 'liberal socialist, anti-American, Bush hating, little pig monkeys such as yourself.

Eve said, "There is nothing more serious than war. We have a right to be told the truth. Confirming we were not lied to is not just about politics, it's our imperative."

You said "My point is we should expect our leaders to act out of political motivations."
Oh, so that's why is was ok for Clinton to be a lying, womanizing, traitor. Let me fill you in. George Bush is the kind of man that deserves EVERYONES respect. Either catch him in a lie (he doesn't lie) and prove it, or Shut The F--k Up!

Eve said, "Finally, far more people are going to die from AIDS, hunger, poverty, and civil conflict in places like Africa and Asia over the next few years than Saddam was ever able to exterminate. So this assumption that we act out of altruistic purposes while not only have ignored Rwandas in the past, but we are likely to in the future, is naive and suggests an ignorance of history"

The only ignorance proven here is yours. Why don't you spend your time with some AIDS patients and do something constructive.......or.....did they run you off already?
My 'LS,AA,BH,LPM' description stands unchallenged.

I may ad 'whiney little pacifist war protester' to that list.

Jeff B - 'ad' should be 'add'. ;-) Consider it added.

Eve said, "There is nothing more serious than war. We have a right to be told the truth. Confirming we were not lied to is not just about politics, it's our imperative."

Yeah....so why aren't you protesting the admitted liars at CNN and the other lying liberal medias ??????

Well, now I know why you are the Teacher's Pet

"I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."

Patrick Henry was some gentleman. He was also a true patriot. Why have we all moved so far away from the basic values of pluralism, democracy, and free speech?

Patrick Henry would use the English Language. He knew it was a powerful tool. He would offer eloquent, well-reasoned arguments. He would inspire people.

He would never call someone he disagreed with a "pig monkey." Nor would he promote the idea of "America for people who agree with me." He would respect the opposition, even if he despised them.

My dream is that one day Americans will feel that way again. That they would redily lay down their lives, even for those they hate, to uphold the principles of democracy.

Both sides of the line are responsible. So is the media. We share one country, one society, one future.

Patrick Henry's words are something to aspire to. Even if it is not ill-intentioned, please stop the namecalling and agree to engage in rational debate. Then I will respond.

I also did not know that "female" was now a pejorative term.

Shut up! you talk to much Eve. No wonder you don't have a boyfriend

Eve said, ""I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."

I seriously doubt that you would go to war to defend my freedom of speech. Words maybe, but no fight.

Eve said, "Patrick Henry was some gentleman. He was also a true patriot. Why have we all moved so far away from the basic values of pluralism, democracy, and free speech?"

No, the question is, "why have so many moved so far left. Away from the basic values of America. This country wasn't founded to be a socialist country, so quit trying to shove it up the rest of our 'you know whats'. What it boils down to is all of us that have been quiet all these years while you liberal itdiots ranted your crap, are sick and tired of it and we're not going to take it any more!!!!

Eve said, "Patrick Henry would use the English Language. He knew it was a powerful tool. He would offer eloquent, well-reasoned arguments. He would inspire people."

So do some liberal college professors that preach their socialist, anti- American beliefs to young innocent minds.

Eve said, "He would never call someone he disagreed with a "pig monkey." Nor would he promote the idea of "America for people who agree with me."

'Pig monkey' is just part of a description I came up with instead of using the vulgarities that come to mind. In Patrick's day, there wasn't liberal socialist like there is today, trying to cram socialism down America's throat.

Eve said, "He would respect the opposition, even if he despised them."

Uhhhhhh, I thought they killed them in the war...

Eve said, "My dream is that one day Americans will feel that way again. That they would redily lay down their lives, even for those they hate, to uphold the principles of democracy."

Where have you been??? La La Land??? What do you think we just got done doing????

Eve said, "Both sides of the line are responsible."

I beg to differ.

Eve said, "So is the media."

Now I know you are on drugs.

Eve said, "We share one country, one society, one future."

Why do you liberals keep trying to change it to a 'socialist' society???? One future??? I don't think so.....the democrat's future looks a little bleak.

Eve said, "Patrick Henry's words are something to aspire to. Even if it is not ill-intentioned, please stop the namecalling and agree to engage in rational debate. Then I will respond."

There is no debate that your stuck on 'Patrick Henry' brain can come up with that hasn't already been drilled over and over here, to the same end result. Your inbred hate for Bush and your inability to reason and use common sense means YOU LOSE! Liberal socialist, Bush hating, little pig monkeys are just entertainment.

Eve said, "I also did not know that "female" was now a pejorative term."

I never said it was. I only indicated early in this page that it was one of the few things we knew about you at that moment....(Eve....duhh) If you try to play the predjudice card with me I'm ready. I am a Native African Hispanic Italian Frenchman whose grandfather was a Russian Polish Haitian that was married to a Canadian Argentinian that was part Chinese. :) What liberal college did you go to? Evergreen????

Jeff B:

"you are a female, liberal (socialist), Bush hater"

I was going to comment again, but Dave Farrell and Jeff B have it all covered to the finest detail.
Well put, guys!

// "you are a female, liberal (socialist), Bush hater" //

This is more anti-liberal spin. Empty sound bites.

Lets look at the logic here.

If you like Bush then you blindly believe in his policies, no reflection necessary. Gee that makes life so simple.

If you don't agree with a Bush policy that means you a Bush-hater, anti-american, socialist, traitor, right?

Liberal = socialist.

Liberals gave women the right to vote. What do you think of those liberals?

Eve said:
// He would never call someone he disagreed with a "pig monkey." Nor would he promote the idea of "America for people who agree with me." He would respect the opposition, even if he despised them. //

That because at this time, facts are the least important thing to many from both the left and right. Its seems that blind belief in persons or ideas has replace reasoned arguements on this blog and in the US's political discourse.

In my experience on this blog I get expletives thrown at just about when my opponents arguements are running short on reason. I'm afraid that without the derogatory comments many of this blog's contributors would not have much to say, besides the trite soundbites.

Eve said:
//Patrick Henry's words are something to aspire to. Even if it is not ill-intentioned, please stop the namecalling and agree to engage in rational debate. Then I will respond.//

Amen!

Jeff B:

If you put all your ancestors in a room together, I do not think they would agree on anything. Yet, you exist.

That's the beauty of a multicultural, multiethnic, pluralistic society. That is why what the framers created was so revolutionary - a constitution that enabled a group of people with different beliefs, religions, and national origins to form one nation.

People like you are their legacy.

Which is why I am surprised you are not more respectful of those who are different from you.

You would not exist without the "values of pluralism, democracy, and free speech" you dismissed as "crap" "ranted" by "liberal idiots."

Jeff B:

If you put all your ancestors in a room together, I do not think they would agree on anything. Yet, you exist.

That's the beauty of a multicultural, multiethnic, pluralistic society. That is why what the framers created was so revolutionary - a constitution that enabled a group of people with different beliefs, religions, and national origins to form one nation.

People like you are their legacy.

Which is why I am surprised you are not more respectful of those who are different from you.

You would not exist without the "values of pluralism, democracy, and free speech" you dismissed as "crap" "ranted" by "liberal idiots."

// No, the question is, "why have so many moved so far left. Away from the basic values of America. This country wasn't founded to be a socialist country, so quit trying to shove it up the rest of our 'you know whats'. //

I agree. We have gone to far left.

This country also wasn't founded to be an empire.

One thing:

It's amazing that, knowing fully well that their hue and cry over WMDs IS all about the next election, these liberal toilet cakes continue to deny it. Sadly, their hero BJ Billy set a precedent when he lied not only to his wife, but to his country.

I certainly never said Democrats raising questions about WMDs do not have political motivations. It does nothing to diminish the importance of determining whether or not the information we were given was true.

So if truth has a political motivation, then it is no longer important?

// It's amazing that, knowing fully well that their hue and cry over WMDs IS all about the next election //

Consider that the call for congressional hearings is coming form both sides of the aisle.

// Sadly, their hero BJ Billy set a precedent when he lied not only to his wife, but to his country. //

You have got to be kidding? LOL

Nope.

Consider that the call for congressional hearings is coming form both sides of the aisle.

Wolf: why didn't you respond to this statement?

// Sadly, their hero BJ Billy set a precedent when he lied not only to his wife, but to his country. //

What precedent was set?

Anthony,
I know you ain't askin' me, but I'd call it 'ammoral splooging'.

If I only knew what splooging was I could comment? :)

And you spelled amoral wrong. LOL

Anthony - LOL - Sorry. 1. I did. 2. I will help you here:

He 'cheated' on himself, his spouse and his country, and things got sticky, if you get my meanin'. Moral gymnastics, and wordsmithin' at it's worst, and appeared to me to be dislocating himself from responsibility for same.
Another take - Outside the boundaries of morality, and firing at will. The excuse as I understood it was - 'I couldn't help myself, or get my finger off the trigger".

So what the precedent? He was the first or do it or the first to get caught?

I'll respond to the long one after this easy one.

Eve said, "Consider that the call for congressional hearings is coming form both sides of the aisle.
Wolf: why didn't you respond to this statement?"

Maybe he had to step out to the restroom....jeez...

I'm sure the republicans want to prove their position, so they would demand the hearings just to let the dems continue to make fools of themselves.
The dems....that's a different story. They demand hearings so they can go over the info with a magnifying glass and will look for anything they can twist into a 'scandal' of some kind.

Get right back to ya on the other ramblings.

Eve said, "Jeff B: "you are a female, liberal (socialist), Bush hater"

Eve.....take your medication.

// The dems....that's a different story. They demand hearings so they can go over the info with a magnifying glass and will look for anything they can twist into a 'scandal' of some kind. //

Kenneth Starr and Whitewater - the 80 million dollar fine tooth comb.

// The dems....that's a different story. They demand hearings so they can go over the info with a magnifying glass and will look for anything they can twist into a 'scandal' of some kind. //

Kenneth Starr and Whitewater - the 7 year 80 million dollar fine tooth comb.

Correction:
So what the precedent? He was the first to do it or the first to get caught?

Jeff B. . .still waiting for a well-stated argument. . .

Eve said, "Jeff B: If you put all your ancestors in a room together, I do not think they would agree on anything. Yet, you exist."

Beg to differ there. Hey, I was just kiddin' about being all those races. My ancestors would all get along fine. Good, honest, hardworking people that would give their shirts off their backs to help someone in need. But when called, served their country well.

Eve said, "That's the beauty of a multicultural, multiethnic, pluralistic society. That is why what the framers created was so revolutionary - a constitution that enabled a group of people with different beliefs, religions, and national origins to form one nation."

Uhhhh...yeah, it was really beautiful. You can be who you are, but where in there did you find liberals that want to change the country into a socialist state???? Sounds more like an enemy to me.

Eve said, "People like you are their legacy."

That's right, and we'll fight to keep our country just like it was intended to be. (not socialist)

Eve said, "Which is why I am surprised you are not more respectful of those who are different from you."

I have utmost respect for all people, escept the ones that I have described in other posts. There is hope for some liberals, but most of them here.....no hope, no respect.

Eve said, "You would not exist without the "values of pluralism, democracy, and free speech" you dismissed as "crap" "ranted" by "liberal idiots.""

You are so full of it. I hit it right on the head. Was I right about 'Evergreen'???

// Sadly, their hero BJ Billy set a precedent when he lied not only to his wife, but to his country. // Anthony said, " What precedent was set?"

That you can be a 'lying, liberal socialist, womanizing, traitor' president and stay in office. The liberals will still love you.

Once again:

"soˇcialˇism (n.): Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
- American Heritage Dictionary

I do not support this system of government. So please refrain from inaccurately labeling me and my "intentions."

Cum bi ya M'lord, cum bi ya!!
do you sing that song daily Eve?

eve you posted:
"soˇcialˇism (n.): Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
- American Heritage Dictionary

Now, what do you call public h, roads, sewer water, libraries, community clubs,med aid, etc?

Golly, thats socialism

It didn't cost that much money because the Clintons well prepared paper trail was happily provided.

Too bad the 2 people that could have made it only cost $3 to convict the Clintons, had to die. Or sit in prison for years, pleading the 5th.

Yeah, them Clintons were squeakey clean......yeah, right. Do you know who paid their whopping legal fees???

Ooppps. My last letter should have had this at the top.

Anthony said, "Kenneth Starr and Whitewater - the 7 year 80 million dollar fine tooth comb."

H= schools

Eve, your definition of socialism is really nice but I think you are smart enough to know the rest of the definition, in reality. You are a liberal..... you don't have to be embarrassed about that.......unless you voted!

// Yeah, them Clintons were squeakey clean......yeah, right. Do you know who paid their whopping legal fees??? //

Guilty without the facts to prove it. Thats good.

Just wondering. Do you support Patriot Act II?

// Yeah, them Clintons were squeakey clean......yeah, right. Do you know who paid their whopping legal fees??? //

Do you know who ran up the bill?

Cume ba yaaa, me lord, cume ba yaaaaa. Cume ba yaa me lord, cuuuuuume ba yaaaaaa...... Hey
Eve.....we got a nice pen pal for you named Anthony...

// Now, what do you call public h, roads, sewer water, libraries, community clubs,med aid, etc?
Golly, thats socialism //

Do you think that the government should not provide any or all of the above? If, yes which ones?

Jeff B. . .still waiting. . .

what really eats at me, is the "eves" of society, demand more of this, more of that, feed the poor, good sized welfare checks, free government cheese, better public schools, health care, etc. But, they don't want to pay taxes.
well sorry folks, if you want nice homes, paved roads, sewer, water, and all those things mentioned, it's called socialism.
Capitalists make business, which makes JOBS, which you little people work at, and you pay TAXES which the GOVERNMENT, be it municipal, state or federal, uses that money to give all those comforts.
Nobody could do it on their own.
So, what we really have, is a social- democratic society. Republicans believe you must have a healthy business community, growth, etc. to sustain social policies, while Liberal-democrats, just spend like hell and rack up national debt.
Liberals are usually those who work for someone, and go on strike for higher wages, even if the employer can't afford to pay them, tossing themselves out of work, and bankrupting the employer.
But, the liberal thinks it's ok to then collect unemployment benefits, another Socialist benefit.

Anthony said (referring to Clinton's scandals), "He was the first or do it or the first to get caught?"

Good liberal attitude Anthony. You could have worked in Clinton's spin dept. "All the presidents have been pigs, Billy was just the first one to get caught." Didn't your mom teach you that just because the other kids do something wrong, doesn't make it right?

The way he looked Americans, investigators, and his family in the eye and lied........and you stand in defense of him.........like I say....'their just isn't any hope for some of you'.

while Liberal-democrats, just spend like hell and rack up national debt.

It seems the country is doing a perfectly good job of going further and further in debt, without "liberals" being in power

I also happen to be a business-owner with over 200 employees. So again, stop generalizing.

I am not commenting on the rest, because I don't really understand the logic or point of your argument. Please clarify.

I agree that we have too much government and too much governnment waste in the states.
You live in Canada is that right? The situation there is very different from the US. You guys get taxed much more than we do and you have much more government than we do.

// while Liberal-democrats, just spend like hell and rack up national debt //

The debt in the US is the highest its ever been courtesy of GWB.

So how much or what do you think the government should do if anything?

And Anthomy, I agree the USA should have a medical system simular to Canada, the UK.
in the UK, everyone gets health care, working or not, cost: 1700 per per per year, Canada, 2300 per person, per year.
In the usa, the cost is 5300$ per year, per person, and millions have no coverage at all, plus, the death rate in the usa is higher.
The government in the usa could save ALOT of money if a national health plan was implemented.
That means, no share holders padding their pockets at the expense of peoples lives.
Plus, I'm sure that every American would like to have an extra 2500$ to spend, which, grows the economy

Interesting factoid:

According to recent economic analysis, the gap between rich and poor is the widest it has ever been since the 1920s.

// The way he looked Americans, investigators, and his family in the eye and lied........and you stand in defense of him.........like I say....'their just isn't any hope for some of you'. //

Where did I defend him?

Have you criticized Reagan over Iran-Contra?

I think we can all agree that every President has blood on their hands. It's the nature of being a public official. This does not mean that we should not hold them accountable. (And yes, there are plenty of real-world things i.e. stuff in Kosovo and Africa that Clinton needed to be held accountable for that make sex scandals pale by comparison - no one died because of his PERSONAL misconduct)

I'm getting a little swamped here.

Anthony said, "uilty without the facts to prove it. Thats good. Just wondering. Do you support Patriot Act II?"

Yeah, I also keep my financial records in perfect order for scrutinization. I don't hide the shit from investigators and grand juries. Making the investigation run up into serious money.

Anthony said, "Do you know who ran up the bill?"

Yeah, the lyings sobs we were investigating. If they hadn't been hiding and destroying stuff it would have been over quickly. Of course if they hadn't destroyed and hid all that stuff, they'd be in prison....

Bubba....socialism is where all the money goes to big brother and he decides where to spend it. You need him to take care of you. He wants everyone to be on the same standard of living level. Tax you to death and provide programs for everything. Don't want to work, no problem.....the problem is, it doesn't support itself very well. Just as you can see happening in socialist countries . You can see what the liberals in our govt have done to this country......bad deal. Runs along alot of the same lines as communism.

Eve said, "Jeff B. . .still waiting. . ."

I got a feeling you've been waiting most of your life for something and you're going to wait alot longer.

I might be waiting my whole life, but I will never abandon my prayer for a rational universe. . .or at least more rational people.

Anthony, that is a silly MYTH that canadians get taxed more than you.
We are taxed DIFFERENTLY than you is more acurate. At the end of the day, add up your property taxes, state taxes, fed taxes, your medical payments, and you will find Canadaians actualy pay a little less than Americans. There are taxes you can avoid here, Cigarettes for example.
10.25 a pack, it's ALL taxes. Solution: don't smoke.
plus, our lower canuck buck, tally the exchange difference, and we pay ALOT less

// Yeah, I also keep my financial records in perfect order for scrutinization. I don't hide the shit from investigators and grand juries. Making the investigation run up into serious money. //

You just slinging mud here. You have no proof. The investigation concluded without an indictment because the case they were trying to make was never 'made.'

Eve said, "Clinton needed to be held accountable for that make sex scandals pale by comparison - no one died because of his PERSONAL misconduct)"

Don't bet the farm on that.

Eve,

I'll go you one better. Do you think what Clinton did was a matter of 'personal choice'? I don't. I believe we SHOULD hold our elected officials to a higher standard, and I believe they should comport themselves likewise. He did not. It lowers the bar, so to speak.

// Anthony, that is a silly MYTH that canadians get taxed more than you. //

What percentage of Canadian income gets taxed?

// And Anthomy, I agree the USA should have a medical system simular to Canada, the UK. //

So you agree that sometimes government does a better job than the free market?

You have a lot of folks look at such behavior and infer that they can do likewise. Which lowers the social/moral standard as well.

// I might be waiting my whole life, but I will never abandon my prayer for a rational universe. . .or at least more rational people. //

If you wait long enough, they eventually show up!

// I might be waiting my whole life, but I will never abandon my prayer for a rational universe. . .or at least more rational people. //

If you wait long enough, they eventually show up. Even on this blog! :)

JeffB;
do you consider canada a socialist country?
Funny, our economy is the best in the world,
We don't have a huge national debt, Our dollar is,(unfortunatly) climbing, and no matter what trade barriers the USA throws at us,(despite a free trade agreement) we continue to have a growth market.
So, if you consider canada a socialist country, I think the rest of your debate fails.

Anthony said, "You just slinging mud here. You have no proof. The investigation concluded without an indictment because the case they were trying to make was never 'made.'"

Do you remember anything about that investigation??? Hillary and her missing files????
You can fool some people some of the time.......
I'm not a liberal 'sheep' .

Sorry, I gotta go. Later.

It would be great if we could place all our leaders on a pedastool. If we could "worship" them as it were. But this is the real world.

I was merely stating that while his personal misconduct IS reprehensible, it pales in comparison with the many preventable deaths that occured under his office, and as I argued, under all presidencies.

Eve said, "Clinton needed to be held accountable for that make sex scandals pale by comparison - no one died because of his PERSONAL misconduct)"

Don't bet the farm on that.

The implication that this is the same thing as the 800,000+ Rwandans that died and the many that died in Kosovo as a result of inaction is not only an affront to these deaths, I really don't understand the purpose or merit of this point.

Bubba:

We weren't in debt four years ago.

Ok Bubba...just one more and I gotta go....

Bubba said, "So, if you consider canada a socialist country, I think the rest of your debate fails."

Well we used your example of a 'socialist health system' to defeat the idea here. Canadians can buy American cars (brand new) cheaper than we can. The manufacturers say it's because the Canadian economy is so sensitive. That sounds rediculous, but that is a fact. Canada doesn't have near the defense bill we have......because guess who will take care of them if they have a problem.

This is interesting to me. I'll get back later, Bubba.

Eve, your mistaken,
America was 127 trillion in debt 4 years ago.
A balanced budget does not mean no national debt.
Don't you remember the ticking national debt bannerin NYC?

Bubba - sorry. I misspoke :-)

Eve and Anthony are such tofu-eating, hypocritical, elitists. You make me sick.

This country has been on a moral decline for the past twenty years. It's nice that we finally have someone in office willing to do something about it.

I don't eat tofu. I don't eat soybeans period.

You might be wrong about some of your other presumptions.

// This country has been on a moral decline for the past twenty years. //

That dates back to the beginning of the Reagan presidency? Care to restate your assertion?

JeffB, it's simple math, Canada has only 37 million people, america 10 times the population, therefore your defense budget should be 10 times as large as ours, but it isn't. It's all relative.
But yet, Canada is a larger country than the USA, so logically, we have to defend the whole country on a tax base equal to the population of LA., plus NATO contributions.

The same rule applies to nation debts. While 127 trillion sounds like allot for the USA, (I don't know what it is now) The USA national debt as it stands now, is less than 10% of the GNP of America, so it's really not bad at all, in fact it's average for g8 countries.

Now, health care, It's not bad here at all, in fact, most what you heard is from people trying to destroy the system, turn it into health care for the rich and greedy people.

Procections are, the average American is facing steep insurance premiums over the next few years, so you may be paying upwards of 8-9 thousand a year for a good plan.
Sorry, I'll stick with the universal(not free) health care we have here.
My wife is a nurse, she worked state side for a while. It isn't better there she says, worse in fact.

The Bush presidency is far more moral than the Reagan presidency.

But I wasn't talking only about the white house. i am talking about society in general.

Bubba....let's finish this conversation sometime. I am interested in the pros and cons. I'm into the Martini's now, so I better shut up.

Why don't we get an email on some deal like hotmail, yahoo, or what ever, so we can discuss in private sometime. Sorry about tonight but I got my braces adjusted big time today and it's going to take mega martinis to make the pain go away. Later.

Since you guys are finally going to engage in a meaningful debate, why take it off this site? I think it would be interesting if you kept it here.

Jeff B., are you afraid the martinis are going to make you obnoxious? Are you afraid you'll offend Bubba?

It's too late now......teeth hurt....martinis good.....just had to come back......Bubba is friend....DDPtGHT no good.........

Ignorant move....came back....sucked in......martinis good....

Since you guys are finally going to engage in a meaningful debate, why take it off this site? I think it would be interesting if you kept it here.

Eve said at June 5, 2003 08:36 PM ,
"Jeff B., are you afraid the martinis are going to make you obnoxious? Are you afraid you'll offend Bubba?"

Bubba is my friend. He has a very good head on lhis shoulders. He has common sense. Something most liberals on this site lack.

Eve said

Eve......Bubba and I think alot alike. Unlike you and myself. He's from another country. If you were a conservitive living in a socialist country, things might be wierd. I'd like to work it out on the side before we pounce on you "liberal socialist Bush hatin' anti-American little pig monkeys. I'm doin' good for 7 martinis.....

Just read my last post.....what a f--k up!

Jeff, you don't go by "Herb" sometimes, do you?

Eve said at June 5, 2003 08:36 PM ,
"Jeff B., are you afraid the martinis are going to make you obnoxious? Are you afraid you'll offend Bubba?"

I did not say this. Pass the Gas did.

I'm still not a socialist. I still love America.

These are "liberal' martinis....3 times the normal size...oh yeah. Lots of olives....

Eve.....We'll talk....now is not good...maybe tomorrow....night all. I just want to watch, not participate...

It's been a fun day. It was nice meeting you all. I don't think I will be back for awhile. . .need to reconnect with real life. (Electrons are only good in small doses)

BUSH AND OUR MILITARY KILLED AT LEAST 200 CHILDREN IN THE OCCUPATION. YOU DON"T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT! AND HE USED THAT WMD STORY TO DO IT! THAT"S WHAT IS WRONG WITH NOT FINDING THE WMD. IDIOTS.

Turnip... are you trying to tell us something? How about tapping the caps-lock key one time, and maybe give us some facts.

CUURAP! Miss all the damned fun...

Bubba, you booger... You forgot to tell these folks about how 90% of the population in Canada lives within 100 miles of the border! Now just how much of your country is layin' fallow? LMAO... I'm kidding. The stats are for real, though.

turnip, you miserable veggie turned to shit! Crawl back in the ground before the sun fries your brain. I take that back. You have a half-life of 31 days? I can't wait 'til the 4th of July...

PtG, you didn't in fact rebut my remark about the next election. It's not about whether Bush's actions were politcally motivated, whether you vote or not,or anything else "political".
Of course politics has been in play from day 1. As the major part of my post pointed out, it's about the outcome. People who supported Neville Chamberlain and hated Churchill may well have been motivated by distaste for warmongering etc. but the war had to be won, and the fact that this uncovered the Holocaust is one of the most important things about it in historical terms.

The point I am trying to make is that people whose sole concern is that they think Bush lied about WMD are people who have a party-political view of the Iraq tragedy; they are looking through the wrong end of the telescope at something that is much bigger than the presidential election.

Watergate may have had political fuel to get it running, but it was important for America's future that it was exposed, and that Nixon and his crooks departed the scene.

I am not an American and whether Bush is a Republican or not is of no concern to me in the question of Iraq.

Yes it would be nice if we could stop people eating people everywhere, but gee, just removing one VERY BIG tyrant is an important contribution. How is it better to do nothing whatever? Since we can't get rid of all the oppression and cruelty in the world at once, we should fold our arms and say we aren't playing?

I don't like to be personal, but you're position is morally bankrupt.

Dave, 90% ? alot less than that, but within a few hours drive.

Jeff B, Not a problem, I've had this discussion before, so those numbers are faily accurate. Universal health care isn't a new idea, the brits, newzealand and a few others had it before Canada did. It was implemented here around 1964.

There has been alot of retoric about it lately, and guess who keeps beating the drum? Insurance companies!!
I was kinda suprized when I found that Americans pay alot more for their health insurance than we pay through taxes for universal health care.
here, everyone is covered, working or not.
In the USA I think the number is around 20-30 million people do not have any health care coverage, and even with crappy insurance, people get stuck with big bills.
The death rate due to lack of medical attention is higher in the USA than the UK, Canada, new Zealand.
As health insurance costs rise in the USA, and they are, more and more people will be without insurance. It's time American had a better plan, who gives a damn about insurance companies and their share holders, they care about profit, not people.
It's just one of those Humanitaian social programs that America needs to adress, and soon.

Dave F,
As a non-American surely you realise there are people all over the world who couldn't care less whether or not the Democrats get in but who are concerned as to whether or not the war was started on false pretences? Are you suggesting we ignore the question? At least papers like the Times in England, which supported the war, now have the integrity to ask difficult questions about where the WMDs are.

To dismiss the question or claim that trailers which could be used to make WMDs (if they had centrifuges and drying ovens) _are_ WMDs is to commit exactly the sin you're talking about. To allow party politics to get in the way of the facts and govern your opinions.

Pass,
PUHLEEEAZE ignore turnips. The sun'll get 'em fast enough if you don't water 'em.

EVE!
You're hooked. You'll be back. Evven if it's just to see if someone disses you in your 'absence'! LOL. You must be takin' your Dramamine, since I didn't see you pukin' portside, not even once. You were leanin' that way, though...

Well, d'Bet, turnip actually had an interesting point, if he could back it up and stop shouting. But when he's calling you all idiots, well, I kind of thought he oughta wait till Bubba gets here, at least.

the turnip is a raving lunitic, and if you think he has a valid point, that makes you an idiot too.

There, does that make you feel better PtG?

Bubba, I'd worry if you and I agreed on anything.

Pass, You are a charmer. Forgotten about the kids already to cast aspersions on poor vegetable matter that has no manners, and then cast aspersions on Dr. Bubba. It sounds to me like you're a dipstick about two inches short a gettin' where it belongs. How's that for an opinionated observation?
The preceding announcement was brought to YOU through clenched teeth. Don't forget however, that Miss Manners called you a 'charmer'.

Miss Manners, if you read thru this thread, you'll see I've been plenty on-topic since near the start. Turnip brought up an interesting observation, which people won't like: how does the number of children killed by US military actions compare to the number killed in Saddam's genocidal campaign?

We saw the one kid with his arms blown off -- remember, they promised to take him to an American hospital and then tried to renege when the cameramen went away. That kid is what'd be called a "survivor." One of the lucky ones.

I think that's what turnip was yelling about. He didn't give us any information though, so there's nothing to say.

As far as not agreeing with Bubba, I thought I was being rather decent. You do know that Bubba's the one who started the latest Canadian mad cow disease outbreak, right?

Pass ! Funny you should talk about our good friend Dr. Bubba that way! He raises little cloven-hooved critters which you fry up in goodly Southern fashion into chittlin's. Which is not the same as children, if you're still ranting. AND, turnip doesn't have a leg to stand on, because he has no legs - just roots. Sadly, he also will pass, just like you. AND, you start sidin' with turnip on this, I'm goin' to be on your head like a bad cold. Notice that I stayed away from mentioning where most of your problems eminate from. Bad grammar, that last, but Miss Manners can take a flyin' leap if she so wishes.

Hmm, DD, I wonder what you just said. AFA Bubba, when they say he has a brain like a sponge, they're not talking about his curiosity.

Turnip raised an issue, which I'm not going to take up, because actually I'm kinda busy, working at home today. If he cared to settle down a little and present some facts about what happens to children in a war (and Dave, I know you know something about that), it might help put a different light on things.

Witnesses have said that we buried people alive in trenches along the Highway of Death. The words "My Lai" might ring a bell with you, if you're my age you don't remember No Gun Ri, but you should have heard about it. Somebody a few days ago mentioned the American Indians, which I didn't see you or your nazi friends want to talk about. Or did we only massacre adult Indians?

In other words, it goes both ways.

I doubt that anyone will ever read this, but "I disagree with what you say, but i defend to the death you're right to say it," were the words of Voltaire, not Patrick Henry.

Entertaining thread, guys.

Cool observation, Johnny Mozart... I think we processed that information without thinking about it...

Johnnymozart - you had to drag France into this, didn't you? That's okay. Patrick probably cribbed it.
Pass - The disease is NOT supposed to cross the species barrier, but it becomes an issue for consideration when we discuss how animals are processed. That's really a discussion I would love to have, because I feel the government IMHO is NOT dealing with these types of diseases and shortcomings of the meatprocessing industry in the proper fashion. BUT back to the thread...
Turnip rants. I do not believe that turnip wished to discuss with anyone, including you, the issue of children and war. We have touched on this subject before, Pass, and I condemn ALL collateral deathes in times of war, women and children included. It happens. If it is 'unjustified' (you mention several), I bear the shame, as do we all, for a social conciousness that allows it to pass unnoticed. Indiscriminate use of weapons that COULD result in civilian casualties were avoided at all costs in this conflict. We could be being lied to on that account. I do not believe we have been misled. Salam Pax made mention of CIVIC surveys that tend to skew stats for wounded toward the military age bracket. That is not the subject matter of this thread, either.
To draw an analogy between the regime and GWB however, is an equation that I don't think you want to defend. OR, do you?

Hey, why not? That's the extreme, right? (Not "the extreme right.")

Seems to me like a valid question, and one that has run thru every discussion we've had here, how much damage was done by Saddam versus how much done by us.

You were nicely perspicacious about the possibility of PR downplaying collateral casualties, I appreciate that duBay, there's hope for you yet.

Pass - I would be flabbergasted if turnip were to frame an argument in the manner you describe. A better word might be incredulous. Which lines were you reading between?

Mainstream spewage, and in a real sense, the spindoctors, tend to sterilize such reports. Like, let's call it 'terminating a pregnancy' instead of 'abortion', if I can use that analogy w/o offending the liberal pukers we have onboard. AND, Pass, I don't want to be discussing abortion here, either. Probably a blog somewhere dedicated to that.
turnip has earned ZERO credibility here. I repeat, ZERO. IMO, he isn't off on the 'right' foot with this one, either.

Have ta say I agree with you on that one -- hey, what's going on?!?! I don't agree with you on anything!!!!

I mean, turnip is my hero.

PtG....you do have a sense of humor.....usually lacking in others on 'your team'. I think it was you the other day....killed me....."must...get ..back...to...the...left.."

:)

Modern version: I disagree with what you say, but I will defend until YOUR death, your right to say it.