Hey Mr. Lafferty ...

Quoted message said:

From: h squared [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

full length here
http://economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3352814
(although i realize you may have already gone looking yourself, for
everyone else who is curious)

h

Thank you heather!
For some reason I had Bruce's 300,000 number stuck in my head not the actual
98,000 figure.
Bruce pointed out the problem here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=300,000&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.bic
ycles.racing&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=2cKdnc5X2bfTwxPcRVn-sw%40sti.net&rnum=1
But being a dumbass I blew it badly and had the 300,000 stuck in my head.
I have no problem with the 98,000 estimate for overall "civilian" deaths since
the beginning of the war. I think a fair chunk were, taking a wild ass guess
that maybe 10,000 might have been involved in the fighting, but that's just a
guess on my part.
My aplogies for hacving my head up my ass. I did learn more though, so that's
good.
Bill C

TritonRider said:

Thank you heather!

no problem, i always enjoy posting links from the economist, gives me a
purpose in life.

Quoted message said:

My aplogies for having my head up my ass. I did learn more though, so that's
good.

personally, i just toggle between the two states ("head up my ass" <--->
"learning"😉. no worries!

heather

(TritonRider) said:

Thanks for the well written, intelligent, civil response I really appreciate
it.

Thanks for reading it, Bill.

Quoted message said:

Terrorism is incredibly overrated as a threat. They might even manage to wipe
out a whole city, this isn't good but would not in any way cripple our
country.

I agree, but irrational fear is a strong motivator. During the 1980s when
violent crime, or the fear of violent crime, was a strong issue in elections,
the likelihood of something bad happening to someone you know was pretty
small for your average middle-class person - as always, the people who
suffer most from violent crime are the poor. Nevertheless it drove votes,
and the media coverage. You're still more likely to get killed by a car,
or your husband. Remember the Charles Stuart murder case? (Maybe you were
overseas then.) I lived in Boston that year and it was the biggest thing in
the headlines for months.

Quoted message said:

I think that the time was here for Civil Unions, and after some new Supremes,
equal rights. I think this has been set back at least a decade, probably more.

Possibly. It looks bad. On the other hand, polls tend to show that
about 1/3rd of people oppose gay marriage and civil unions, 1/3rd
of people favor gay marriage, and 1/3rd oppose gay marriage but find
civil unions acceptable. It's all in how the question is phrased.

The Michigan measure (which is vaguely worded) could be interpreted to
prevent cities, schools, and state universities from offering benefits
to same-sex partners, even if they want to. That may not stand up in
court; but ultimately I think it's a losing political position.
People may react viscerally to words like gay marriage, but who wants
to vote to take someone's health insurance away?

"TritonRider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: "Sierraman" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

But what I don't like is soldier at the end, saying like yeah, great
adreniline rush, let's do it again. Like that's so coooooool !!! And he

lost

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

his sense of humanity.

Bruce, that's why people put their lives at risk in things like skydiving

and

Quoted message said:

other extreme [censored]. I can tell you the biggest adrenaline rush I've ever

had

Quoted message said:

was watching a Soviet T-72 swing it's barrel towards the W. German border

and

Quoted message said:

target our little mobile van site.
His training was better, he's still alive, he's helped kill someone who

might

Quoted message said:

have killed his friends there are a lot of reasons for it. If you think

that

Quoted message said:

stopping to ponder is a good thing, then you think that getting yourself,

or

Quoted message said:

worse you and your friends killed while they celebrate is a good thing.
Ask him how he feels about it later when he's out of combat and there is

no

Quoted message said:

adrenaline pounding.

Not stopping to ponder, but this was their thoughts, the aftermath. There is
a big difference between skydiving and killing people. I was watching that
piece tonight on CNN about the Iraq family who got hammered when they were
confused and choose to keep driving towards the tanks. All his daughters and
son got killed over going about their daily lives. After it was over the
soldier who was part of the slaughter said he keeps photos of them and said
he will be haunted by this for the rest of his life. So many soldiers are
quite sober about random killings after such an event. Sure they follow
orders, but the pause mentality of kill or be killed is too simply put. I
had a friend who's commander tried to get him killed with his inexperience
by leading them into a ambush in Vietnam. Since he had much more experience
he was very careful to avoid these encounters as he was very good at spoting
them. That's why he stayed alive and others died, poor judgement on the part
of his superiors, and everyone in his group got killed except him. He was
also quite sober about who he killed, unless it's the hamburger hill
encounter and he killed plenty but he never expressed any pleasure or high
over doing it, if you can equate a rush with a high.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Live becomes cheap to them in the theater in this
sense like the one where the commander tells the guy to take um out on

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ground, that pilot one that Chung posted.

Quoted message said:

Yep, but we at least make an attempt to not use children, women, and old
people in combat. We don't use hospitals as fighting positions and

ambulances

Quoted message said:

to haul ammunition.

yeah, valid points, but they don't have 500 pound bombs that vaporize
hundreds of Iraqis with one fell swoop either. Can you blame their tactics
for using whatever they can since they feel they are sorely outgunned? We
are more civil because we have a better war machine, more sanitized.

We have chosen to put our people in harms way to try to

Quoted message said:

make things a little less nasty than they used to be.
We know the insurgents have no qualms about attacking civilian targets.

We

Quoted message said:

know they are holed up in, and supported by this city. In WW2 we would've
leveled the whole thing, civilians and all from the air and rolled the

tanks in

Quoted message said:

to kill what was left. We have chosen not to do that anymore. Do you think

they

Quoted message said:

would do the same for us. Given the record of murdering aid workers I

don't

Quoted message said:

think so.

Then I don't understand why the numbers are so high? Iraqis deaths that is,
women and children killed by our side.

Quoted message said:

As for the Apache strike on the people in the street there is no way to

tell

Quoted message said:

who they are from the tape or gun camera footage.

Some who have studied the tape came to the conclusion this was more then
likely just civilians leaving church as there was one nearby. I don't
believe from the tape that they were carrying any weapons.

At least without being to

Quoted message said:

take the original apart frame by frame, enhance it, and then take a guess.

Just

Quoted message said:

the fact that he had to request permission to fire tells you that there is

some

Quoted message said:

level of restraint. Do you have any idea how many caualties we took in

Vietnam

Quoted message said:

with units under fire waiting for someone to say that they could fire

back?

I don't have an anwser to that specific question but I am aware of the
losses in Vietnam. When I got out of high school, IIRC, I had to register
for the draft. I never got drafted and the draft was done away with a few
years later. Did you serve in Vietnam? Some of my high school buddies ate it
in Vietnam. The guy who survived all the ambushes is a cyclist and runner.
He recounts his war stories with me from time to time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This gets back to my original
point about numbers of deaths in Iraqs being greater then they would have

us

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

believe based on that maybe they haven't been telling the truth about
surgical strikes and minimal casualites. They would like us to believe

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are soooo accurate and civilian casualites are kept to a minimum.

Collateral

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

damage. Yeah, right. That's why I read Arab websites, so I can get a

better

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

picture on the ground there.

Yeah, it's not as clean as they are telling you. The other side is also
purposely choosing to make it look as dirty as possible by making us fight

in

Quoted message said:

the middle of civilian areas, hospitals, and mosques.

True, it's a nightmare for us and them. Them being civilians caught in the
madness. We don't know exactly how many people Saddam killed either while he
was in power, but before this war is over, I hate to guess what the numbers
will be if it drags out for a few more years. Add or subtract his war with
Iran if you want, but that was another war. Kuwait yet another war. So we
are killing Iraqis because Saddam was killing Iraqis? Those average folks in
Iraq may never know peace. Born, grow up and die in Iraqis wars. But I still
think this war is not winable. I don't think we can substain the costs year
after year. Those were some sobering facts reported about the deficit,
public dept. today. I caught the tale end of it, and what was that, either
running a million dollars a minute or by the hour. Bottom line is the [censored]
going to hit the fan soon. Markets are nervous.

Works great politcally

Quoted message said:

with people who only want to see one side.

How about the boogeyman tactics of terrorism on our people?

Quoted message said:

Question, sniper in a minaret in a mosque takes out people every day, but

you

Quoted message said:

have orders to patrol that area, but are not allowed to fire back. What do

you

Quoted message said:

do after burying your friends, day after day?

I guess you know how they feel with 300 to 1 survey. What would be the
response if we were taking much greater losses as opposed to now? You
question should take into account which regions, as the south and other
regions are less hostile and there is more restraint compared to northen
regions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am very critical of the war. Got too many friends dead from Vietnam,

and I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

see this as another Vietnam. Got plenty still alive from Vietnam too. One
guy I know is the only one left from his squad, platoon, division,

whatever,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not exactly sure but he told me some of the most bizzare stories way too
over the top to post here. He knows about the games played on both sides.

I Know a lot of them too. No one said it's pretty. I asked where you'd

rather

Quoted message said:

live. In S. Korea where the UN and west took a stand, or in Vietnam, the
Peoples Paradise, which still ranks near the bottom of every human rights,
freedom of the press, freedom of religion rating. The Vietnamese

government is

Quoted message said:

still trying to exterminate the hill people, that's why they keep fleeing

into

Quoted message said:

china.

What's next? Iran? How about North Korea? Where does the money for this come
from? Borrow it from Canada or France? Pakistan has nukes for crying out
loud, when will we get over this phobia of nukes and take the carrot
approach? I think the stick is a bad idea in the long run. We can't use the
stick forever.

Quoted message said:

How is the result of our cutting and running better for them?

I am afraid that might happen when the money runs out. Maybe they will
squeeze their oil reserves but according to estimates with the pipeline
getting blown up on a regular basis, the output is a very longs ways off
before we will see any returns on it.

I'm pretty damn

Quoted message said:

sure that Pol-Pot wouldn't have gotten off to much of a start if we had

still

Quoted message said:

been there. If he had that would've opened the sanctuaries in Cambodia to

our

Quoted message said:

troops openly and a few million people wouldn't have been slaughtered.
War is NEVER pretty, it should never be anything other than a last

resort,

I don't believe it was a last resort. Colon Powell wanted no part of it, but
he went along reluctently. According to Richard Clark, Bush has Iraq in his
crosshairs as soon as he took office. He was [censored] because Saddam targeted
his Dad, and seems to be bound and determined to finish what Bush senior
started since the first war. I think Saddam was defanged and harmless, no
WMD, and the fly zones were working. I think it was a big mistake.

but

Quoted message said:

it should also be fought to end the enemies capability to continue the

actions

Quoted message said:

that caused the war in the first place as quickly as possible. If you look

at

Quoted message said:

the rates of downed US aircraft during Vietnam, you will see that they

spkie

Quoted message said:

right after we declared a cease fire to negotiate. This gave them time to
re-equip and rebuild shattered capabilities. They knew they could get a

timeout

Quoted message said:

almost anytime they needed on by going to the world press and saying they
wanted to negotiate. An awful lot of good people died needlessly because

we

Quoted message said:

stopped to negotiate.

I don't think we will leave Iraq until the people rise up like the Vietnam
protests. It's going to have to get real dirty here at home before Bush gets
the message. That could happen within 4 years.

Quoted message said:

I'm sure that Afghanistan is better now than it was under the Taliban,

I agree, but there is no oil there. We promised a lot and didn't deliver
there either. Tons of Opium again, biggest cash crop around, and warlords
are still running many areas. I would say the biggest cities are better off,
not much else.

I still

Quoted message said:

have hope for Iraq, but my argument was based on Husseins a murderous

scumbag

Quoted message said:

and the world doesn't need him, not anti-terror though I did think they

were

Quoted message said:

hiding quite a bit of stuff which has turned out to be false.

He's not worth half a trillion bucks of taxpayers money.

Quoted message said:

I still think that the world is better off and the Iraqi's will be in the

long

Quoted message said:

term as long as we don't cut and run again.

That's wishful thinking, and I would like to believe that. I don't think
things will get better under Bush. Don't know about after that. Wait and
see, in this 4 years, something is going to hit the fan, don't know what.

Quoted message said:

The first person who will tell you how much war sucks is someones who's
actually done it on the ground. If they tell you anything else they were

either

Quoted message said:

a REMF or psychopath, but sometimes it needs to happen.
This one is VERY debateable at best.
Bill C

My Dad was at Pearl Harbor. He was in Korean war, and retired shortly
thereafter. Pops has plenty of war stories. Here he is taking a photo and
Eisenhower is pointing at him. I have tons of shots of him on my Dads ship,
and some action shots as well. He served on several ships, cruise ships,
destroyers, Missouri as well. There are not many world war 2 vets alive
still today.

http://216.219.161.193/temp/Eisenhower.jpg

http://216.219.161.193/temp/Eisenhower-2.jpg

B-

"Scott Hendricks" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Scott Hendricks said:

Here's a news flash for you: there were more explosives in Iraq
before we got there than after,

You mean, we went there without any weapons and used theirs against

them?

Quoted message said:

ha ha,

no, dumbass...

Like, as in there have been over 400,000 tons of explosives/weapons
destroyed. As in, in the first month after occupation we discovered 7
separate sites, buried under the sand, containing more weapons than
our single largest weapons depot in the US (at Ft Hood, TX).

I'm guessing you and Sierraman, and others, actually thought Iraq was
a pretty safe place which is NOW f...'d up 'cause we went there???

I think Saddam had a pretty good handle on it. Let the dead take care of the
dead. I am much more concerned with jobs and healthcare, schools, parks,
roads and bridges, ports and security issues here at home.

Quoted message said:

I'll admit it's a shame that there are innocent Iraqi deaths, but to
borrow a lyric from an old Freddy King tune, "I'd rather go to your
funeral any day than for you to go to mine". In other words, better
that we fight the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq than here.

I followed the war closely when it started. I say quite a bit of that
looting on network feeds, and that was one of the biggest questions that
perplexed me was why in the hell are they not stopping this? Simply not
enough troops. I also remember seeing those huge stockpiles all over Iraq
and not enough troops to guard them. The one thing they did guard was the
oil ministry buildings.

TritonRider said:

For some reason I had Bruce's 300,000 number stuck in my head not the
actual 98,000 figure.

Quoted message said:

I have no problem with the 98,000 estimate for overall
"civilian" deaths since the beginning of the war.

The 98,000 number isn't the number of overall civilian deaths, it's the
central estimate of the number of "excess" deaths (i.e., above and beyond
what you might expect based on the period before the war). Those data
would have suggested that if pre-war death rates had continued, there
would have been about 200,000 total baseline deaths; this estimate is that
there were roughly 98,000 more deaths, or around 300,000 total. I'm
guessing that's where Bruce's number came from (but only guessing). For
reasons described in the text, the 98,000 estimate might be biased low.

You might like to read the original Lancet article. I don't know how many
academic methodology articles you've read but if you're even remotely
familiar with the traditionally dry tone of these sorts of things you'd
recognize how startlingly different this one is. The language is studied
and matter-of-fact but no survey I've even peripherally been involved with
has looked anything like this. The section on choosing the starting point
in Falluja was compelling. If you read it in sequence from beginning to
end, it's only in the last paragraph that the authors drop their guard; it
comes like a baseball bat to the side of the head. Maybe they can do the
screenplay.

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9446/early_online_publication

"TritonRider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: "Sierraman" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

But what I don't like is soldier at the end, saying like yeah, great
adreniline rush, let's do it again. Like that's so coooooool !!! And he

lost

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

his sense of humanity.

Bruce, that's why people put their lives at risk in things like skydiving

and

Quoted message said:

other extreme [censored]. I can tell you the biggest adrenaline rush I've ever

had

Quoted message said:

was watching a Soviet T-72 swing it's barrel towards the W. German border

and

Quoted message said:

target our little mobile van site.
His training was better, he's still alive, he's helped kill someone who

might

Quoted message said:

have killed his friends there are a lot of reasons for it. If you think

that

Quoted message said:

stopping to ponder is a good thing, then you think that getting yourself,

or

Quoted message said:

worse you and your friends killed while they celebrate is a good thing.
Ask him how he feels about it later when he's out of combat and there is

no

Quoted message said:

adrenaline pounding.

---------------------------------------

One of soldiers writes...

Dear Sir;

I saw both the video on the front page and read the letters from the
Marines.

Disgusting.

I too, am recently returned from seven months in Iraq, with a Division
Cavalry unit. I see nothing to defend in that video and am glad that you
have archived it so that others can see it. As a scout with over twenty
years in the Army, mostly in combat units, I would say that what is captured
on the video appears to be murder and in violation of the Law
of Land Warfare.

This is not how warriors behave but how thugs operate. If the Iraqi man was
indeed laying in ambush or setting an IED, then it is entirely appropriate
to shoot him and to shoot him until he is no longer a threat. Once he ceased
combat operations however, it became the soldiers' job to treat him and give
him the same aid they would have one of our wounded soldiers receive.

That's how the Law of Land Warfare works.

To use him as a target and appear so joyful about it demonstrates that
murder occurred and not combat operations. That is not a reflection of how
callous all the soldiers are or what is encouraged or allowed in units. That
unit has a problem. Any commander that glosses over that incident is
neglecting his duty.

In the opening days of the war, our medics treated many Iraqi casualties,
sometimes heroically. That's what you do. Its the law. I have no love lost
for Iraqis, especially after watching the ones so happy to get a handout
dance so gleefully in soldier's blood.

Our troops killed plenty, engaging in combat actions. My instructions to
soldiers on missions almost always included the words - "if at anytime you
feel threatened, shoot, shoot first and shoot center mass." But at no time
were any of our soldiers instructed, allowed or countenanced to murder an
injured person, be he combatant or not. I took pride that my commander
insisted we "keep our mean faces on. We are not here to make
friends" but also insisted on the humane treatment, even recommending our PA
for an award solely for working heroically on an Iraqi casualty.

This man had attempted to engage our forces, was shot and shot bad and
eventually died. No one was happy that a human died. We understood that if
we are to expect to be treated a certain way upon injury or capture, then we
must treat the enemy the same way. That's what warriors do.

Quoted message said:

From: "Sierraman" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

One of soldiers writes...

Dear Sir;

I saw both the video on the front page and read the letters from the
Marines.

Disgusting.

I too, am recently returned from seven months in Iraq, with a Division
Cavalry unit. I see nothing to defend in that video and am glad that you
have archived it so that others can see it. As a scout with over twenty
years in the Army, mostly in combat units, I would say that what is captured
on the video appears to be murder and in violation of the Law
of Land Warfare.

This is not how warriors behave but how thugs operate. If the Iraqi man was
indeed laying in ambush or setting an IED, then it is entirely appropriate
to shoot him and to shoot him until he is no longer a threat. Once he ceased
combat operations however, it became the soldiers' job to treat him and give
him the same aid they would have one of our wounded soldiers receive.

That's how the Law of Land Warfare works.

To use him as a target and appear so joyful about it demonstrates that
murder occurred and not combat operations. That is not a reflection of how
callous all the soldiers are or what is encouraged or allowed in units. That
unit has a problem. Any commander that glosses over that incident is
neglecting his duty.

In the opening days of the war, our medics treated many Iraqi casualties,
sometimes heroically. That's what you do. Its the law. I have no love lost
for Iraqis, especially after watching the ones so happy to get a handout
dance so gleefully in soldier's blood.

Our troops killed plenty, engaging in combat actions. My instructions to
soldiers on missions almost always included the words - "if at anytime you
feel threatened, shoot, shoot first and shoot center mass." But at no time
were any of our soldiers instructed, allowed or countenanced to murder an
injured person, be he combatant or not. I took pride that my commander
insisted we "keep our mean faces on. We are not here to make
friends" but also insisted on the humane treatment, even recommending our PA
for an award solely for working heroically on an Iraqi casualty.

This man had attempted to engage our forces, was shot and shot bad and
eventually died. No one was happy that a human died. We understood that if
we are to expect to be treated a certain way upon injury or capture, then we
must treat the enemy the same way. That's what warriors do.

Bruce, on the same page were letters from other soldiers saying the same
things that I am.
The context of the fight makes a huge difference as to how you handle the
aftermath. In a normal firefight you would secure the area and immediately
treat/evac the wounded. This guy was placing a large explosive device, you've
got no idea how far along he was, will he set it off and kill my men or medic,
or let us treat him. Given the number of suicide bombings going on they'd be
idiots to go running out there. We would've had people in place to provide
cover fire for the planting, say a claymore. He very well may have had a couple
of other guys waiting to take out anybody who ran out.
How do you explain to your chain of command and your soldiers parents that
"Yeah, We caught this guy planting a huge booby-trap and wounded him seriously,
yeah I know about all the suicide bombers, yeah, we weren't able to secure the
area, but I sent the medic out to treat this Iraqi and he suicided and killed
your son. Sorry..."
Bill C

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

TritonRider said:

For some reason I had Bruce's 300,000 number stuck in my head not the
actual 98,000 figure.

Quoted message said:

I have no problem with the 98,000 estimate for overall
"civilian" deaths since the beginning of the war.

The 98,000 number isn't the number of overall civilian deaths, it's the
central estimate of the number of "excess" deaths (i.e., above and beyond
what you might expect based on the period before the war). Those data
would have suggested that if pre-war death rates had continued, there
would have been about 200,000 total baseline deaths; this estimate is that
there were roughly 98,000 more deaths, or around 300,000 total. I'm
guessing that's where Bruce's number came from (but only guessing). For
reasons described in the text, the 98,000 estimate might be biased low.

Perhaps you'd like to estimate the excess deaths in the Ivory Coast?

"TritonRider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: "Sierraman" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

One of soldiers writes...

Dear Sir;

I saw both the video on the front page and read the letters from the
Marines.

Disgusting.

I too, am recently returned from seven months in Iraq, with a Division
Cavalry unit. I see nothing to defend in that video and am glad that you
have archived it so that others can see it. As a scout with over twenty
years in the Army, mostly in combat units, I would say that what is

captured

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on the video appears to be murder and in violation of the Law
of Land Warfare.

This is not how warriors behave but how thugs operate. If the Iraqi man

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

indeed laying in ambush or setting an IED, then it is entirely

appropriate

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to shoot him and to shoot him until he is no longer a threat. Once he

ceased

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

combat operations however, it became the soldiers' job to treat him and

give

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

him the same aid they would have one of our wounded soldiers receive.

That's how the Law of Land Warfare works.

To use him as a target and appear so joyful about it demonstrates that
murder occurred and not combat operations. That is not a reflection of

how

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

callous all the soldiers are or what is encouraged or allowed in units.

That

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

unit has a problem. Any commander that glosses over that incident is
neglecting his duty.

In the opening days of the war, our medics treated many Iraqi casualties,
sometimes heroically. That's what you do. Its the law. I have no love

lost

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for Iraqis, especially after watching the ones so happy to get a handout
dance so gleefully in soldier's blood.

Our troops killed plenty, engaging in combat actions. My instructions to
soldiers on missions almost always included the words - "if at anytime

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

feel threatened, shoot, shoot first and shoot center mass." But at no

time

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

were any of our soldiers instructed, allowed or countenanced to murder an
injured person, be he combatant or not. I took pride that my commander
insisted we "keep our mean faces on. We are not here to make
friends" but also insisted on the humane treatment, even recommending our

PA

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for an award solely for working heroically on an Iraqi casualty.

This man had attempted to engage our forces, was shot and shot bad and
eventually died. No one was happy that a human died. We understood that

if

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

we are to expect to be treated a certain way upon injury or capture, then

we

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

must treat the enemy the same way. That's what warriors do.

Bruce, on the same page were letters from other soldiers saying the same
things that I am.
The context of the fight makes a huge difference as to how you handle the
aftermath. In a normal firefight you would secure the area and immediately
treat/evac the wounded. This guy was placing a large explosive device,

you've

Quoted message said:

got no idea how far along he was, will he set it off and kill my men or

medic,

Quoted message said:

or let us treat him. Given the number of suicide bombings going on they'd

be

Quoted message said:

idiots to go running out there. We would've had people in place to provide
cover fire for the planting, say a claymore. He very well may have had a

couple

Quoted message said:

of other guys waiting to take out anybody who ran out.
How do you explain to your chain of command and your soldiers parents

that

Quoted message said:

"Yeah, We caught this guy planting a huge booby-trap and wounded him

seriously,

Quoted message said:

yeah I know about all the suicide bombers, yeah, we weren't able to

secure the

Quoted message said:

area, but I sent the medic out to treat this Iraqi and he suicided and

killed

Quoted message said:

your son. Sorry..."
Bill C

I will follow up with email. So ends the OT wartime election threads. It was
interesting. Maybe again in 4 years, but it's high time to get back to
cycling threads, as I am really dragging my feet here. :-)

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

TritonRider said:

For some reason I had Bruce's 300,000 number stuck in my head not the
actual 98,000 figure.

Quoted message said:

I have no problem with the 98,000 estimate for overall
"civilian" deaths since the beginning of the war.

The 98,000 number isn't the number of overall civilian deaths, it's the
central estimate of the number of "excess" deaths (i.e., above and beyond
what you might expect based on the period before the war). Those data
would have suggested that if pre-war death rates had continued, there
would have been about 200,000 total baseline deaths; this estimate is that
there were roughly 98,000 more deaths, or around 300,000 total. I'm
guessing that's where Bruce's number came from (but only guessing). For
reasons described in the text, the 98,000 estimate might be biased low.

I will see if I can provide a online link to match the network feed.

B-

"Sierraman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"TritonRider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: "Sierraman" [email hidden]

Bruce you are making MAJOR accusations here that you need to provide

sources

Quoted message said:

for like links to the tapes and videos. Soldiers For The Truth broke the
Abu-Ghraib scandal when disgusted troops started telling them about it

and

Quoted message said:

they

Quoted message said:

handed it off to the press to investigate.
I read Al-Jhazeera and Arabnews.com daily, follow most of the military

sites,

Quoted message said:

read a couple of the anti-war Euro newspapers and have friends send me

stuff.

Quoted message said:

The only video I've seen is of a sniper team taking out a guy with an

AK

Quoted message said:

who

Quoted message said:

is about to ambush a patrol.
I'm not saying it's not messy over there, but almost all of the

"atrocities"

Quoted message said:

reported in the Winter Soldier investigation were found to be false.

[censored]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

happens, but you have to show me conclusive evidence. Look at those

British

Quoted message said:

"atrocity" photos and reports. Didn't hold up too well did they, but

tons

Quoted message said:

of

Quoted message said:

people were willing to believe them because they wanted too.
I'd really appreciate any links, or info you can get me.
Thanks Bill C

I emailed the guy asking for its whereabouts.

The site below has tons of war videos. Free register...

http://terroristmedia.com

Three new ones I haven't seen.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/Nightmare.rm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/Nightmare_Part_2.rm

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/application/10/power_nightmares_3.rm

Missed one. I did see the top three. Best I have ever seen. Extremely well
done.

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/application/3/mission_accomplished.rm

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

TritonRider said:

For some reason I had Bruce's 300,000 number stuck in my head not the
actual 98,000 figure.

Quoted message said:

I have no problem with the 98,000 estimate for overall
"civilian" deaths since the beginning of the war.

The 98,000 number isn't the number of overall civilian deaths, it's the
central estimate of the number of "excess" deaths (i.e., above and beyond
what you might expect based on the period before the war). Those data
would have suggested that if pre-war death rates had continued, there
would have been about 200,000 total baseline deaths; this estimate is that
there were roughly 98,000 more deaths, or around 300,000 total. I'm
guessing that's where Bruce's number came from (but only guessing). For
reasons described in the text, the 98,000 estimate might be biased low.

When I watched the network feed I was sure they used the number 300 but
according to the article it says 100, but maybe the number 300 was possibly
used in the context you suggested. I haven't read this article yet as I am
falling asleep.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/index.html

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Scott Hendricks said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Scott Hendricks wrote:
>> Here's a news flash for you: there were more explosives in Iraq
>> before we got there than after,
>
> You mean, we went there without any weapons and used theirs against
> them?

ha ha,

no, dumbass...

Like, as in there have been over 400,000 tons of explosives/weapons
destroyed. As in, in the first month after occupation we discovered 7
separate sites, buried under the sand, containing more weapons than
our single largest weapons depot in the US (at Ft Hood, TX).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In other words, better
that we fight the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq than here.

So, if all those explosives were buried under the sand in Iraq, how were
they going to use them against us in the US?

You're not supposed to ask trick questions.

You two dimwits care to point out where I ever said anything about
those weapons being intended for use against us in the US? The point
is/was that Iraq was a pretty damned dangerous place before we got
there, it continues to be a dangerous place for the time being, but in
time it'll be far less so.

Scott Hendricks said:

Quoted message said:

"Robert Chung" wrote

Quoted message said:

Scott Hendricks wrote:
> Here's a news flash for you: there were more explosives in Iraq
> before we got there than after, [snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Like, as in there have been over 400,000 tons of explosives/weapons
> destroyed. As in, in the first month after occupation we discovered
> 7 separate sites, buried under the sand, containing more weapons than
> our single largest weapons depot in the US (at Ft Hood, TX).

Quoted message said:

> In other words, better
> that we fight the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq than here.

So, if all those explosives were buried under the sand in Iraq, how
were they going to use them against us in the US?

You two dimwits care to point out where I ever said anything about
those weapons being intended for use against us in the US? The point
is/was that Iraq was a pretty damned dangerous place before we got
there, it continues to be a dangerous place for the time being, but in
time it'll be far less so.

So you're saying:
1. The amount of explosives there is unrelated to how dangerous it is.
2. They never intended to use those weapons against us in the US.
3. Now that we're there it's not safer than it was before.

Hmmm. Seems about right to me.

--
Still a proud member of the reality-based community.

Schweet, what is the record for the longest OT thread? Hey Brian, this is
all in good humor. I just hope that "W" does not outlaw cycling because it
is popular in China. Whats good for those commies must be bad for America.
Hell, Kerry had one of those damm fangled euro thingy bicycles.

Dave Stoller

"Sierraman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Sierraman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"TritonRider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>From: "Sierraman" [email hidden]

Bruce you are making MAJOR accusations here that you need to provide

sources

Quoted message said:

for like links to the tapes and videos. Soldiers For The Truth broke

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Abu-Ghraib scandal when disgusted troops started telling them about it

and

Quoted message said:

they

Quoted message said:

handed it off to the press to investigate.
I read Al-Jhazeera and Arabnews.com daily, follow most of the

military

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sites,

Quoted message said:

read a couple of the anti-war Euro newspapers and have friends send me

stuff.

Quoted message said:

The only video I've seen is of a sniper team taking out a guy with an

AK

Quoted message said:

who

Quoted message said:

is about to ambush a patrol.
I'm not saying it's not messy over there, but almost all of the

"atrocities"

Quoted message said:

reported in the Winter Soldier investigation were found to be false.

[censored]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

happens, but you have to show me conclusive evidence. Look at those

British

Quoted message said:

"atrocity" photos and reports. Didn't hold up too well did they, but

tons

Quoted message said:

of

Quoted message said:

people were willing to believe them because they wanted too.
I'd really appreciate any links, or info you can get me.
Thanks Bill C

I emailed the guy asking for its whereabouts.

The site below has tons of war videos. Free register...

http://terroristmedia.com

Three new ones I haven't seen.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/Nightmare.rm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/Nightmare_Part_2.rm

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/application/10/power_nightmares_3.rm

Quoted message said:

Missed one. I did see the top three. Best I have ever seen. Extremely well
done.

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/application/3/mission_accomplished.rm

Quoted message said:

Sierraman said:

I would say that what is captured
on the video appears to be murder and in violation of the Law
of Land Warfare.

If this guy ever testifies in Congress, other vets with Republican funding will eviscerate him for decades....

"Dave Stoller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Schweet, what is the record for the longest OT thread? Hey Brian, this is
all in good humor. I just hope that "W" does not outlaw cycling because
it
is popular in China. Whats good for those commies must be bad for America.
Hell, Kerry had one of those damm fangled euro thingy bicycles.

Dave Stoller

IIRC, the Chinese have banned bicycles in parts of Shanghi in favor of autos
in their development plan.

Quoted message said:

From: antoineg [email hidden]

I didn't think it was possible for someone to make TK on a rant look rational,
but your regular behavior is at least as untouchable by any information, or
opinoin that you disagree with as he is at his worst.
Congrats.
Bill C