War on Terror deaths Vs other War

Bill C

On May 30, 2:23*am, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 7:20 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What is the correct amount of deaths for a war and/or by guvmint?
>
> I'll have to start calling you "WARD OF THE STATE". Only a retard
> would ask a question like that.
> -Paul

Bullshit. The number of casualties likely to be taken is always a
factor in any mission planning. It was the primary reason we dropped
the nukes on Japan instead of invading. Especially in the casualty
averse climate in America today, and the total over-reaction to them
it's a critical factor.
Look at the total over-reaction, and portrayal of 9/11 as something
catastrophic. The fear generated has been used to brutalize the
country by our own leadership, and over what, the number of casualties
in we inflicted on ourselves in one day at Antietam:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/anti/casualty.htm
Then you look at ww1, or 2 casualties and you see that historically
9/11 was nothing more than a symbolic punch in the nose.
Bush and Co. purposely downplayed/falsely represented the projected
numbers of casualties, troops needed, and length of time involved
because with the real projections, and real intelligence he could not
have sold the war to, especially, the Democrats who did vote to
support it, or the American people.
I'd say Bush found a nice "correct" number of deaths that would let
him go to war.
Bill C

Andre

On May 28, 12:09*am, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
> ST wrote:
> >http://milind.data360.org/dsg.aspx?...t_Group_Id=1900
>
> > 1-29-2008
>
> > * * * 7,500 * * *Clinton Years
> > * * * 3,824 * * *War on Terror
>
> # of CIA agents ratted out by the US administration:
>
> 0 Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter ... Washington
> 1 Bush Jr.
>
> More to be proud of!
Why do they call it a war? Iraqis only had sticks and stones to defend
themselves from the invasion. It was, and is, a massacre of people who
happened to be in a strategic part of the world. Bugliosi demands that
George Bush be prosecuted for the murder of Americans and Iraqis.

Bill C

On May 30, 8:34*am, Andre <ANDREJANSSE...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Why do they call it a war? Iraqis only had sticks and stones to defend
> themselves from the invasion.

WTF are you talking about?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...iraq/ground.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...t-ground-91.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intel...iraq/index.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...aq/airforce.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...d/iraq/navy.htm

This is EXACTLY my point.
Bill C

dustoyevsky@mac.com

On May 30, 7:34*am, Andre <ANDREJANSSE...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 12:09*am, Fred Fredburger<FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
> > ST wrote:
> > >http://milind.data360.org/dsg.aspx?...t_Group_Id=1900
>
> > > 1-29-2008
>
> > > * * * 7,500 * * *Clinton Years
> > > * * * 3,824 * * *War on Terror
>
> > # of CIA agents ratted out by the US administration:
>
> > 0 Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter ... Washington
> > 1 Bush Jr.
>
> > More to be proud of!
>
> Why do they call it a war?

Because "Police Action" was so 50's, or worse yet, 60's, and used up
and everything?

The Constitution, just to point out the 800lb. gorilla in the room,
was crafted in no small part to prevent exactly this kind of picking-a-
fight-for-profit.

"Congress shall have the right to declare war" phhht phhtt testing one
two three is this thing awn poke poike scratch scratch phhht phhhtt?

Powers of Congress, snipped (grabbed from Wiki):

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules
concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use
shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval
forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the
union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and
for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of
the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the
appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (snipped and end
quote).

Emphasis on "Declare War". Lots of fighting, mighty few declarations
since WWII, has anyone noticed? --D-y

SLAVE of THE STATE

On May 30, 8:59*am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:

> Emphasis on "Declare War". Lots of fighting, mighty few declarations
> since WWII, has anyone noticed? *

Yes.

Somehow the congress critters -- a group populated largely by people
with JD's -- can't figure out the language needed to declare a war on
terrorists. INCOMPETENT ASSBAGS!!!!!!!!!!!! I say if they can't
even figure out some legal language -- aside from whether it is "good"
law -- then the "war on terror" must be terminated immediately. The
guvmint isn't even passing the legal barriers on its own terms, much
less any moral terms or code of justice.

Paul G.

On May 30, 1:13 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Paul G. wrote:
> > Ah, the Clinton years... I remember them fondly. $1.35/gal for gas, oral
> > sex, unprecedented prosperity, balanced budgets, and- did I mention the
> > oral sex?
>
> The nutsack shaving thing must be a throwback to those years.

Hell yeah! Chicks dig a shaved sack. They complain that an unshaved
sack makes them feel like they're flossing. "Fuzzy dice" are SO 50's.
-Paul

Paul G.

On May 30, 5:15 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On May 30, 2:23 am, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 29, 7:20 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is the correct amount of deaths for a war and/or by guvmint?
>
> > I'll have to start calling you "WARD OF THE STATE". Only a retard
> > would ask a question like that.
> > -Paul
>
> Bullshit. The number of casualties likely to be taken is always a
> factor in any mission planning.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I essentially said he
asked a stupid question. I didn't bother to say why, but it was
because the answer is obvious. Your response isn't even an answer to
his question. Read his question again.
-Paul

Andre

On May 30, 9:43*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On May 30, 8:34*am, Andre <ANDREJANSSE...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why do they call it a war? Iraqis only had sticks and stones to defend
> > themselves from the invasion.
>
> *WTF are you talking about?http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...d/iraq/navy.htm
>
> *This is EXACTLY my point.
> Bill C

I have no idea what your point is. I can't imagine a human mind
working like that. Is this your point?

http://www.unknownnews.org/050802a-cp.html

Andre

On May 30, 2:55*pm, Andre <ANDREJANSSE...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 9:43*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 8:34*am, Andre <ANDREJANSSE...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why do they call it a war? Iraqis only had sticks and stones to defend
> > > themselves from the invasion.
>
> > *WTF are you talking about?http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...nd.htmhttp://ww...
>
> > *This is EXACTLY my point.
> > Bill C
>
> I have no idea what your point is. I can't imagine a human mind
> working like that. Is this your point?
>
> http://www.unknownnews.org/050802a-cp.html

Or is it this one?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vince...e_b_102427.html

MagillaGorilla

Paul G. wrote:
> On May 29, 5:23 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <xradnZpiVM5nSKHVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdn...@comcast.com>, Earl <e...@nowhere2.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>ST wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://milind.data360.org/dsg.aspx?...t_Group_Id=1900
>>
>>>>1-29-2008
>>
>>>> 7,500 Clinton Years
>>>> 3,824 War on Terror
>>
>>>You looked at that chart and found it worthy of posting? Guess that
>>>would explain our current state.
>>
>>>Total active military deaths from 1981-1988
>>>(Reagan) 17201 (avg 2150 per year). 58 from hostile action.
>>>That's 0.33%.
>>
>>>Total active military deaths from 1989-1992
>>>(Bush, Sr.) 6223 (avg 1555 per year). 170 from hostile action.
>>>That's 2.73%.
>>
>>>Total active military deaths from 1993-2000
>>>(Clinton) 7500 (avg 938 per year). 2 from hostile action.
>>>That's a 0.01%.
>>
>>>Total active military deaths from 2001-2004
>>>(Bush, Jr.) 5187 (avg 1296 per year). 1102 from hostile action.
>>>That's a 21.24%.
>>
>>>Or.....
>>>http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp
>>
>> Just thinking about this a bit more: I think that we should also include the
>>contractors (aka mercenaries) who've died in Iraq, as well as the regular civilian
>>contractors. Also the 2,974 casualties on 9-11. And why not include the Afghani and
>>Iraqi civilian deaths?
>>
>> Every time someone like SD Stevie tries to point out how much worse things were
>>under the Clinton admin., it seems to backfire. Fancy that.
>
>
> Ah, the Clinton years... I remember them fondly. $1.35/gal for gas,
> oral sex, unprecedented prosperity, balanced budgets, and- did I
> mention the oral sex? Those were the good old days. I say bring 'em
> back. This whole "death and destruction" Bush shtick is depressing.
> -Paul


So you think Clinton was reponsible for gas prices being $1.35? You're
one of those people who thinks whoever was president is responsible for
EVERYTHING that happened during their tenure.

Try thinking about that.


Magilla

Paul G.

On May 30, 4:30 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@zoo.com> wrote:
> Paul G. wrote:
> > On May 29, 5:23 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >>In article <xradnZpiVM5nSKHVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdn...@comcast.com>, Earl <e...@nowhere2.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>ST wrote:
>
> >>>>http://milind.data360.org/dsg.aspx?...t_Group_Id=1900
>
> >>>>1-29-2008
>
> >>>> 7,500 Clinton Years
> >>>> 3,824 War on Terror
>
> >>>You looked at that chart and found it worthy of posting? Guess that
> >>>would explain our current state.
>
> >>>Total active military deaths from 1981-1988
> >>>(Reagan) 17201 (avg 2150 per year). 58 from hostile action.
> >>>That's 0.33%.
>
> >>>Total active military deaths from 1989-1992
> >>>(Bush, Sr.) 6223 (avg 1555 per year). 170 from hostile action.
> >>>That's 2.73%.
>
> >>>Total active military deaths from 1993-2000
> >>>(Clinton) 7500 (avg 938 per year). 2 from hostile action.
> >>>That's a 0.01%.
>
> >>>Total active military deaths from 2001-2004
> >>>(Bush, Jr.) 5187 (avg 1296 per year). 1102 from hostile action.
> >>>That's a 21.24%.
>
> >>>Or.....
> >>>http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp
>
> >> Just thinking about this a bit more: I think that we should also include the
> >>contractors (aka mercenaries) who've died in Iraq, as well as the regular civilian
> >>contractors. Also the 2,974 casualties on 9-11. And why not include the Afghani and
> >>Iraqi civilian deaths?
>
> >> Every time someone like SD Stevie tries to point out how much worse things were
> >>under the Clinton admin., it seems to backfire. Fancy that.
>
> > Ah, the Clinton years... I remember them fondly. $1.35/gal for gas,
> > oral sex, unprecedented prosperity, balanced budgets, and- did I
> > mention the oral sex? Those were the good old days. I say bring 'em
> > back. This whole "death and destruction" Bush shtick is depressing.
> > -Paul
>
> So you think Clinton was reponsible for gas prices being $1.35? You're
> one of those people who thinks whoever was president is responsible for
> EVERYTHING that happened during their tenure.
>
> Try thinking about that.
>
> Magilla

That was supposed to be humorous, but yes, the president CAN affect
gas prices. Not so much to the downside, absolutely to the upside.
And that's what we've seen. Here's a graph of the price of oil:
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

Note that the price of oil ALWAYS shoots up when someone starts a war
in the mideast, because it threatens the supply side. Note that the
price of oil shot up as soon as Bush started talking about invading
Iraq. Note that the price of oil is global, so if you can get someone
to start a war in the mideast, the price of oil from Texas and the
Gulf of Mexico will shoot up, even though the production cost stays
the same. Wow, some lucky people are going to get rich! And the best
part? The longer the war drags on, the more money those people make!
Try thinking about that.
-Paul

Paul G.

On May 30, 4:23 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> You trot out ignorant, inaccurate shit like this:
>
> > > Why do they call it a war? Iraqis only had sticks and stones to defend
> > > themselves from the invasion.
>

That's called hyperbole. He just means they were WAY outgunned, and
they were. During the invasion, Iraqis were charging M1A1 tanks with
AK-47's. There is little practical difference between charging a tank
with a stick and charging a tank with small arms. Either way you are
going to get mowed down.


> They were very well equipped before the first fiasco, and pretty well
> equipped going into this one. they are still well equipped, and
> getting more sophisticated weapons every day.

Um... we're a superpower. They were a bombed-out third world country.
Both wars were like shooting fish in a barrel.
-Paul

Bill C

On May 30, 8:05*pm, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 4:23 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You trot out ignorant, inaccurate shit like this:
>
> > > > Why do they call it a war? Iraqis only had sticks and stones to defend
> > > > themselves from the invasion.
>
> That's called hyperbole. He just means they were WAY outgunned, and
> they were. During the invasion, Iraqis were charging M1A1 tanks with
> AK-47's. There is little practical difference between charging a tank
> with a stick and charging a tank with small arms. Either way you are
> going to get mowed down.
>
> > *They were very well equipped before the first fiasco, and pretty well
> > equipped going into this one. they are still well equipped, and
> > getting more sophisticated weapons every day.
>
> Um... we're a superpower. They were a bombed-out third world country.
> Both wars were like shooting fish in a barrel.
> -Paul

First of all he needs a reading lesson. Maybe his english is as bad as
my french and german, In that case he has an excuse, but that's the
only one. Anyone who has read anything I've written here in years
would find nothing but my problems with our criminal President.
This is one I love, and should be called "The Lafferty Gambit" since
he first made this argument; When it's by someone who shares your
philosophy and views it's "hyperbole", and pefectly acceptable, even
welcomed, but when they don't they are a goddamned liar.
Thanks
Bill C
Who still thinks a liar is a liar, and propaganda is just that.

SLAVE of THE STATE

On May 30, 10:23*am, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:

> I essentially said he
> asked a stupid question. I didn't bother to say why, but it was
> because the answer is obvious. Your response isn't even an answer to
> his question. Read his question again.

Big Dumb Paul,

This is your chance to put the obvious answer into the form of a
question.

Thanks,
SoTS