OT - one last time

Page 2 of 7  


[No longer available]

Somewhere here on UseNet I read that the re-enlistmanet rate was 96% of the DOD's goal for re-enlistment and last year it was over 100% of last year's goal. I agree that 96% of their goal is pretty good, but I don't know if the goal has changed.
Perhaps if someone can find the raw numbers, we can do our own arithmetic and then argue about that.
On the subject of statistics I read a striking example of math illiteracy yesterday:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/07/20/reefer.madness.reut /
And it found the age of youths using marijuana is falling. The teenagers aged 12 to 17 said on average they started trying marijuana at 13 1/2. The same survey found that adults aged 18 to 25 had first tried it at 16.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

into
Do you know how stupid people look who base their international policy opinions on movies?

'save
to
out
that
Well, I don't consider ridding the world of an international menace as being a waste of time. I don't think that the Iraqi people would agree with you either Randy. I shudder to think what our country would be like (if it existed at all) with your kind of attitude running things throughout it's history.
Frank
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

turn
ya i do. which is why i wish the administration would stop it.

favor
a
being
and you dont shudder when you look at whats going on right now? we have no common ground for discussion. fortunately we have an election coming up.
randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It was quite evident that by 2003 Hussein was no longer an _International Menace_ he had virtually no control at all over the northern third of HIS OWN country and marginal control over the southern third. He didn't dare invade Kuwait again and could not hope to prevail in an attack on any of his other neighbors. Any use of chemical or biological weapons, even assuming he had them, internally in Iraq, say agains the Kurds again let alone against another country, would have been enough to galvanize the rest of the world into finishing him off.
Clearly he was a menace to his own people and ridding the world of him was not a waste of time.
Now, suppose 30 Senators and 30% of the members of the House not only agree but also think that is reason enough alone to invade Iraq. If the President goes to the Congress with that reason alone, hw won't be authorized to use military force.
Now, suppose other argumetns and the supporting evidence is enough to swing another 10% to his side, he still won't have enough votes.
So, suppose he makes up a few lies and uses those to get another 20 or 30% to vote his way. Based on the available evidence, specifically that every supposed WMD site we told UNMOVIC about turned out to have been been long-abandoned, that the Iraqi nuclear program had been long-abandoned, and so on, I suppose that is EXACTLY what happened.
The invasion was not a waste of time. It also seems to have been a major factor in convincing Lybia to abondon its WMD programs. But unfortunately for us, it also was a Godsend to bin Laden, it reversed the tide of worldwide public opinion and support which had previously favored us against him, and undoubtably (yep, just speculation here) has helped him recruit thousands to his side while sapping US strength and resolve. It was not good for us.
We paid a hell of a price to depose Saddam Hussein. I think the Kurds will remember and repay us if we don't turn on them and screw them over to make up with the Turks or some such. It won't help us much with anybody else in the Mid East.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You beg the question. That is the lie.
*I* don't believe it.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16 Jul 2004 01:07:08 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net (Fred the Red Shirt) vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
They did rely on information from the CIA. It just happened to be only the info that suited them! There is no lie. <G>
All countries that have "investigated" this have conveniently come up with the same answer. "The govt acted on intel. They did not lie to their people."
The fact that they only heard what they wanted to hear (or HWMBO wanted them to hear) is never mentioned.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Todd Fatheree wrote:

Bush had the option of choosing another director. Whether a change of director would have produced a different chain of events is, of course, a matter of speculation.
Regardless of director or quantity/quality of information, the decision to attack Iraq was made by Bush. No one else can or should be held personally responsible if his decision wasn't a good decision. Personal responsibility falls to the decision-maker alone. In the real world, we all experience the consequences of our leaders' decisions - good and bad; but the responsibility for the decision itself belongs strictly to the decision-maker.
If the basis for making the decision is flawed, that doesn't excuse the bad decision or relieve the decision-maker of the least amount of responsibility. Ignorance (lack of accurate information) has never been an excuse for a poor decision.
[If you have a problem with that logic, consider the following:
A driver is stopped by police for driving his car at 50 mph in a 25 mph zone. Do you think that either the patrolman or the judge will be swayed by the fact that his passenger told him the speed limit was 55 mph?
Now suppose that he stopped after accidentally killing three children crossing the street - do you think the fact that he was misinformed relieve him of the responsibility for their deaths?]
And to date how many /Americans/ have been sent to and killed in this place that was, in fact, *not* a clear and present danger to them or their country when the decision was made to attack?

Why? Tenet wasn't the one who *made the decision* to attack a nation that was, in fact, not a "clear and present danger" to the US.

Don't hold your breath.
Having said all of that. I'll also say that I didn't like Saddam or his government's disregard for the value of human life. I'm not sorry that he and the worst of his cohorts have been removed from power.
I /am/ sorry that Bush was allowed to get away with offering Iraq as a distraction from his failure to apprehend Bin Ladin, who was (and still is) a clear and present danger.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey responds:
snip of sensible responses

I agree.
Charlie Self "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." Ambrose Bierce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If I find any logic above, I'll let you know. Decisions have to be based on information. Neither Bush nor any other president is omniscient...they have to rely on the best judgement of others. I don't see where Bush has tried to pass the buck here, by the way. It's just a big question whether anyone else sitting in the oval office would have done anything different given the same information.

Considering there is a sign posted to the contrary, I'd say no. But what if neither the judge nor the patrolman know what the speed limit is either?

You're really stretching this argument. .

But if you had your way, they'd still be running the show.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Todd Fatheree wrote:

Bad guess. If I had my way, SH would've had a fatal accident at the end of the first gulf war.
If I have a rat loose in my house, I don't try to shut it in the closet - which appeared to be GHWB's strategy. George Senior seemed to have a talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
--
Morris Dovey
Read my lips: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If I remember correctly, he was hindered by the UN.
Kevin
--
=====
Found: Iraqi WMDs! Please appear in person to claim!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kevin Singleton wrote:

Kevin...
My take was that, rather than being hindered, he opted for the easy sell. It amounted to treating the most obvious symptom without attempting to cure the disease.
The consequence of /that/ bit of "quality" decision-making involved much loss of life - but GHWB can put in his resume that he accomplished what he set out to do.
"Mission accomplished" and all that...
--
Morris Dovey
Read my lips: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Your take is not congruent with reality. As you might recall, there was a considerable number of nations involved against Iraq the first time around who signed on to give international legitimacy to the operation. They were, however, unwilling to go beyond the purpose which brought them there. Thus, once Kuwait was free, and the army of Iraq neutralized, they were through.
GHWB could have "gone it alone" or with a lesser international coalition behind him, perhaps but then he'd certainly have been accused of war-mongering and lying.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

Perhaps so - and perhaps I gave him too much credit for coalition-building abilities. I'm still not sure that he couldn't have sold the majority of the coalition countries on the desirability of removing Saddam. I was paying really close attention (I grew up in Saudi Arabia and still thought of the Kuwaitis as "next door" neighbors. I rode the bus 45 miles to Al Khobar (in the same way that kids today go to the mall) and to the Dhahran Air Base for Boy Scout outings and to take an aviation course. I've never thought of my self as other than American; but SH was launching Scuds at what came closest in my life to a "home town"); and I wasn't able to detect any trace of a GHWB effort to sell anyone on doing more than telling the bully to play in his own yard.
I never expected him to "go it alone"; and I'm unconvinced that it'd have been necessary to do so - given SH's unprovoked (do I dare use the word "preemptive"?) invasion of Kuwait. And that invasion bore considerable resemblence to the invasion of Czechoslovakia a half-century before (It was certainly no less brutal) - I don't really think it'd have been difficult to sell the international community on doing the whole job.
Clearly they were not through - and, sadly, there's never been any shortage of people to accuse us of war-mongering and lying; so I doubt that was much of a factor.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

AFAIK: Only twice has the UN voted to go to war in respnse to the invasion of one country by another. The first time the US took advantage (thanfully) of an ill-considered decision by the Soviets to walk out of the meeting in protest.
The second time was when GHB convinced the UN to throw Saddam Hussein out of Iraq.
That took considerable diplomatic skill.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris,
From what little I recall, the coalition wouldn't go along with an offensive in Iraq, so it was scrubbed. I wonder what would be said, now, had we finished the job in '91?
Kevin
--
=====
Found: Iraqi WMDs! Please appear in person to claim!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kevin Singleton wrote:

Probably that we're lying war-mongering no-goodniks.
"Happily ever after" doesn't seem to happen anywhere near as often as "Damned if we do and damned if we don't"...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are correct, sir!
Party on.
Kevin
PS. My son is going back to Qatar, on Sunday, for four months, to play with C-130 electronics.
--
=====
"Morris Dovey" < snipped-for-privacy@iedu.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kevin Singleton wrote:

Good plane - I've been a C-130 passenger a bunch of times (but have never landed in one :-)
If you think of it, please tell him I said thanks.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Had the "A" models in Alaska. They're only part of the reason for the old story about a meeting of two pilots that goes:
"What aircraft you fly?"
(Cupping hand to ear and inclining head) "Eh?"
"Ah, C-130."

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.