Hell Jack, I'm sorry I brought it up. I was trying to point out that not all soldiers who go to Iraq die there, like Repo suggested, and you guys have to get all uppity. If anything you've made better arguments against Repo's claim than I have: the majority of soldiers come home alive and people who are actually sentenced to death aren't trained and equiped like soldiers to fend off their executioners. I wish I had thought to write those things in the first place.

Jack Uppity is a lot more liberal with his own statistics -
http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...2&postcount=12


So of course he has scrutinize those of others in order to be a complete hypocrite.

accuracy, not upyouracy. ;)

well you know repo, there's always some debating hyperbole spicing up his wonderfully thought-provoking posts, but i do know he didn't write all soldiers who go to iraq die there, instead he actually mentioned a couple of figures, "hundreds" and "thousands" - as in additional preventable deaths and injuries, should we leave sooner than later. for instance, had we left last month 100 soldiers would still be alive who are now dead (or 95, depending on the source), and hundreds more would be uninjured. i don't see much room to argue there, he's already proved himself. even at this rate in a few more months certainly the deaths will unfortunately exceed even his estimates won't they?

albed - no idea what you're on about but if bush, who may have the most accurate numbers, came out with them instead of hiding them from the people, we'd all be on the same page. as it is we're left with heath groups, think tanks, reporters and various other factions grappling with this terrible issue of the innocent civilian dead. although some say the totals approach 700,000, in the interest of fairness i said several hundred thousand - and also included a qualifier. in addition i made it clear they're not "my statistics."

- js.

Since you put the statement in your own post and not a quote and didn't reference a source it is clearly yours.



I love it when habitual liars mix up texting and speech and think they can spin the same bullshit when their words are on permanent display as if they were spoken.

Not going to dig it out right now - but someone put a nice mash up of the Bush interview with him claiming ~'it's never been stay the course' followed by some 20+ clips of him saying stay the course.

Still amazed they went that way with their reimaging of the administration policy.

(sorry for the tangent, the permanent display part got me thinking about it)

gee albed i didn't realise you assumed i was in iraq last week collecting the figures myself. or are you pretending to be obtuse in order to make wholly irrelevent points?

- js

I didn't assume anything, I caught you blatantly lying in the course of your usual anti-american propaganda efforts.



Trying to bullshit your way out of it isn't as easy when your words are written instead of spoken, but hell you sure are trying aren't you?



Just go point at Mazer some more and try to distract attention from your own statement.

comeon guys this is going nowhere.

:GU:

ok you caught me rasputin. i admit it, i did go to iraq last week to count the dead civilians. i ran out of paper at 307,124. i'll return sometime after ramadan.

- js.

this can only be helpful, imo - anything resembling a solution to the mess in iraq is gonna require regional cooperation:
might as well get used to the idea that we're gonna have to talk to Iran at some point, too. the Prez, however, is not willing to come down off his high horse: only the President is still clinging to the notion that Iran and Syria must come forward on bended knee, bearing concessions. they won't because they have no reason to. but at least Bush now appears to be listening to people, older and wiser than he, who are considerably more realistic about US limitations in the region.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/18/wo...artn er=MYWAY

can we call it a civil war yet?
 

so if the Shia Iraqi government is in open war with the Sunnis, who are the good guys and what is the mission for the US troops ?

Sure, Assad and Ahmadinejad will be happy to help out. They've been great allies so far!

keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer ;)

If U want it changed...
 

I guess I need to ask, Would you be happier if America went back being isolationists? You know, self sufficient.

I think we need to worry about our own problems more than we do about other countries. That's what the UN is for. Being more self sufficient would be a good idea also, IMO. I don't want to totally separate the USA from the world community. I don't think we should go as far as adopting a policy of Isolationism.

We have become such a specialized country with such a wide trade gap that any fluctuation in the world economy will have drastic effects on our way of life. We have no choice but to police the world or face having to make our own chinsy crap that used to be made in China, and make our own high tech appliances that used to be made in Hong Kong and Japan, and make all of our own steel again, and look for fossil fuels in our nature preserves because we couldn't afford to import those things anymore. Isolationism is not only a bad idea, it's also become technically infeasible because this country doesn't make things anymore, we only buy things. The cost of production must remain low worldwide or else the cost of living in America will sky rocket.

Mazer...

Can I assume you're not a union man?

Hahahahahahahaa :PIR:

Nope, not a bit, though I do account for 20% of my company's employees. I've never worked at a company big enough to warrant a labor union and that's the way I like it.

Still, I remember when Made in the USA meant something and it's too bad that it doesn't anymore.