ForumGarden

Here, just to advance matters before the speech from Palestine comes into play, is some more from Hugo Chavez commenting on Boy George's address:

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision?

This is crossfire? He's thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, "We're suffering because we see homes destroyed.'

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples - to the peoples of the world. He came to say - I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.Does anyone think he's wrong about that? Truly?

spot wrote: So - silly question here - why are you asking me to run the raw monthly figures through SPSS, as in "Yes please do Spot, let's see your methodology in action"? It's something I've met before on this site, to be asked to go and look for something that the requester already knows he's going to dismiss regardless oof the outcome. Why are you asking me to perform the work?


You voluntered I wanted to see what you came up with. I am curious where in the world you could find an appropriate dataset to setup your tables. I work in the IT career field I so definitely have a professional curiosity.

spot wrote: Here, just to advance matters before the speech from Palestine comes into play, is some more from Hugo Chavez commenting on Boy George's address:

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision?

This is crossfire? He's thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, "We're suffering because we see homes destroyed.'

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples - to the peoples of the world. He came to say - I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.Does anyone think he's wrong about that? Truly?


Sure he's wrong. Blaming Israel for the recent war in Lebanon was wrong.

The oppressed would probably say "Yankee imperialist go home (but leave your money and aid) and don't be slow coming back next time there is a disaster somewhere, or someone invades our country".

spot wrote: If I untangle this right, you're asking me to demonstrate a negative?


You got me I have no clue what you mean...

zinkyusa wrote: You voluntered I wanted to see what you came up with. I am curious where in the world you could find an appropriate dataset to setup your tables. I work in the IT career field I so definitely have a professional curiosity.:DThen we are talking about two different things. Where would I go for the data but to the site you posted? http://icasualties.org/oif/Days.aspx seems more than sufficient for the purpose. What do you understand by Significance Test that isn't in my statistics textbook? I'd have thought my comment on the rolling average was sufficient justification for my initial observation but you want to go into the probability of that happening by chance, despite already saying that such a figure would be impossible to interpret meaningfully?

Since I've not met the term "IT career field" before - is that a subset of Human Resources?

zinkyusa wrote: You got me I have no clue what you mean...To demonstrate a negative? To go out and find proof that something doesn't exist. It's another of these traditional red herring paper-chases that get proposed in threads like this far too often.

spot wrote: To demonstrate a negative? To go out and find proof that something doesn't exist. It's another of these traditional red herring paper-chases that get proposed in threads like this far too often.


you can demonstrate on the correct thread, or not...

zinkyusa wrote: The oppressed would probably say "Yankee imperialist go home (but leave your money and aid) and don't be slow coming back next time there is a disaster somewhere, or someone invades our country".That may have been true before PNAC showed up. We're well past that stage now. The money and aid counts for nothing and it's unwanted, take it back home and hoard it. Stay away from our disasters, we'd rather cope than have you taking over again. If anyone invades our country, history tells us you paid them to do it. Clean up your own political disaster, it's bigger than anything we have to offer. That's the current basis for "Yankee imperialist go home" and I don't see it changing back after what's happened this decade.

spot wrote: Then we are talking about two different things. Where would I go for the data but to the site you posted? http://icasualties.org/oif/Days.aspx seems more than sufficient for the purpose. What do you understand by Significance Test that isn't in my statistics textbook? I'd have thought my comment on the rolling average was sufficient justification for my initial observation but you want to go into the probability of that happening by chance, despite already saying that such a figure would be impossible to interpret meaningfully?

Since I've not met the term "IT career field" before - is that a subset of Human Resources?


IT = Information Technology.

A rolling average on such a small sample size is meaningless to support your initial claim that the US is experiencing reduced casualties as a result of a policy instigating violence between shia and sunnis. I though maybe you had something a bit more serious in mind..

zinkyusa wrote: you can demonstrate on the correct thread, or not...On the contrary, demonstrating a negative is chasing a tail, there's no proof to be found. The onus for showing Taliban or Afghani involvement in 9/11 is down to the people alleging it. You can't ask "show me where it didn't happen".

spot wrote: That may have been true before PNAC showed up. We're well past that stage now. The money and aid counts for nothing and it's unwanted, take it back home and hoard it. Stay away from our disasters, we'd rather cope than have you taking over again. If anyone invades our country, history tells us you paid them to do it. Clean up your own political disaster, it's bigger than anything we have to offer. That's the current basis for "Yankee imperialist go home" and I don't see it changing back after what's happened this decade.


Nonsense as usual:

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/articlenav.php?id=82



Despite widespread stories on Koran desecration, Guantanamo, even the Danish cartoons, favorable opinion toward the United States in Indonesia has actually increased from 34 percent a year ago to 44 percent at the end of January 2006, while unfavorable views declined from 54 percent to 41 percent. The overwhelming reason for these changes continues to be American humanitarian relief. The increased favorable view of the United States occurred in tandem with similar declines in support for Bin Laden and terrorism.

zinkyusa wrote: IT = Information Technology.Stop being so mindlessly stupid and look where the quotes are - "Since I've not met the term "IT career field" before - is that a subset of Human Resources?"

zinkyusa wrote: Nonsense as usual:

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/articlenav.php?id=82



Despite widespread stories on Koran desecration, Guantanamo, even the Danish cartoons, favorable opinion toward the United States in Indonesia has actually increased from 34 percent a year ago to 44 percent at the end of January 2006, while unfavorable views declined from 54 percent to 41 percent. The overwhelming reason for these changes continues to be American humanitarian relief. The increased favorable view of the United States occurred in tandem with similar declines in support for Bin Laden and terrorism.One solitary poll in one place just after a tsunami, and that makes me wrong??

spot wrote: Stop being so mindlessly stupid and look where the quotes are - "Since I've not met the term "IT career field" before - is that a subset of Human Resources?"


I have trouble understanding your British English. Going to personal attacks now are we? I can play.

spot wrote: One solitary poll in one place just after a tsunami, and that makes me wrong??


Duh, I'd say it's the results that makes you wrong...

You said the money counts for nothing and we all know money talks and your BS walks.

zinkyusa wrote: I have trouble understanding your British English. Going to personal attacks now are we? I can play.You truly think I don't know what IT stands for? Come on, it was a perfectly reasonable question, God only knows why you're not answering it - Since I've not met the term "IT career field" before - is that a subset of Human Resources? I only asked because I wanted to know.

spot wrote: You truly think I don't know what IT stands for? Come on, it was a perfectly reasonable question, God only knows why you're not answering it - Since I've not met the term "IT career field" before - is that a subset of Human Resources? I only asked because I wanted to know.


I meet people every day who don't know what it means. If you knew why are you asking me if it is a subset of HR?

zinkyusa wrote: I meet people every day who don't know what it means. If you knew why are you asking me if it is a subset of HR?I'm asking if the Information Technology career field is a job in the field of managing Information Technology careers, which would be a subset of Human Resources, and if not, what.

spot wrote: I'm asking if the Information Technology career field is a job in the field of managing Information Technology careers, which would be a subset of Human Resources, and if not, what.


Well I beleive I can understand. No actually it encompasses more technical careers dealing with computers, networks, databases, etc...There are of course many managerial jods associated with the them which do not necessarily require that much technical knowledge.

The actual filling of the postions would most def. be a subset of HR.

zinkyusa wrote: Well I beleive I can understand. No actually it encompasses more technical careers dealing with computers, networks, databases, etc...There are of course many managerial jods associated with the them which do not necessarily require that much technical knowledge.

The actual filling of the postions would most def. be a subset of HR.
And yours, then, is a technical career which deals with computers, networks, databases, etc on a programming level?

spot wrote: And yours, then, is a technical career which deals with computers, networks, databases, etc on a programming level?


Yes, I am a network engineer for Polo Ralph Lauren, I have been in managerial positions in the caeer field with other companies but prefer the technical area. That's why I have so much time to post:wah: I work in between..

A few highlights from Kofi Annan's final annual report. Sept 19, 2006

Moreover, just as some who benefit from globalization may feel threatened by it, so, many who are statistically safer from conflict do not feel safe.

For that, we have terrorism to thank. It kills or maims relatively few people, compared to other forms of violence. But it spreads fear and insecurity among many. And that in turn drives people to huddle together with those who share their beliefs or their way of life, while shunning those who appear “alien.

Thus, at the very time when international migration has brought millions of people of different creed or culture to live as fellow-citizens, the misconceptions and stereotypes underlying the idea of a “clash of civilizations have come to be more and more widely shared; and insensitivity towards other people’s beliefs or sacred symbols – intentional or otherwise – is seized on by those who seem eager to foment a new war of religion, this time on a global scale...

this Assembly, meeting a year ago at the highest level, has solemnly proclaimed the responsibility – of each individual State in the first instance, but ultimately of the whole international community, acting through the United Nations – to “protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

And yet. And yet.

Every day, reports reach us of new laws broken; of new bestial crimes to which individuals and minority groups are subjected.

Even the necessary and legitimate struggle around the world against terrorism is used as a pretext to abridge or abrogate fundamental human rights, thereby ceding moral ground to the terrorists and helping them find new recruits.

koan wrote: A few highlights from Kofi Annan's final annual report. Sept 19, 2006

Moreover, just as some who benefit from globalization may feel threatened by it, so, many who are statistically safer from conflict do not feel safe.

For that, we have terrorism to thank. It kills or maims relatively few people, compared to other forms of violence. But it spreads fear and insecurity among many. And that in turn drives people to huddle together with those who share their beliefs or their way of life, while shunning those who appear “alien.

Thus, at the very time when international migration has brought millions of people of different creed or culture to live as fellow-citizens, the misconceptions and stereotypes underlying the idea of a “clash of civilizations have come to be more and more widely shared; and insensitivity towards other people’s beliefs or sacred symbols – intentional or otherwise – is seized on by those who seem eager to foment a new war of religion, this time on a global scale...

this Assembly, meeting a year ago at the highest level, has solemnly proclaimed the responsibility – of each individual State in the first instance, but ultimately of the whole international community, acting through the United Nations – to “protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

And yet. And yet.

Every day, reports reach us of new laws broken; of new bestial crimes to which individuals and minority groups are subjected.

Even the necessary and legitimate struggle around the world against terrorism is used as a pretext to abridge or abrogate fundamental human rights, thereby ceding moral ground to the terrorists and helping them find new recruits.


Koffi covered a lot of ground but forgot to add "while the UN does nothing"

zinkyusa wrote: Koffi covered a lot of ground but forgot to add "while the UN does nothing"
That will be why Hugo Chavez said "we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations."

spot wrote: That will be why Hugo Chavez said "we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations."


and hopefully move it somewhere else:)

not that the UN ever had any poweror was anything more than a deliberative organ...

Did Hugo enjoy his party with Fidel and the other tinhorn dictators btw..?

zinkyusa wrote: and hopefully move it somewhere else:)

not that the UN ever had any poweror was anything more than a deliberative organ...

Did Hugo enjoy his party with Fidel and the other tinhorn dictators btw..?
Indeed he did, you'll be pleased to know:

We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.

And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don't worry, I'm not going to read it.

But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter - more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.

And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.

And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.

Unfortunately they thought, "Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they're going to be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive, he's back in his green fatigues, and he's now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.

spot wrote: Indeed he did, you'll be pleased to know:

We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.

And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don't worry, I'm not going to read it.

But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter - more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.

And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.

And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.

Unfortunately they thought, "Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they're going to be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive, he's back in his green fatigues, and he's now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.


oh yes "The Nonaligned Against the US Movement"...

I'm happy Comrad Hugo enjoyed himself.

ESTEBAN LAZO, HEAD OF THE CUBAN

DELEGATION TO THE 61st SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

I would now like to say a few words on behalf of the people and government of Cuba.

Our people's exercise of its right to self-determination faces new threats. The Bush administration has stepped up its brutally hostile measures against Cuba with new economic sanctions which further intensify the longest blockade human history has known. More severe reprisals are also being taken against those who have business dealings with Cuba from other nations and financial transactions with our country are viciously persecuted. The very government of the United States recognizes that it is spending more, today, in persecuting and punishing those who have business dealings with Cuba than in monitoring the finances of those who attacked the Twin Towers.

This past June, the Bush administration approved the second version of its most recent plan of aggression and domination against our country, aimed not only at overthrowing the Revolution but also at destroying the Cuban nation. In violation of international norms and laws, an unprecedented build- up in the financial and material support to subversive actions aimed at overthrowing the constitutional order freely chosen by the Cuban people is being promoted.

The abovementioned anti-Cuban plan contains a chapter, which is being held in secret. The antecedents of these decisions are the covert actions undertaken against the Cuban revolution, which include mercenary invasions, terrorists actions, the introduction of plagues and epidemics into the country and over 600 plots to assassinate Fidel. Thousands of Cubans have lost their lives or have been maimed for life as a result of this criminal policy.

At the height of hypocrisy and irresponsibility, the government of the United States tolerates the presence of and protects the terrorists who plan new actions against our people on US soil. While maneuvering to free the murderers responsible for monstrous crimes, such as the notorious international terrorist and CIA agent Luis Posada Carriles, whom they refuse to extradite to Venezuela, it illegally and unjustly keeps five courageous anti-terrorist Cuban activists in prison.

The words from a devastated Lebanon:

I stand before you, representing a terribly wounded country, a country whose ordeal is well known to you - my ravaged country, Lebanon.

From July 12 through August 14, my country was subjected to a barbarous aggression and to a rarely seen campaign of savage dismemberment, when hundreds of fighter jets emptied their loads of heavy and banned bombs, targeting mostly civilians, killing and maiming thousands, and destroying all that made Lebanon a viable state. Obviously, this was a premeditated Israeli "sentence" to destroy my country and everything it stood for, having been blessed and termed by His Holiness Pope John Paul II as a "unique message to Humanity," in which people of different sects could coexist and live together peacefully. This aggression became even more cruel, when it won the tacit approbation of certain GREAT POWERS...

Allow us to ask this question, as we are filled with a deep sense of grief, when scores of our fallen citizens are still beneath the rubble. Allowing for the indictment of Israel's actions, in sympathy for the thousands of innocent civilians who were killed and maimed by the "smart", cluster and phosphorus bombs, and those lace with depleted uranium.



(emphasis in original)

Stay tuned...it gets even better.

Madam President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Inspired by the principles and treaties of the United Nations, Lebanon retains the "Right of Action" to prosecute Israel before the competent bodies, most notably this venerable Assembly, or that of the International Tribunal, and to request the appropriate reparations for all the catastrophes Israel has inflicted on Lebanon.

Today, I ask you to stand by my country, as that will be written down as a just and rightful stance. I also call upon you to differentiate between him who defends his country against Israeli aggression and occupation and strives to liberate his countrymen from decades of unlawful imprisonment AND those elements who perpetrate acts of wanton slaughter against their countrymaen and others equally. May I remind you that Lebanon's experience with the scourge of terror goes back a long way, and it took a very heavy toll on its armed forces.

(emphasis from original)

Israel stands accused and called to tribunal.

Let me summarise Canada's Stephen Harper.

Remember that Peanuts Christmas special where they send Charlie Brown out to buy the perfect tree for their pageant? Then he shows up with a twig that can't even support a single bulb? That's who we elected.

Harper's speech reminded me of Charlie Brown trying to convince everyone that his little twig was a good thing.

Accountable wrote: US?? I thought it was your beloved UN that told them to shut the program down.


Have you listened to GW Bush lately?

If that is not the US telling Iran to shut their nuclear program down then what is?

and no, I don't believe that the UN has told them to stop developing tteir capability to generate nuclear power.

zinkyusa wrote: Why does a country with that much oil need a nuclear program and what do they need a centrifuge and Plutonium for?

Iran will never get a nuclear weapon, if not the US the IDF will destroy their progam.
Cheap dependable power when their oil runs out and reduced CO2 emissions as per the Koyoto agreement.

To enrich uranium to a level suitable for use in a nuclear power plant - how else do you do it?

Can you show any evidence, apart from the US rhetoric, to show that they are attempting to?

zinkyusa wrote:

American's do want peace and most agree that invasion of Iraq was a mistake, so do some people in the US government.




If American's want peace then they will have to sort out their government who certainly do not - given their recent statements they want to invade yet more countries.

zinkyusa wrote: My source is quoting IAEA reports Spot


Is that the very source that the IAEA is condemning for distorting its findings?

zinkyusa wrote: IT = Information Technology.



A rolling average on such a small sample size is meaningless to support your initial claim that the US is experiencing reduced casualties as a result of a policy instigating violence between shia and sunnis. I though maybe you had something a bit more serious in mind..


you know, the lie is put to the claim that there's a trend due to policy here by simply looking at the *other* statistical data from that same site. it already has graphs. look at the graph of wounded by month. unless we are to believe that the policies are so keenly refined that they can shift at will fatalities to "mere" wounds, then any idiot with a couple of neurons to click together can see that whatever trends may be derived appear to be due to the random vagueries of guerilla combat. the number of wounded tends to trend with the number killed - but looking at the last several months, that trend is broken. so apparently, the evil, behorned american military strategists have planned to decrease monthly deaths by increasing monthly wounded. what a brilliant strategy.



bearing also in mind that people aren't being killed or wounded on a schedule helps too - days, months, even years are artificial temporal constructs. suggesting that because someone's death fell on the 31st, rather than the 1st of the next month, has some 'policy' basis is - well, it's the typical leftists here at work; americans=evil, even when they die.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Cheap dependable power when their oil runs out and reduced CO2 emissions as per the Koyoto agreement.

To enrich uranium to a level suitable for use in a nuclear power plant - how else do you do it?

Can you show any evidence, apart from the US rhetoric, to show that they are attempting to?


I posted some links earlier in thread about Irans NPT violations.

Bryn Mawr wrote: If American's want peace then they will have to sort out their government who certainly do not - given their recent statements they want to invade yet more countries.


Can't argue with that, still two years out though. We'll see what the midterm election results seem to say in November.

anastrophe wrote: you know, the lie is put to the claim that there's a trend due to policy here by simply looking at the *other* statistical data from that same site. it already has graphs. look at the graph of wounded by month. unless we are to believe that the policies are so keenly refined that they can shift at will fatalities to "mere" wounds, then any idiot with a couple of neurons to click together can see that whatever trends may be derived appear to be due to the random vagueries of guerilla combat. the number of wounded tends to trend with the number killed - but looking at the last several months, that trend is broken. so apparently, the evil, behorned american military strategists have planned to decrease monthly deaths by increasing monthly wounded. what a brilliant strategy.



bearing also in mind that people aren't being killed or wounded on a schedule helps too - days, months, even years are artificial temporal constructs. suggesting that because someone's death fell on the 31st, rather than the 1st of the next month, has some 'policy' basis is - well, it's the typical leftists here at work; americans=evil, even when they die.


I hadn't noticed the increase in wounded but you quite right...

The premise was obvioulsy rediculous.

LOL,love the kitty hat on your avatar btw:wah:

BRYN "If American's want peace then they will have to sort out their government who certainly do not - given their recent statements they want to invade yet more countries."

++++++++++ Do us here in the States the favor of recognizing that MOST of us do not support Bush's war mongering. Polls may differ on actual points, but NONE of them indicate support for more warfare. Sort of open anarchy, it's difficult to "sort out the government" until elections.

Trust me, being ashamed of my country and the actions of its President is a terrible thing to feel.



I would hope that the rest of the world is sophisticated enough to realize that it's HIM and not US, regardless of his title.

Lulu2 wrote: BRYN "If American's want peace then they will have to sort out their government who certainly do not - given their recent statements they want to invade yet more countries."

++++++++++ Do us here in the States the favor of recognizing that MOST of us do not support Bush's war mongering. Polls may differ on actual points, but NONE of them indicate support for more warfare. Sort of open anarchy, it's difficult to "sort out the government" until elections.

Trust me, being ashamed of my country and the actions of its President is a terrible thing to feel.



I would hope that the rest of the world is sophisticated enough to realize that it's HIM and not US, regardless of his title.


Amen Lulu

Lulu2 wrote: BRYN "If American's want peace then they will have to sort out their government who certainly do not - given their recent statements they want to invade yet more countries."

++++++++++ Do us here in the States the favor of recognizing that MOST of us do not support Bush's war mongering. Polls may differ on actual points, but NONE of them indicate support for more warfare. Sort of open anarchy, it's difficult to "sort out the government" until elections.

Trust me, being ashamed of my country and the actions of its President is a terrible thing to feel.



I would hope that the rest of the world is sophisticated enough to realize that it's HIM and not US, regardless of his title.


Then I have to ask, why are so many of our American members so gung ho in their support of the wars resulting from those actions? Why are so many showing their support for "nuking Iran before they nuke us" when the whole premise is based on more lies by said government?

Bryn Mawr wrote: Then I have to ask, why are so many of our American members so gung ho in their support of the wars resulting from those actions? Why are so many showing their support for "nuking Iran before they nuke us" when the whole premise is based on more lies by said government?


I don't want to nuke anyone. I don't want Iran to aquire nuclear weapons because I am afraid they would provide them to terrorists..

I think they should be more forthcoming about their nuclear program if they have nothing to hide.

I am hoping Bush has learned his lesson about rushing to war we don't need another one.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Then I have to ask, why are so many of our American members so gung ho in their support of the wars resulting from those actions? Why are so many showing their support for "nuking Iran before they nuke us" when the whole premise is based on more lies by said government?


care to name some of these [likely fictional] forumgarden members who support "nuking iran before they nuke us"? bearing in mind the modifier "many" in that sentence. naming one simply won't do justice to the request.

Granted, I don't usually plow my way through all the rhetoric in these political threads, but I can't recall seeing anyone in favor of what Bush has done.

Perhaps you'd like to establish another of those polls? Perhaps you see what you expect to see, rather than what is? Perhaps one or two support Bush and THEY are posting more than the rest of us?

I've no idea...but I do want to remind you, Bryn, the polls here are overwhelmingly against Bush and his war efforts.

polls are easily enough done. i'll throw one together.

Lulu2 wrote: BRYN "If American's want peace then they will have to sort out their government who certainly do not - given their recent statements they want to invade yet more countries."

++++++++++ Do us here in the States the favor of recognizing that MOST of us do not support Bush's war mongering. Polls may differ on actual points, but NONE of them indicate support for more warfare. Sort of open anarchy, it's difficult to "sort out the government" until elections.

Trust me, being ashamed of my country and the actions of its President is a terrible thing to feel.



I would hope that the rest of the world is sophisticated enough to realize that it's HIM and not US, regardless of his title.


At least GW sems to be acting in what he thinks are america's interests-even if they seem curiously to benefit his cronies most to the detriment of your economy and ordinary people.

God knows what TB is up to he's an all time embarrassment IMO. Support for him in the country is at an all time low for a govt, even maggie wasn't this unpopular and unlike the US a British prime Minister is not elected with the right to form an executive he serves at the will of parliament. We could chuck the pillock out tomorrow if enough MP's decide to do so.

gmc wrote: At least GW sems to be acting in what he thinks are america's interests-even if they seem curiously to benefit his cronies most to the detriment of your economy and ordinary people.




actually, there's no evidence at all to support that assertion. lots of people assume it, however.

anastrophe wrote: polls are easily enough done. i'll throw one together.Is your poll ended now? Perhaps you'd care to report back with a gloating conclusion, dear boy. Don't forget to count "Bronwen, US citizen wanting to nuke preemptively. BabyRider, US citizen wanting to nuke preemptively. Captain Ray, US citizen wanting to nuke preemptively" when you do - we were, after all, discussing whether I'd 'care to name some of these [likely fictional] forumgarden members who support "nuking iran before they nuke us"', if you remember, and I have produced quotes in your poll thread demonstrating their affiliation to that group in their absence. Oh, and you can (please!) have golem on your side of the fence, there's no way an Israeli falls outside the "US Citizen" camp in this discussion, he's certainly not one of ours. He may not have the paperwork but he has all the appropriate attitudes.

To attain a pass mark, a comment on your initial "likely fictional" will be necessary. For two bonus points you may also make reference to "naming one simply won't do justice to the request" if you feel so inclined.

anastrophe wrote: actually, there's no evidence at all to support that assertion. lots of people assume it, however.
There was, I remember, a Financial Times analysis of this eighteen months into the occupation. In summary,Halliburton earned $18 billion from no-bid reconstruction contracts in Iraq. U.S. officials mandated that not a single penny of these profits need to be reinvested in Iraq. 85% of Halliburton's 2003-04 campaign contributions went to Republicans.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have invited corporations like Halliburton to help determine the direction of this nation's domestic and foreign policy. Dick Cheney has refused to release the names of participants in closed-door meetings with corporate executives that may have helped formulate policy that influenced the President's decision to go to war in Iraq.

Halliburton is the largest beneficiary of Iraq reconstruction profits. According to the Financial Times, Halliburton's profits in the first quarter of 2004 increased 80% over the same quarter in 2003, reflecting "steep profits from the Iraq operations". Other companies, like Bechtel, saw a 150% increase in profits and ChevronTexaco, which has a contract to market Iraqi oil saw profits rise by 90%.

Meanwhile, back in Washington D.C., 85% of Halliburton's $165,949 2003-04 campaign contributions went to Republicans, thus completing the circular money trail that began when Dick Cheney was Halliburton's CEO and continues unabated through this election cycle.Whether this "reconstruction" has actually benefited Iraqis on the street, in terms of (say) running potable water or power, I leave to you to determine.

http://www.sigir.mil/reports/quarterlyr ... fault.aspx carries the current report (for May 2006) into reconstruction, from The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. As the Guardian said the day after the report came out, it is:a scathing report of failures by contractors, mainly from the US, to carry out projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars. In one case, the inspection team found that three years after the invasion only six of 150 health centres proposed for Iraq had been completed by a US contractor, in spite of 75% of the $186m (£100m) allocated having been spent.

[...] the report notes that a former contractor and former senior staffer in the now defunct US-led coalition government are facing jail sentences 30 to 40 years on corruption charges. The contractor will have to pay $3.6m in restitution and forfeit $3.6m in assets.

[...] Last year the congressional team reported that almost $9bn in Iraqi oil revenues disbursed to ministries had gone missing.Now that the reconstruction phase of non-bid "gift" contracts to friends is over, http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oi ... esigns.htm (which came out in November 2005 and is entitled Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth) "reveals how an oil policy with origins in the US State Department is on course to be adopted in Iraq, soon after the December elections, with no public debate and at enormous potential cost. The policy allocates the majority of Iraq’s oilfields – accounting for at least 64% of the country’s oil reserves – for development by multinational oil companies".

So, no change there then.