| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2005/11/29-12/2 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40762 Activity:low |
11/29 1 corrupt congresscritter down. 500+ to go:
http://www.nbc4.com/news/5418701/detail.html
\_ Scanlon/Abramoff may take out a dozen or more. The Duke's situation
may take down a couple more before it's through... I just popped
some fresh popcorn.
\_ As a native San Diegan, I can assure you this couldn't have
happened to a more deserving scumbag. --erikred
\_ May he rot in jail. -emarkp
\_ One can only hope.
\_ I'm glad you served your country. I'm glad they made a movie about
the highlight of your time in the service. I'm so glad you can sit
there and judge, sleep in a nice, comfortable bed at night when you
never lived in a communist state.
\_ I'm glad you served your country. I'm glad they made a movie
about the highlight of your time in the service. I'm so glad
you can sit there and judge, sleep in a nice, comfortable bed
at night when you never lived in a communist state.
\_ Poor troll indeed.
\_ Traficant was really not guilty, so was Jim Wright, too.
I'm sure good old Danny boy Rostenkowski was not guilty as well.
\_ "Duke Cunningham is a hero," Tom DeLay said during a press briefing "
He is an honorable man of high integrity." 6/14/05
\_ Out of curiousity, who here defended Trafficant? Grow up,
\_ Out of curiousity, who here defended Traficant? Grow up,
dipwad.
\_ "Duke Cunningham is a hero," Tom DeLay said during a press
briefing. "He is an honorable man of high integrity." 6/14/05
"I broke the law, concealed my conduct and disgraced my high
office. I know that I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation, my
worldly possessions, and most importantly, the trust of my
friends and family." -Duke Cunningham 11/27/05
\_ This would be interesting if the quote dates were reversed.
\_ Actually, you are right. That would be hysterical in fact.
I am going to start reporting them backwards like that.
\_ Compared to Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham *is* an honorable man
of high integrity. |
| 2005/11/29-12/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40763 Activity:very high |
11/29 Prominent military historian calls Iraq war most foolish war in 2,014
years:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1653454,00.html
There is a remarkable article in the latest issue of the American
Jewish weekly, Forward. It calls for President Bush to be impeached
and put on trial "for misleading the American people, and launching
the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions
into Germany and lost them".
\_ I still think WWI is the most foolish war.
\_ There are plenty to choose from (including the Crusades),
but I'm not a military historian ...
\_ Stupider than the Soccer War of 1969?
\_ Yeah, and Vietnam was...? How many dead comparatively?
You people have no sense of perspective or history.
\_ Communism was a genuine threat that had conquered half the
world and looked to be on a roll. Millions were killed by
communist tyrants. "Terrorism" isn't even a definable
opponent, it is a tactic. It would make just as much
sense to declare war on cavalry charges or hand grenades.
All the extremist Islamic enemies of America, lined up
together, could have been beaten by a moderately large
cities police force, at least before the Fiasco in Iraq
increased their numbers 10X.
\_ They call it "The War on Terror" because they can't call it
"The War on Islamic Extremists". That wouldn't be PC. But,
you knew that. BTW, do you have a reference for the pre/post
Iraq terrorist head count? Didn't think so. Thanks.
\_ Calling it the "War on Terror" isn't a matter of PC so much
as it's a matter of PR; there really is a huge difference.
The PP makes a good point, though, that Vietnam was not
a stupid war -- there was a coherent strategy behind the
US's involvement. The problem was that the conflict was
run without total commitment, and the forces that were
engaged were insufficient to actually achieve the stated
military objectives. And this all on top of a very vocal
social backlash of the 50's conservatism adding fuel to
the fire of the (misguided) antiwar effort. -mice
the fire of the (misguided) antiwar effort. If you were
the "perspective or history" guy, then I suggest you should
take your own advice before weighing in about Vietnam
again. -mice
\_ I'm no fan of the Iraq war, but so far this just looks like
good old Bush blindness.
\_ With a solid dose of incompetence and dishonesty. -John
\_ Nonsense. There are shitloads of wars and battles in the last 2014
years that any reasonable person would say were far more stupid
than anything going on today. Open a history book instead of
seeking out articles that support your politics.
\_ There was a Germany 2014 years ago?
\_ Agreed, in principle. Where the Iraq War enters into folly is
the Administration's lack of planning, reliance on utterly
unreliable intel, and no viable exit strategy. Also, the sheer
size and resources of the invading country, i.e., us, makes
the folly look even more unreasonable.
\_ Seriously, this is nothing next to history. Militarily
speaking, no country has ever taken over another in so short
a period with so few casualities. To claim this is utter
failure is not ratioanl. It is political.
\_ agreed. eg,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
\_ Agreed, militarily speaking, especially when the vast
majority of the invading country's people still live their
normal lives instead of engaging in the war effort.
(Morally or politically, it's another story.)
\_ Our brave PLA soldiers took over Tibet much more easily.
The only resistance encountered was lots of whining
from imperialist pigs and their running dogs. The
Tibetan people welcomed us with open arms. Tibetan
girls gave us lots of flowers and kisses.
- chicom troll
normal lives physically. (Morally or politically, it's
another story.)
\_ What are you talking about? Are you a troll? Yes
we are ultra awesome at stomping in and defeating
any official army in the history of the universe,
but right now the US is bogged down in a massive
guerrilla war we have no idea how to fight properly
and we have no viable plan to leave. This has absolutely
nothing to do with how was fast we invaded Iraq
and how few casualties we took in the initial invastion.
I guess i've been trolled, oh well.
\_ Screaming "IHBT!!!" in response to factual points is
\_ i hate bit torrent?
\_ no, but I don't use it much, ;-)
not scoring you any points. The reason there is some
minimal resistence is we're fighting an egg shell
walking politically correct BS fight. In post WWII
Germany mop up operations, they shot the resistence
on the street on the spot, no trial. You want it like
that in Iraq? No. You'd scream "HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATION!!! WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL!!! ABU GRI'AB". So
in order to appease people like you we're doing this
stupid little dance around people's misguided
sensisibilities instead of just killing them all.
\_ Wouldn't it have been cheaper just to drop neutron
bombs on Iraq and wipe everyone out?
\_ It depends on how many we need for that country
size.
\_ You're right, we shouldn't worry about killing
innocent people.
\_ It's a war. The sooner it is over, for real
over, the sooner innocent people stop dying and
everyone can get on with their lives. You
would prefer it drag out for years like in some
places in Africa they don't even bother reporting
anymore? Once you start a war, you (your country
and leaders) have a responsibility to get it over
ASAP, short of silly things like neutron bombs or
nuking the place. If you want to toss in a few
more flip comments, go ahead, I won't be
responding to any more freshman quality attempts
at being clever.
\_ It was a good war for a good reason (the
"getting rid of a pigfucker" reason, not the
"imagined la-la land magic elf WMDs" reason.)
That said, we didn't plan, fucked it up, and
now that we broke it, we bought it and have
to fix it. I don't understand the problem
that people have with acknowledging that very
simple bit of mea culpa. -John
\_ I'm with you on all this, except that the
entire world has believed very publicly
that Hussein had WMD until after the
invasion. If there was some credible
source saying otherwise, pre-invasion,
they haven't had any press time.
\_ I thought it was rather obvious
before the war that Hussein didn't
have any nukular weapons and wasn't
close to getting any. He might at
best have some chemical weapons, but
that was also questionable, and
everyone knew "WMD" was just a
pretext to go to war cause US wanted
to get rid of Saddam.
to get rid of Saddam. The above was
obvious to the whole world except for
the brain-dead FOX news watching part
of Pax Americana.
of Pax Americana. That's why there
were all those spontaneous mass
protest all over the world, remember?
\_ "Getting rid of the pigfucker" cannot be
considered seperately from "What could we
realistically replace it with, and at what
risks and cost?" It also cannot be seperated
from "Can we trust Bush and gang with attaining
the above given their level of competency,
arrogance, and ideology driven agenda?"
Isn't it quite obvious from the start
that they didn't have a plan beyond getting
rid of Saddam?
considered seperately from "What could
we realistically replace it with, and at
what risks and cost?" It also cannot be
seperated from "Can we trust Bush and
gang with attaining the above given
their level of competency, arrogance,
and ideology driven agenda?" Isn't it
quite obvious from the start that they
didn't have a plan beyond getting rid of
Saddam?
\_ Obviously they didn't, which does not
remove the validity of this goal. -John
\_ I am very clever, mr Grim Historian Realist Dude. Please point
out a modern conflict where a large army defeated an entrenched
guerrilla insurgency. I think the US really fucked up letting
one develop by having no reasonable post invasion plan. I just
don't see a reasonable way for the US to "win". We don't even
have a set goal for "winning".
\_ exactly, they had no plan, and it's
obvious before the war started.
the goal of the exercise also
kept changing - first the focus was
all on WMD, then it's because Saddam
was harboring terrorists, then they
started saying how bad and evil Saddam
was to the people of Iraq, finally
they decided they want to democratize
Iraq and then all Middle East. If
I am an Iraqi, the question remains,
"why are US troops doing in my
country, they fucked up the whole
place and turned it into a war zone,
they tortured people. some of their
leaders even have the audacity to
say that invading my country draws
the terrorists to my country instead
of US. WTF?! And they say they are
invading us to help us?!!! why is it
not my patriotic duty to shoot at
them?"
\_ Because then they'll leave instead
of giving your country the first
realistic, if inefficient and
horribly mismanaged, stab at not
being goverened by a murderous
gang of thugs. According to the
CIA World Factbook there are ca.
26 million Iraqis--why are there
not 26 million of them shooting at
US troops? Anyway, "we broke it,
we bought it". Mind that it was
broken even more, but setting
aside that the whole thing was
initiated on bogus premises, we
sort of have a moral duty to try
and fix things now. -John
\_ there ain't 50 million
Vietnamese shooting at US
troops either. What's your
point? realistic chance?
Yes, US gave Iraq a very
realistic chance of
descending into murderous
chaos, disintegration,
total anarchy, and genocidal
sectarian and ethnic warfare.
while "broke it, bought
it" and "moral duty" are
nice gestures, we also know
that, in all your decisions,
US interests trump Iraqi
interests.
So you'd bail? Like right now, leave it _/
as it is? We fucked it up. If we go, "they"
won't just say "oh, righty-ho, jolly good old
chaps, we'll get on with beating on each other
then, thanks for the memories." -John
\_ I am very clever, mr Grim Historian Realist Dude.
Please point out a modern conflict where a large
army defeated an entrenched guerrilla insurgency.
I think the US really fucked up letting one
develop by having no reasonable post invasion
plan. I just don't see a reasonable way for the
US to "win". We don't even have a set goal for
"winning".
\_ Go ahead. Start shooting. You will get the
same result. There isn't that much difference
from what we are already doing - putting them
into torture prisons without trial.
\_ Arguably the administration did a good job in Afghanistan.
\_ Arguably Afghanistan
\_ Philapines. Columbia.
\_ Philippines. Columbia.
\_ eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
\_ I presume you mean the Argentine side was stupid.
\_ Malaysia, Kenya, Vietnam (yes, Tet broke the back of the
Viet Cong), and arguably Colombia is going in that direction.
Need more? -John
\_ There are two things working against the Malayan (pre
Malaysia and Singapore) insurgency. First, it was a
communist insurgency in a country that is predominantly
Islamic. Second, it was mainly an ethnic Chinese
insurgency in a country that is predominantly Malay.
Even then, it took several decades (end of WWII till
sometime in the 80s?) to defeat it. And the main
reason for its defeat is not military operations, though
that had helped contain it. The reason for its defeat
is the successful economic development of Malaysia and
Singapore.
\_ Nonetheless, they were well-funded and organized, and
presented a considerable threat to the British military
presence in E. Asia, which was significantly weakened by
WWII. -John
\_ yea, the one good thing about the insurgency was
that it caused the british to turn tails and run,
thus gaining independence for Malaya. After
independence, the movement began to subside.
thus, you can see that the movement wasn't defeated
by an outside power with military means.
\_ It did nothing of the sort. It was roundly
trounced; Malaysian independence went over fairly
smoothly in 1957. Or are you now saying that the
Malay insurgency wasn't actually mainly ethnic
Chinese and externally funded and organized? -John
\_ http://tinyurl.com/78rgr
"The British began to negotiate with various
political and ethnic leaders, promising
independence from the British Empire. Once
the Malay Federation became an independent
state in 1957 the terrorist movement began
to subside."
Even then the movement continued on until
1989.
\_ So, what's your point? The insurrection had
no decisive effect on the British decision to
go; they certainly didn't "turn tails and run".
It may have been a factor, but as you yourself
point out it wasn't just directed at the
British. Independence negotiations were
primarily with UMNO. If you want a better
example, use Indonesia. -John
\_ Good news! They are no longer "insurgents." The US now has a
chance. http://csua.org/u/e4d [sfgate.com]
\_ Germany existed 2014 years ago?
\_ Like "Germanic tribes occupying what is now considered Germany"
rolls off of the toungue.
\_ Germania?
\_ I'm sure there were many more foolish wars in China since the Han
Dynasty.
\_ ok, I hate gwb as much as the next guy and think this war is
really really stupid ... but how bout this for foolish wars ...
and this is just the first that comes to mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
\_ totally agree, but those white imperialist don't care about
China
\_ ok, 2000 years may be a bit overboard, but this is one of the
stupidist war American fought in the past 100 years, fair enough?
remember, the casualty rate is relatively high (~10%) and there
\_ Last I checked
there were over
120,000 US tro-
ops in Iraq and
about 1200 dead.
\_ You haven't
checked in a
LONG time.
We were over
1200 dead at
this time last
year.
--scotsman
_/
When I say 10% casualties, I counted the
wounded as well as the dead, as causalties
is defined through out the modern warfare.
I have been told the casualties is upward
of 15,000! -kngharv
That the total death went ~+900 _/
in a "LONG TIME" is probably a
point in favor of his argument.
\_ You check in with the status of our
current war once a year, yet feel capable
of commenting on it?
of commenting on it? --scotsman
\_ I'm not the 1200 dead guy. But the
point remains that the number US
dead only went up +900 or so in
a year, which backs up the guy's
claim that this is a relatively
non-lethal war. -pp
\_ There have been 2110 "causalties"
since the war began (2%):
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties
2% isn't nearly 10%, however if
wounded are included then there
have been ~ 16% casualties.
\_ casualties == dead *AND*
wounded. your figure is number
of the dead. and let me repeat,
the casualties (including
dead and wounded) is about
10%, and I am being very
conservative.
\_ [ I believe we are
in violent agreement
but anyway... ]
Actually no. I took
your advice and looked
up the definition for
what qualifies as a
military casualty. It
is dead + wounded who
are no longer able to
perform their duties;
wounded but able to
return to active duty
is not a casualty.
Assuming that the
wounded count on the
page above does not
include any wounded
but able to return
to duty, then we
find that the rate
is 16%. I agree that
10% is conservative.
My original comment
re 1% was based on
a misunderstanding.
If you look at the url
above they give the
number of "casualties"
as 2110, which I'm
assuming is ONLY dead
hence the 2% number.
To this I'm adding
the official injured
count (not limited
to those who cannot
return to duty) to
arrive at the 16%
number.
\_ So are 2%/16% high or low in a
historical context? We were
told this (16%) is "relatively
high". Data and URL please.
Or is the "relatively high"
guy just blowing smoke and has
no comparative data? For all
we know, this war may have the
*lowest* casualty rate in modern
times. It already quite likely
has the lowest mortality rate.
The best numbers I could find are from: _/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/casualties.htm
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m01/SMS223R.HTM
Here is the summary (my math might be a bit off, check for
yourself):
War % Dead % Dead+Injured
WWI 2.5% 6.8%
WWII 2.5% 6.7%
Korea 0.6% 2.5%
Vietnam 0.6% 2.4%
I agree that as a percentage 2%/16% is *relatively* high,
but the percentages are deceptive - the sheer numbers
of people serving and dying is almost unimaginable in
comparison to Iraq II. In Vietnam, more people were
injured than are currently deployed. [ I am not vietnam
war guy ]
\_ Thanks. Good data set, reasonable analysis on your
part. [Thanks for the clarification. I thought the tone
was quite different than the death in 1965 Vietnam guy.]
\_ By the end of 1965, we had
~184k troops in vietnam.
There were 1863 fatalities
that year.
http://thewall-usa.com/stats/
http://http://www.vietnamwar.com/timeline65-68.htm
I leave other years as an
exercise to the reader.
--scotsman
\_ Gee, isn't that comparison
just a tiny bit
disingenuous? The Gulf of
Tonkin Resolution was
passed in 1964, and the
war wasn't in full swing
in '65. Now is that a
fair comparison against
the state of affairs in
Iraq today? I am sure
you can obfuscate better
than that.
The best numbers I could find are from: _/
http://http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/casualties.htm
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m01/SMS223R.HTM
Here is the summary (my math might be a bit off, check for
yourself):
War % Dead % Dead/Injured
WWI 2.5% 6.8%
WWII 2.5% 6.7%
Korea 0.6% 2.5%
Vietnam 0.6% 2.4%
I agree that as a percentage 2%/16% is *relatively* high,
but the percentages are deceptive - the sheer numbers
of people serving and dying is almost unimaginable in
comparison to Iraq II. In Vietnam, more people were
injured than are currently deployed. [ I am not pp ]
\_ Did you bother looking
at the other years?
And, by the way, I put
that up as a data point.
You seem to be
complaining about some
non-existent
editorializing. Also,
I wasn't obfuscating
anything there. I
said "by the end of".
The levels increased
over the course of that
year, and more
precipitously in the
following years.
--scotsman
\_ Yes I did. Total
death 58178 out to
1995. Unfortunately,
when you quoted 1863
fatalities, you
conveniently left out
the major Vietnam
combat years. Hardly
a reasonable
comparison against
comparable against
the current situation
in Iraq. Like I said,
not even a good
in Iraq. Like I
said, not even a good
obfuscation attempt.
Ergo, "excercise for the reader". In the rest of your _/
discussion here, people are conflating rates, totals, and
calculating percentages that mean nothing. How many individuals
do you think have served in OIF thus far? How would you suggest
we calculate and compare casualty figures? total casualties / total
individuals? casualties / current troop levels by month? I'm
not obfuscating anything. You're just not thinking. --scotsman
\_ The casualty level isn't the really bad part. The fact that the
some of US's voluntary forces are going to be serving fourth and
fifth tours of duty in Iraq in the next few years. The question is
can the US keep an effective professional military force while
remaining in Iraq for the next five years or so?
\_ Yeah, ok. So in addition to trying to pull a fast one ("exercise
for the reader" indeed), you're saying your original claim that
casualty rate is "relatively high" is unprovable. Do you have
any credibility left? Being an advocate is one thing, and being
dishonest is another. Thanks for playing.
\_ Ah, you're confusing me with someone else. I'll attribute
my statements. -scotsman
\_ So you quoted the fatality number for up to the end of 1965.
In what way do you think 1965 in Vietnam is comparable to
the current state in Iraq?
\_ Like I said, I was offering a data point on the mortality
rates during Vietnam. I wasn't comparing it to anything.
--scotsman
\_ But why pick 1965? Why not any other year afterwards,
which would lend lie to the claim that the number of
fatalities in Vietnam is low? It was just "random"?
\_ Look, grow the fuck up and get off my ass. Your
argument is not with me. --scotsman
\_ Oh, ok, so it was "random". I'm ok with that.
\_ Whatever. The point is, you can compare
these troop level numbers with casualty totals
and get "rates" as high as 5% or probably more
if you broke it down by month. In the end,
8.7 million troops had been deployed in Vietnam.
~47k were killed. I haven't found any numbers
yet to answer my above query "how many have
served in OIF thus far". Setting all this
aside, you're a belligerent little troll.
--scotsman
these troop level numbers with casualty
totals and get "rates" as high as 5% or
probably more if you broke it down by
month. In the end, 8.7 million troops
had been deployed in Vietnam [and] ~47k
were killed. I haven't found any numbers
yet to answer my above query "how many
have served in OIF thus far". Setting
all this aside, you're a belligerent
little troll. --scotsman
That is 1% not
10%. Are you
including inju-
red as well?
\_ You may want
to look up
the defn of
the word
'casualty'.
I didn't know it included _/
inability to fulfill ones
duties due to death "or
injury." thanks.
What were the casualty rates for other major _/
wars last century? What is the breakdown of
serious injury versus twisted ankles and such?
Hard to say if the casualty rate is high without
other data in comparison. URL?
\_ One thing we do know is that lots of serious
injuries that would have meant death in the
past, are now survivable due to medical
advances.
\_ But that's no justification for a claim that the
casualty rate is "relatively high". Also, it's
*good* to trade a high casualty rate for a low
mortality rate. Do you have data to compare
this war's casualty rate to previous wars' to
back up your claim it is "relatively high"?
\_ Does this mean there's *no* data to back up
the "relatively high" claim?
\_ Please see above.
\_ Are you referring to the bullshit
1965 Vietnam comparison? Or the good
globalsecurity data? Like the global-
security poster said, the percentages
are deceptive as the absolute numbers
dwarf Iraq 2 and defy comparison.
\_ The inability to let go even after
you've been smacked down. This has
got to be ecchang. Am I right?
--scotsman
\_ Global Security data. Personally,
anytime someone says "exercise
left to the reader" my BS alarm
\_ My initials are, literally,
BS. --scotsman
goes off.
\_ The formatting in this thread
is truly amazing.
are no clear military objective to achieve. And, what makes you
think people in Iraq are living in a normal live?
\_ Bay of Pigs? Vietnam?
\_ RTFA
\_ Korea, WWI, letting Pearl Harbor happen, Lebanon, & Somalia come
to mind without doing any research. Where do you get the idea
there's a high casualty rate? Compared to what? The objectives
are "kill the anti-government forces and train the locals to
take care of themselves in the future". And no, duh, they are
not living a normal life. Normal life is Iraq until very
recently has consisted of living in mortal fear of the government
putting your family in a wood chipper.
\_ Now it's living in mortal fear of your neighbor, your local
rebels, etc., putting your family in a wood chipper.
\_ Yes, there are mass graves of wood chipper victims all
over the country from their neighbors tossing them in.
Riiiiiiight.
\_ Yup the Sunnis and Shiites just spend all day
singing "Kum-bay-ya" (sp?) around the campfire!
\_ If you'd kept up with the situation instead of
reading propaganda, you'd know the Sunnis are
spending their time campaigning for the upcoming
election. The Shiites already had that down
from the first interum election. Don't let the
facts get you down, though, keep tossing out
the one liners. They seem to make you feel
better even if they're not reality based.
\_ It's interesting to hear an anti-Bush Jewish voice.
\_ Why? Most Jews are left wing.
\_ But I thought Bush is pro-Israel.
\_ Not really. He's just not as anti-Israel/pro-arab as
the previous admin. Anyway, that has zero bearing on
how the majority of Jews vote in this country.
\_ I can't imagine a country more stupid than the US. They have
Vietnam as a precedent, and they still made the exact same
mistake with Iraq. They didn't even get the tactical details
right. What's with disbanding the Iraqi army and taking away
these people's livelihood. That's the most stoopid thing evar.
And it's not just the Bush admin either. Most Americans
supported him at the time.
those people's livelihood. That's the most stoopid thing evar.
That's literally like telling these trained dudes, "Go home
and become guerillas so we can fight you." And it's not just
the Bush admin either. Most Americans supported him at the time.
\_ I can't imagine a country more stupid than Germany. They have
WWI as a precedent, and they still made the exact same mistake
with WWII. They didn't even get the tactical details right.
What's with invading the heart of Russia right before the
start of the Russian winter? That's the most stoopid thing
evar. That's literally like telling your soliders, "Have a
nice time freezing to death." And its not just the Bush,
er Hitler, admin either. Most Germans supported him at the
time. [ Many apologies for violating Goodwin's law ]
\_ Russia was defeated by Germany in WWI.
\_ yeah, what's your point? Germany lost! We're doomed.
\_ Okay, US is the second most stoopid country.
\- hello, the reference to the "Clades Variana" in 9bc is
really better characterized as a "military disaster"
rather than a foolish war. i think it is pretty hard
to beat the "War of Triple Alliance" for crazy war.
rather than a foolish war (same for say Agincourt from
the french perspective). i think it is pretty hard
to beat the "War of Triple Alliance" for a crazy war.
From a random WEEB page: "The war left Paraguay utterly
prostrate; its prewar population of approximately
525,000 was reduced to about 221,000 in 1871, of which
only about 28,000 were men." ok tnx. --psb
\_ Those sound like good dating odds for sodans
\_ Pretty optimistic, don't you think?
\_ the war was only part of a grand plan to legitimize
polygamy by the survivors. |
| 2005/11/29-12/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40764 Activity:nil |
11/29 I guess that whole opposing the war isn't helping much:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/29/D8E69AT81.html
\_ I think it's more the "American Christian" thing that isn't
helping them much.
\_ "The pictures of Susanne Osthoff were taken from a video in which
her captors demanded that Germany stop any dealings with Iraq's
government, according to Germany's ARD television. Germany has
ruled out sending troops to Iraq and opposed the U.S.-led war."
\_ obviously, the proper german response is for them to send in the
troops.
\_ Go Dubya!
\_ Awww. I wanted to post this story with the caption
"Independent group finds human rights abuses in Iraq!" |
| 2005/11/29-12/2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40765 Activity:low |
11/29 Hey MOTD, I have an idle curiosity question, but no time to research it
on my own:
Does anybody know if the typical recycling program in the us is run at
a loss or as a profitable venture? I'd guess that most are subsidized
at the municipal level, but I'm rather clueless about the whole thing.
Any info or links that a moron like myself could digest quickly would
be great. TIA. -mice
\_ http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=6&id=179
Myth 7, table 2
\_ Hmm, seems like the writer has a definite agenda to push, but
there's alot of good information here. I'll have to read and
digest as time allows. Thanks for the link! -mice
\_ Saying the writer has an agenda is an understatement. The
source here is a far-right anti-environmental group.
\_ Saying someone has an agenda is easy and mostly worthless.
Showing better and different data is useful.
\_http://www.nrdc.org/cities/recycling/recyc/recyinx.asp
http://www.nrc-recycle.org/resources/rei/studyresults.htm
etc.
\_ Ooh! More sources! Muchas gracias! -mice
\_ The biggest reason for subsidizing recycling is that it beats
the increased cost of filling new landfills farther and farther
away from the source.
\_ Myth 1
\_ Myth 1 & 4
\_ Myth 1 is not a myth: (from the nrdc link)
http://www.nrdc.org/cities/recycling/recyc/chap2.asp
Myth 4 is also addressed, although it really doesn't
need to be. Reading the screed is enough to debunk
the author's point. He has holes in his arguments against
recycling a mile wide.
The http://nrdc.org source is much better written and much
more persuasive. And I wasn't a fan of recycling prior
to this. I guess I should change my tune. -nivra
\_ Generally, municipal recycling programs combine some high-value
items (cans and bottles) with low-value items (mixed paper and
plastics). The programs could pay for themselves, except that
the high-value items are scammed by the shopping cart brigade.
-tom
\_ Reference?
\_ My employer's waste management company is BFI. During a meeting
with them back in March, "BFI pointed out that a successful
recycling program not only benefits the environment, but improves
<company>'s bottom line by significantly reducing trash removal
our company's bottom line by significantly reducing trash removal
costs." |
| 2005/11/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:40766 Activity:nil 88%like:40758 57%like:40761 |
11/28 David Brin is worried
http://tinyurl.com/as59y (davidbrin.blogspot.com) |
| 2005/11/29-12/2 [Recreation/Dating] UID:40767 Activity:kinda low |
11/29 Dr. David Hager, Dubya appointee to an FDA panel, had voted earlier
this year (in the minority, 23-4) to withhold the Plan B morning-after
pill, and is also an anal rapist:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050530&s=mcgarvey
Linda Davis, former wife after 32 years of marriage, "alleges that
between 1995 and their divorce in 2002, Hager repeatedly sodomized her
without her consent. ... Sometimes Hager would blithely shift from
vaginal to anal sex ... 'He would say, "Oh, I didn't mean to have anal
sex with you; I can't feel the difference."'"
\_ Rapists are typically in charge in theocracies. Certain
ideologies appeal to certain types of people.
\_ I envy him having a wife with such a tight vagina!
\_ That's the more pleasant possibility...
\_ At least until he asks her to put on the Ricky Martin mask.
\_ isn't it sad this is all public knowledge... but david hager
is still around? What do you gotta do in this administration
to get fired, anally sodomize your wife?
\_ Telling the truth is usually the fastest way.
\_ Hiring a prostitute.
"... she even let Hager pay her for sex that she wouldn't have
otherwise engaged in--for example, $2,000 for oral sex"
\_ More: "For the next seven years Hager sodomized Davis without her
consent [after being put on sleeping pills to treat her narcolepsy,
so she could have a regular sleeping schedule] while she slept
roughly once a month ... Sometimes she fought Hager off and he would
quit for a while, only to circle back later that same night"
\_ Ironic title: "W. David Hager gets probed"
http://www.getreligion.org/?m=20050512
\_ I agree that we should accept any allegations from a divorced
spouse.
\_ I side with all the good Christian folk who listened to Dr.
Hager, who said his wife was mentally unstable and had moved in
with another man!
\_ I'm just not impressed by the allegations of an ex-wife who put up
with this for so many years. If it was really happening and she
was really upset with him about it, she wouldn't have waited
between 7 and 32 years (the length of their marriage) to do divorce
him. It seems odd to me that his alleged behavior was only in the
last 7 years as she claims and not all 32 years as if he only just
suddenly got into anal piracy. My guess is they'd been doing anal
since they first got married but she needed a divorce charge so she
could only claim the last 7 years during which she was on sleeping
pills. Since she didn't press criminal charges, I don't see how
this is any different than a former POTUS fucking his intern and
claiming a) privacy and b) that his private life has no effect on
his public performance. Overall: yawn.
\_ Those excuses worked for the Speaker of the House. Go Newt!!
\_ His wife claimed he anally raped her for 7 years?
\_ Did you read the story?
\_ umm, right. and how many times did you hear the word rape
associated with Clinton and Lewinski? Also, the author of the
piece did confirm the wife's story with corroborating witnesses
she told during those 7 years. Does that mean she's been
planning divorice for the past 7 years?
\_ I'm not buying the rape story. Rape is a criminal offense.
If she didn't file charges then this is just bullshit and
an ex-wife's political revenge. He wanted anal, she didn't,
she did it anyway, bitched to her friends about it, it's a
private matter.
\_ Your troll powers are weak, old man. |
| 2005/11/29-12/2 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:40768 Activity:nil |
11/29 Does anyone know if there is a MacOSX compatible cd/dvd
printer? I'm looking for something like this:
http://tinyurl.com/7gwkq (casio.com)
\_ Are you sure this isn't Mac compatible? |
| 2005/11/29-12/2 [Uncategorized] UID:40769 Activity:nil |
11/29 Are there any books for learning Mathematica that are more pedagogical
and less expensive than the standard 100$ doorstop?
\_ Borders had a couple of Mathematica books, last I
checked. there is always the web or the
library. Personally, I found maple easier to learn; but
not as powerful. |
| 2005/11/29-12/2 [Consumer/Camera] UID:40770 Activity:nil |
11/29 Cool camera from the farm:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0511/05112206refocuscamera.asp
\_ tres cool. http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera
is the engineer's website. It has some cool WMV demos.
It also has a tech report. If anyone reads it, can you post a
summary?
It also has a tech report. So far, I get the idea that they're
taking a 4000x4000 resolution digital back and refocusing reduces
it to 296x296 resolution. Some somehow, each 13x13 capture of
each microlens captures ~200 points of 4D light field.
\_ I'd love to have that Contax 645 just by itself, even without his
invention.
\_ why WMV? typical Stanford, I guess. |
| 2005/11/29-12/2 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:40771 Activity:nil |
11/29 Does anyone use a Thawte personal email certificate for S/MIME?
http://www.thawte.com/secure-email/personal-email-certificates/index.html
Any problems w/ OS X? Any alternatives? |
| 2005/11/29-12/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40772 Activity:nil |
11/29 Freedom of speech at best: you are allow to say anything you want,
as long as the stuff you say is something we like:
http://tinyurl.com/7men3
\_ I don't see how what you put connects to the article. AJ reported
things, the US claims they're lying. How is that not free speech?
\_ I think op is talking about the UK Official Secrets Act, in
which Section 5 has been invoked to threaten newspapers for the
first time with legal action if they publish more details on
the memo recording the conversation between Dubya and Blair ...
\_ Just like on the Berkeley campus! |
| 3/15 |