Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:November:29 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
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!
2017/09/21 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/21    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:November:29 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>